As expected, Minnesota’s fourth #COVID19 wave is continuing to grow — but so far, at least, it remains at very low levels compared to what we’ve seen over the past year and a half.
This is true even if you just look at rates as a share of the unvaccinated population. The increase looks steeper here, but we’re not at levels comparable to the last two waves. (Though note: testing volume is much lower now, so unconfirmed cases may be higher.)
Here’s how Minnesota's current wave compares to past waves, by positivity rate. We’re much lower than even the comparatively mild Spring 2021 wave, and the pace of increase remains modest (so far).
#COVID19 hospital admissions are rising, but at comparatively slow paces so far.
Cases are rising in every region of the state, but especially East Central MN and the unvaccinated parts of the Twin Cities metro.
To reiterate: the fact that so far cases are growing more slowly than past rates does NOT mean that case growth can’t accelerate in the near future. It just means it hasn’t so far.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today’s #COVID19 data is not good — not only are cases continuing to grow, as expected, but there are signs that that growth is accelerating. Too early to say for sure, but the last two days of reports suggest the fourth wave may have found another gear…
Today reported 625 newly confirmed cases. That’s more than double last Wednesday’s 278.
The weekly average is up to 400/day, from 233/day a week ago.
Over the last two weeks, positivity rates have nearly tripled; cases have nearly quadrupled; hospitalizations nearly doubled.
It’s just a few days of data so far, but you can see the trajectory change in our current positivity line — eerily mirroring, at a lower base, the shape of the fall wave. (Again: too early to make conclusive judgments!)
I've always been a little bit confused by the Google Reader nostalgia, but maybe that's because I just immediately exported my RSS feeds to Feedly, and continue to subscribe to dozens of feeds today.
But GR's demise probably did make it harder for new people to get into RSS...
I think this piece by @katiebakes gets into some of that — the demise of Google Reader was perhaps more symptom than cause of the death of the old blogosphere and surrounding “good internet.”
@katiebakes Here’s what I wonder: how much of the demise of Internet 2.0 was supply-side (companies like Google changing their offerings toward walled gardens) and how much was demand side (lots of new people spending more time online)
I enjoyed all three MCU TV series so far, but “Loki” was by far my favorite — and the only one of the three to stick the landing in the final episode.
This was despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that it was basically just a good Master story from Doctor Who.
Of the three shows, it had the tightest integration between plot and theme. Showdowns weren’t resolved my mere punching matches (or magical punching matches) but by key charater choices that felt organic and earned, but not automatic.
2/ You might notice that the right graph has a bit of a different shape than the left graph. DFL runner-up @_RyanWinkler got only slightly fewer votes than @epmurphymn, and was just slightly ahead of @CedrickFrazier in turn, and so on.
3/ So as is my wont, I dove into the data. And it turns out that there’s something very interesting going on: Unlike just about everyone else, @ZachDuckworth (or someone close to him) actually *made an effort to win this contest* by mobilizing supporters to vote strategically.
19th Century Congressmen who were accused of scandal but felt they had done nothing wrong would not uncommonly resign, go back to their districts, run in the special election to replace themselves, win, and come back to Congress with a new popular mandate.
For example, in 1856, Rep. Preston Brooks infamously beat Sen. Charles Sumner on the Senate with a cane while Rep. Laurence Keitt held back onlookers. In the ensuing uproar, both men resigned, went back home, and were promptly reelected.
"A motion for Brooks' expulsion from the House failed, but he resigned on July 15 in order to permit his constituents to ratify or condemn his conduct via a special election... They approved; Brooks was quickly returned to office after the August 1 vote…"