I had a question about what the significance of the number of days counted in the cases/100,000 metric is - whether it's 7 days (as the CDC counts it) or 14 days (the way Ohio counts it).
So I figure this is a good time for another set of hypotheticals to illustrate how this all works and how important the details really are. In the first attached graphic, I want you to imagine a county with exactly 100,000 residents that has exactly 7 new cases every single day.
If we count only one week's worth of cases (green box) we come up with 49 cases/100,000 - Freedom!
But if we count over 2 weeks (red box), we are suddenly at 98 cases/100,000!! PANIC!
Just by changing the number of days we count, we can vastly change our rate, despite there being exactly the same number of cases per day.
But there's more to it.
We are not in a situation right now where there are exactly the same number of cases per day - cases are dropping over time in reality.
So how does that affect our calculations?
Please see the second attached image for the same hypothetical county with exactly 100,000 people, but this time with a case count that decreases by one from 13 cases to 0 cases over the course of two weeks.
When we add up one week's cases (green box) we end up with just 21 cases/100,000! While over 14 days (red box) we are at 91 cases/100,000!
Again -
⭐️When you control the rules, you control the game. ⭐️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have been criticized for the focus I have been putting on 'probable' cases for the last month or so. 1/3rd of our cases are 'probable,' so what? "They're mostly just positive antigen test cases! Just as good as PCR confirmed!"
Well, according to the FDA, no. The FDA has been very explicit that antigen tests need to be used in a very conscientious way. Specifically, that to properly interpret antigen tests results, the provider needs to take into account the prevalence of the disease in the region.
Please see fda.gov/.../potential-…... to see their exact recommendations, with a special focus on the section I have attached in the first image.
From that clip, it is clear that prevalence is an incredibly important number to understand.
So, there was a really great question in the comments yesterday, asking about where are we in our cases per 100,000 if we were to remove all probables in the last week. Let's take a look, shall we?
Please examine the attached table. In the first column I have listed out 'probable' cases, confirmed cases and the total combined from 2/24/21-3/9/21 - the range used for our current number. In the second column I have calculated the all important cases per 100,000 metric.
As you can see, the number of 'probables' alone exceeds the 50 cases/100,000.
But interestingly enough, if we were to count only confirmed cases and actually follow what the CDC does -
As it is Thursday, I have a post for you today in anticipation of Gov. DeWine's new Maps of Fear which he has tried to phase in. I have previously discussed both the new red and blue maps and their issues -
- but today I hope to illustrate even more clearly what level of manipulation is going on, particularly with the new blue 'ICU Utilization' map.
Attached I have two images.
The first is a hyper-simplistic (and unrealistic) but illustrative example of the calculations that the new blue map goes through to arrive at its numbers.
So here's something interesting about our latest 'surge'. If one goes to coronavirus.ohio.gov/.../covi.../da… you can toggle between 'confirmed' cases, 'probable' cases and both of them together.
So what is a 'confirmed' case? That would be any laboratory confirmed 'case' - any positive PCR, antigen or antibody test, with all the issues of false positivity and hypersensitivity and non-infectiousness that go along with all of those tests.
A 'probable' case does not even have a positive test result associated with it. All it requires are symptoms. Maybe an epidemiological link. We are now in the middle of what used to be referred to as 'flu season' when there is a wide variety of respiratory illnesses that exist -
In my last post, I showed how the new 'Key Measures' ICU map was distorting the data by looking only at the comparison of COVID positive (not necessarily ill with COVID) patients versus -
- vs the number of total patients in the ICU - not the percentage of COVD positive patients out of the total number of ICU beds.
So what if they went back to simply the percentage of COVID positive patients out of all available ICU beds? First, the numbers would not be as scary, and second, the total number of beds available in a region is not stable from one day to the next.
As noted in my last post, Gov. DeWine has signaled a movement away from the Ohio Public Health Advisory System (aka, the Map of Fear) because under the new rules, the state will be stuck in red perpetually with sufficient testing.
So to replace this map, he announced two new maps, to be updated weekly and found at coronavirus.ohio.gov/static/OPHASM/…
These two measures look at cases per capita WHICH CAN BE CONTROLLED SOLELY BY TESTING WITH FAULTY TESTS AND IS SEVERELY PUNITIVE TO RURAL COUNTIES.
The second map shows ICU utilization by region (first attached image), and these percentages look quite alarming.