Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#31

Post by lokl »

mcguire wrote: post #24
andfrob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another important data point to assess testing is Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is about 2.5% in the SF Bay Area. In other places with higher testing, such as Australia, the CFR is 0.6% or less. This implies that the true number of cases is 4-5 times higher... probably a lot more.

The Diamond Princess numbers are 11 deaths out of 712 cases, with 82 still outstanding (15 serious or critical). The CFR should end up being about 1.5% (or possibly somewhat higher).

Cruise ship passenger demographics might not be representative of the general population.

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#32

Post by alteria »

colechristensen wrote: post #17
andfrob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another important data point to assess testing is Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is about 2.5% in the SF Bay Area. In other places with higher testing, such as Australia, the CFR is 0.6% or less. This implies that the true number of cases is 4-5 times higher... probably a lot more.

It seems like this disease is so successful because of a significant symptom-free-but-contageous period followed by a small percentage of very serious symptoms. That's what a pandemic needs. If it is very deadly very quickly it kills its transmission vectors before they can transmit. If it is entirely symptom free, it is very evolutionarily successful, but no one cares because there aren't any negative effects. There…

What put it into perspective for me is the CDC estimate of up to 25% cases being entirely asymptomatic [1], and data from Iceland shows 50% of those tested were asymptomatic at time of testing [2].

It will be hard to trace and isolate if this is the case.

[1] https://sfist.com/2020/04/01/cdc-director-coronavirus-25-per... [2] https://nationalpost.com/news/world/in-iceland-free-coronavi...

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#33

Post by calebsurfs »

samcheng wrote: post #22
Jommi wrote: post #10

Where is the most important metric? Daily tested vs tested positive stats.

Honestly, the most important metric is deaths, and from what I can see, the SF Bay Area has done relatively well in that metric. No overcrowded hospitals, for example.

To me the hospitalization rate is most important.

* Overcrowded hospitals is what leads to large jumps in fatality rates.

* It only lags the date of infection by about a week.

* It also isn't subject to external factors like availability of tests. (Though availability of hospital beds is a factor later on)

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#34

Post by [deleted] »

mcguire wrote: post #24
andfrob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another important data point to assess testing is Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is about 2.5% in the SF Bay Area. In other places with higher testing, such as Australia, the CFR is 0.6% or less. This implies that the true number of cases is 4-5 times higher... probably a lot more.

The Diamond Princess numbers are 11 deaths out of 712 cases, with 82 still outstanding (15 serious or critical). The CFR should end up being about 1.5% (or possibly somewhat higher).

[deleted]

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#35

Post by wool_gather »

andfrob wrote: post #14
andfrob wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not released by most counties, unfortunately. There are some limited stats to the very far right side of the "SF Bay Area Actuals" sheet. Anecdotally, Bay Area is seeing <10% positivity rates

Another important data point to assess testing is Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is about 2.5% in the SF Bay Area. In other places with higher testing, such as Australia, the CFR is 0.6% or less. This implies that the true number of cases is 4-5 times higher... probably a lot more.

It's currently a little under 5% worldwide. There are on the order of 1 million cumulative cases and a bit under 50 thousand deaths.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

Doesn't account for lack of testing, of course.

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#36

Post by svachalek »

wool_gather wrote: post #35
andfrob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another important data point to assess testing is Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is about 2.5% in the SF Bay Area. In other places with higher testing, such as Australia, the CFR is 0.6% or less. This implies that the true number of cases is 4-5 times higher... probably a lot more.

It's currently a little under 5% worldwide. There are on the order of 1 million cumulative cases and a bit under 50 thousand deaths. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2... Doesn't account for lack of testing, of course.

That also doesn't account for the exponential growth in number of cases; the people dying now are out of a much smaller cohort of confirmed cases in the past.

Deaths / (Deaths + Recoveries) would be more like it, and that's a scary number.

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#37

Post by majormajor »

colechristensen wrote: post #15
Jommi wrote: post #10

Where is the most important metric? Daily tested vs tested positive stats.

I don't believe this is a reliable metric. Who gets tested is a moving target. Stanford a short time ago did a free-for-all testing binge in order to collect data, but finished that and is now restricting tests to people requiring specific risk factors to give a test. The first time I tried to get a test from another provider I just wasn't able, they didn't know of anywhere that would test me outside of hospitalizati…

> After two video appointments with separate providers I was able to get tested yesterday and the result came back negative about 22 hours later. It took me about 8 hours of effort and time to get that done, a luxury many people do not have.

Is there any value in people self-selecting into personal choice testing? You could get infected tomorrow, for instance...

If we wanted a full picture of community spread we'd need a top-down random sample, not self-selection, no?

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#38

Post by boyd »

grandmczeb wrote: post #28
xivzgrev wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here you go: https://covidtracking.com/data/state/california

I’m asking for a source on why the backlog happened. Unless I’m missing something, that just shows the number of pending cases.

They accepted more tests than they had the ability to quickly process. They also appear to have accepted many tests that required use of a lower throughput assay before switching to higher throughput testing on Roche 8800s: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/next-covi...

Re: Spreadsheet of San Francisco Bay Area Covid-19 Data and Charts

#39

Post by wool_gather »

svachalek wrote: post #36
wool_gather wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's currently a little under 5% worldwide. There are on the order of 1 million cumulative cases and a bit under 50 thousand deaths. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2... Doesn't account for lack of testing, of course.

That also doesn't account for the exponential growth in number of cases; the people dying now are out of a much smaller cohort of confirmed cases in the past. Deaths / (Deaths + Recoveries) would be more like it, and that's a scary number.

That's a very good point; unfortunately the WHO doesn't have a "closed case" statistic that I can see.
Post reply on HN