Dr. Dipwad
Experienced
Some more good news (provided it isn't just a blip):
From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/
I've been watching the Deaths number a lot for various reasons:
1. Deaths is objectively measurable, and we're pretty sure we're measuring all of them. This isn't true for Confirmed Cases, since asymptomatic persons and mild cases aren't measured and don't become part of the Confirmed Cases number. There's no reason to suspect a huge percentage of unreported Deaths.
2. We can probably presume that Deaths are proportionate to the Hospitalizations number and the Ventilators number, both of which we've been afraid would exceed our capacity and lead to distressing triage choices. So by focusing on the Deaths number, we can see whether trends are leading towards the outcomes we fear the most.
Anyway, this is one of those graphs where bad news is exponential (doubling every X days), meh news is linear (adding the same amount every X days), good news is flat (same number from day-to-day), and great news is falling (fewer deaths later than earlier).
From March 14 to March 17, we went from 405 to 817, a doubling in 3 days.
From March 17 to March 21, we went from 817 to 1,625, a doubling in 4 days.
From March 21 to March 27, we went from to 1,625 to 3,270, a doubling in 6 days.
The peak, on April 2, was 5,979. The closest number to half of that was on March 26, 7 days earlier.
So it was already looking like it was falling away from true exponential due to the increase in doubling-time.
After that we have what looks like a brief plateau, and then a reduction.
To be sure, this could be a small zig right before a large zag. If the deaths start shoot up over 6,000 in the next day or two, then these variations are mere statistical noise. But it could hold, and obviously we all hope it does.
NOTES:
1. It occurs to me that the final date measured, April 5, might be showing incomplete data if some locations take a day or two to report their totals. If so, that number (4,737) might rise as the remaining reports arrive. If that happens, we'd be looking at a plateau, not a drop.
2. I've also been tracking the state-by-state projections, here. The projections for nearly every state I regularly check look better today than they did a week ago, as hospital beds ramp up and new cases slow down. But New York (state) is still in a bad way, and the reason appears to be New York City. Great efforts are being made, but the projected shortfall of hospital beds, ventilators, etc., is alarming. Worse, their projected day of maximum need is 2 days away, this Wednesday. Not much time to take additional action.
For comparison's sake, most of the states I check regularly (throughout the southeast, where I have family members) are projected to hit their max-usage sometime around April 20th, and none of them are short on standard hospital beds, although some are short on ICU beds specifically.
It appears to me that larger cities correlate to greater likelihood of exceeding the maximum ICU beds available. Boston's causing big issues that show up in the numbers for Massachusetts. Georgia contains Atlanta, and they're projected to overshoot their needed ICU beds starting tomorrow. North Carolina, with only Charlotte to worry about (and a very robust medical industry in the state generally) won't overshoot at all. Virginia stands in the middle, overshooting on the 11th, but not by much. Tennessee is in great shape, as @Donnie B. notes, below.
I guess one rule of thumb is, if there's gonna be a pandemic, don't live anywhere with a population density exceeding 5,000 persons per square mile. (NYC: 26K; Boston: 13K, Atlanta: 3.4K, Charlotte: 2.7K.) But one doesn't always have the luxury of avoiding such places.
From https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/
I've been watching the Deaths number a lot for various reasons:
1. Deaths is objectively measurable, and we're pretty sure we're measuring all of them. This isn't true for Confirmed Cases, since asymptomatic persons and mild cases aren't measured and don't become part of the Confirmed Cases number. There's no reason to suspect a huge percentage of unreported Deaths.
2. We can probably presume that Deaths are proportionate to the Hospitalizations number and the Ventilators number, both of which we've been afraid would exceed our capacity and lead to distressing triage choices. So by focusing on the Deaths number, we can see whether trends are leading towards the outcomes we fear the most.
Anyway, this is one of those graphs where bad news is exponential (doubling every X days), meh news is linear (adding the same amount every X days), good news is flat (same number from day-to-day), and great news is falling (fewer deaths later than earlier).
From March 14 to March 17, we went from 405 to 817, a doubling in 3 days.
From March 17 to March 21, we went from 817 to 1,625, a doubling in 4 days.
From March 21 to March 27, we went from to 1,625 to 3,270, a doubling in 6 days.
The peak, on April 2, was 5,979. The closest number to half of that was on March 26, 7 days earlier.
So it was already looking like it was falling away from true exponential due to the increase in doubling-time.
After that we have what looks like a brief plateau, and then a reduction.
To be sure, this could be a small zig right before a large zag. If the deaths start shoot up over 6,000 in the next day or two, then these variations are mere statistical noise. But it could hold, and obviously we all hope it does.
NOTES:
1. It occurs to me that the final date measured, April 5, might be showing incomplete data if some locations take a day or two to report their totals. If so, that number (4,737) might rise as the remaining reports arrive. If that happens, we'd be looking at a plateau, not a drop.
2. I've also been tracking the state-by-state projections, here. The projections for nearly every state I regularly check look better today than they did a week ago, as hospital beds ramp up and new cases slow down. But New York (state) is still in a bad way, and the reason appears to be New York City. Great efforts are being made, but the projected shortfall of hospital beds, ventilators, etc., is alarming. Worse, their projected day of maximum need is 2 days away, this Wednesday. Not much time to take additional action.
For comparison's sake, most of the states I check regularly (throughout the southeast, where I have family members) are projected to hit their max-usage sometime around April 20th, and none of them are short on standard hospital beds, although some are short on ICU beds specifically.
It appears to me that larger cities correlate to greater likelihood of exceeding the maximum ICU beds available. Boston's causing big issues that show up in the numbers for Massachusetts. Georgia contains Atlanta, and they're projected to overshoot their needed ICU beds starting tomorrow. North Carolina, with only Charlotte to worry about (and a very robust medical industry in the state generally) won't overshoot at all. Virginia stands in the middle, overshooting on the 11th, but not by much. Tennessee is in great shape, as @Donnie B. notes, below.
I guess one rule of thumb is, if there's gonna be a pandemic, don't live anywhere with a population density exceeding 5,000 persons per square mile. (NYC: 26K; Boston: 13K, Atlanta: 3.4K, Charlotte: 2.7K.) But one doesn't always have the luxury of avoiding such places.
Last edited: