Coronavirus Information...who do you trust?

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2020, 03:01 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote:  The very obvious bottom line is 755 people out of a population of 3,123,899- 3,155,070 (depending the source used for Iowa’s population) leaving the entire population with a .024 chance of dying from Covid 19. I choose to not hype the information.

You can't have an "obvious bottom line" until people stop dying.

Just curious, but how many people would have to die in Iowa before you became concerned?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-15-2020, 06:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You just posted numbers that show 84% of cases are from people that have no contact with nursing homes

Yes, and that 84% only account for just 30% of the deaths. If you're not really old (53% of deaths in Ohio have been 80+ years old despite only being 2-2.5% of the Ohio population) or already medically compromised, you're statistically pretty okay. Roughly 50% of positive cases have been asymptomatic, with 10-19-year-olds having an 80% asymptomatic rate and it getting lower as you're older.

There's some outliers, but if you're not really old and not medically compromised, you're pretty much going to be fine.

Still should wear a mask for those who are old or medically compromised and to help stop the spread, but the vast majority of the country aren't at serious risk.

[fredtoast]

(07-15-2020, 07:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Still should wear a mask for those who are old or medically compromised and to help stop the spread, but the vast majority of the country aren't at serious risk.

Gotcha

:andy:

[Belsnickel]

So, my sister is a scientist and progressive as hell. We both enjoy statistics because, well, statistics. She put this together.


What you see here is the new cases for the second week of July in each state. Negative numbers means the case rate is going down. This is all normalized for population, meaning these are cases per 100,000 residents. Now, when I say my sister is progressive, it is because she decided to break it out by states that voted for Clinton v. Trump in 2016; this the red and the blue. Then she ran a t-test on that data, which came in at p=0.0002. Interesting stuff.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2020, 08:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, my sister is a scientist and progressive as hell. We both enjoy statistics because, well, statistics. She put this together.


What you see here is the new cases for the second week of July in each state. Negative numbers means the case rate is going down. This is all normalized for population, meaning these are cases per 100,000 residents. Now, when I say my sister is progressive, it is because she decided to break it out by states that voted for Clinton v. Trump in 2016; this the red and the blue. Then she ran a t-test on that data, which came in at p=0.0002. Interesting stuff.

Damn, that's interesting. Looks like a lot more states voted for Trump. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2020, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Damn, that's interesting. Looks like a lot more states voted for Trump. 

Eh, 21 (22 if counting DC) to 29, so not a huge difference. It just looks like it because there is so much red due to those states having more of a problem with the spread of COVID-19.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2020, 08:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, 21 (22 if counting DC) to 29, so not a huge difference. It just looks like it because there is so much red due to those states having more of a problem with the spread of COVID-19.

I'm just wondering why sis did it by state with the definer of "voted for Trump". For instance Louisiana is #1 any idea what political party their governor is affiliated with?  I see my state KY, up there pretty high and I'm quite certain our Gov is very much in the blue. 

Just like you and sis, I enjoy stats too. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2020, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm just wondering why sis did it by state with the definer of "voted for Trump". For instance Louisiana is #1 any idea what political party their governor is affiliated with?  I see my state KY, up there pretty high and I'm quite certain our Gov is very much in the blue. 

Just like you and sis, I enjoy stats too. 

Likely because it is a more equalizing category. Using governors muddies the waters, more, because governors are elected in different years in different states, where a presidential election is the same for each state.

Edit to add: in addition, different politicians will be scattered across the spectrum. A Democrat in Kentucky or Louisiana isn't necessarily the same, ideologically, as a Democrat in New England. Same goes for Republicans. So using the election for one individual is the best comparative category.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2020, 09:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Likely because it is a more equalizing category. Using governors muddies the waters, more, because governors are elected in different years in different states, where a presidential election is the same for each state.

Edit to add: in addition, different politicians will be scattered across the spectrum. A Democrat in Kentucky or Louisiana isn't necessarily the same, ideologically, as a Democrat in New England. Same goes for Republicans. So using the election for one individual is the best comparative category.

It's also a more outdated stat. 

IMO, if we're going to break down things by state we should most likely consider the executive of that state. Especially when POTUS has constantly stated he defers to them.  Unsure how it muddies the waters. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2020, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's also a more outdated stat. 

It is more outdated, but it is the best choice category for comparison purposes.

(07-15-2020, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO, if we're going to break down things by state we should most likely consider the executive of that state. Especially when POTUS has constantly stated he defers to them.  Unsure how it muddies the waters. 

That may be your opinion, but that isn't the best choice for providing useful statistics. I've already laid out two reasons as to why it does muddy the waters. You may refuse to accept that, but that's your choice. I'm coming at this from a field within political science and I can say that without a doubt, using the 2016 election results provides a much easier to define categorical divide than the party of the governor. There are too many flavors of Democrats and Republicans for it to be beneficial.

[*bfine32*]

(07-15-2020, 09:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is more outdated, but it is the best choice category for comparison purposes.


That may be your opinion, but that isn't the best choice for providing useful statistics. I've already laid out two reasons as to why it does muddy the waters. You may refuse to accept that, but that's your choice. I'm coming at this from a field within political science and I can say that without a doubt, using the 2016 election results provides a much easier to define categorical divide than the party of the governor. There are too many flavors of Democrats and Republicans for it to be beneficial.

Hell, I don't even know what it would look like if we broke states down by Gov. I'm just of the opinion it would be more interesting/valid than seeing how states voted 4 years ago when Corona was just a beer you drank with lime.

Unsure what I've refused to accept. Seems you've refused to accept my assertion that using Govs might be a better measuring stick to use when analyzing data based on states when the Feds have deferred to the states. 

Now if the Feds made laws that all must follow then I'd say using a federal election is the "best choice". 

[Belsnickel]

(07-15-2020, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, I don't even know what it would look like if we broke states down by Gov. I'm just of the opinion it would be more interesting/valid than seeing how states voted 4 years ago when Corona was just a beer you drank with lime.

Unsure what I've refused to accept. Seems you've refused to accept my assertion that using Govs might be a better measuring stick to use when analyzing data based on states when the Feds have deferred to the states. 

Now if the Feds made laws that all must follow then I'd say using a federal election is the "best choice". 

Again, I've explained the reasoning for using that category. I do refuse to accept your opinion on this because it is flawed for the very reasons I expressed. It results in bad statistics that would be useless because of the ideological spectrums in the parties. This isn't about the policies being enacted. Spread is as much o a result of the attitudes of the citizenry as anything else, maybe moreso.

[GMDino]

(07-15-2020, 08:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, my sister is a scientist and progressive as hell. We both enjoy statistics because, well, statistics. She put this together.


What you see here is the new cases for the second week of July in each state. Negative numbers means the case rate is going down. This is all normalized for population, meaning these are cases per 100,000 residents. Now, when I say my sister is progressive, it is because she decided to break it out by states that voted for Clinton v. Trump in 2016; this the red and the blue. Then she ran a t-test on that data, which came in at p=0.0002. Interesting stuff.

On that chart it looks like two Trump winning states are doing oddly better than the rest.  Both are not what I would call traditionally "red" states: PA nad MI.

I focused in on where PA is obviously.  The state went for Trump by this by no means a "red" state overall with a Democratic Governor and Republican controlled House and Senate.  We have been very good at keeping our numbers low because of the Governor.  The GOP has filed lawsuits and passed legislation to take power away from Wolf so they can "hurry up and open the state".  I don't like how he lumps the rural counties were very few cases in with the urban centers with a lot of cases but he and Dr. Levine have done a good job here.  But the problem we face is that the Trump supporters just don't believe it is a problem.  They think it's all a plot to get Trump and deliberately harm them.  It's sad to watch.

Not really commenting on how or why the graph was done, just pointing out that little factoid while wondering how Trump will continue to spin how "Democrat led areas are doing so much worse".

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2020, 09:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: On that chart it looks like two Trump winning states are doing oddly better than the rest.  Both are not what I would call traditionally "red" states: PA nad MI.

I focused in on where PA is obviously.  The state went for Trump by this by no means a "red" state overall with a Democratic Governor and Republican controlled House and Senate.  We have been very good at keeping our numbers low because of the Governor.  The GOP has filed lawsuits and passed legislation to take power away from Wolf so they can "hurry up and open the state".  I don't like how he lumps the rural counties were very few cases in with the urban centers with a lot of cases but he and Dr. Levine have done a good job here.  But the problem we face is that the Trump supporters just don't believe it is a problem.  They think it's all a plot to get Trump and deliberately harm them.  It's sad to watch.

Not really commenting on how or why the graph was done, just pointing out that little factoid while wondering how Trump will continue to spin how "Democrat led areas are doing so much worse".

The two lowest Trump states, Wyoming and South Dakota, are likely there because of population density. I mean, I still say that policies aren't really the guiding force in the number of cases. Your governor or legislature can put whatever they want in place, but if people ignore the guidance it doesn't matter. Attitudes of the population is a more important thing than who is leading the response. We've had a mask mandate in place for a while, now, but we are seeing areas where cases are on the rise because people aren't listening to the guidance.

I had a long conversation about this the other night. I had to lead our monthly commissioners' meeting because the District Commissioner is a doctor and super busy right now and I'm the Assistant District Commissioner. Our Unit Commissioners in the surrounding country were all talking about how much the units we disregarding all the guidance. It's the youth, the adults, and the parents all. My UCs actually said they are going to stop visiting in person because of their concerns over their health. We are constantly fighting this battle with our units because we want to keep everyone safe, but some people just don't want to pay attention to the data. I can almost guarantee you that if you drilled down to a locality level you would find the same correlation between 2016 election results and these mask attitudes that that graph displays between increasing cases and the election results by state.

[fredtoast]

(07-15-2020, 08:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, my sister is a scientist and progressive as hell. We both enjoy statistics because, well, statistics. She put this together.


What you see here is the new cases for the second week of July in each state. Negative numbers means the case rate is going down. This is all normalized for population, meaning these are cases per 100,000 residents. Now, when I say my sister is progressive, it is because she decided to break it out by states that voted for Clinton v. Trump in 2016; this the red and the blue. Then she ran a t-test on that data, which came in at p=0.0002. Interesting stuff.

Florida looking more and more like the perfect spot for the Republican National Convention.

Don't think North Carolina is going to mourn the loss of that.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2020, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The two lowest Trump states, Wyoming and South Dakota, are likely there because of population density. I mean, I still say that policies aren't really the guiding force in the number of cases. Your governor or legislature can put whatever they want in place, but if people ignore the guidance it doesn't matter. Attitudes of the population is a more important thing than who is leading the response. We've had a mask mandate in place for a while, now, but we are seeing areas where cases are on the rise because people aren't listening to the guidance.

I had a long conversation about this the other night. I had to lead our monthly commissioners' meeting because the District Commissioner is a doctor and super busy right now and I'm the Assistant District Commissioner. Our Unit Commissioners in the surrounding country were all talking about how much the units we disregarding all the guidance. It's the youth, the adults, and the parents all. My UCs actually said they are going to stop visiting in person because of their concerns over their health. We are constantly fighting this battle with our units because we want to keep everyone safe, but some people just don't want to pay attention to the data. I can almost guarantee you that if you drilled down to a locality level you would find the same correlation between 2016 election results and these mask attitudes that that graph displays between increasing cases and the election results by state.

I can only tell you that the area I live in (and you know it) was always a Democratic stronghold but Trump won here in 2016 and the attitude among the people that I know who voted for him stinks to high heaven.  That is purely observational, not hard data...lol.

I will also say that it was about 98% people in masks in Walmart yesterday afternoon despite the the OUTRAGE on Facebook about having to wear one.  The people who were not ran the spectrum from young to old, well dressed to shabby, male and female. 

[GMDino]

(07-16-2020, 09:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Florida looking more and more like the perfect spot for the Republican National Convention.

Don't think North Carolina is going to mourn the loss of that.

I caught a blurb yesterday that they are talking about having the RNC outside in Florida in August.  If true that oughta be fun.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2020, 09:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: I can only tell you that the area I live in (and you know it) was always a Democratic stronghold but Trump won here in 2016 and the attitude among the people that I know who voted for him stinks to high heaven.  That is purely observational, not hard data...lol.

I will also say that it was about 98% people in masks in Walmart yesterday afternoon despite the the OUTRAGE on Facebook about having to wear one.  The people who were not ran the spectrum from young to old, well dressed to shabby, male and female. 

I'm pretty shocked about that compliance number, to be honest. I could probably see that in the more northern parts of the county, but if you tell me that was in Mt. Pleasant, I might fall out of my chair.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2020, 09:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm pretty shocked about that compliance number, to be honest. I could probably see that in the more northern parts of the county, but if you tell me that was in Mt. Pleasant, I might fall out of my chair.

A little further south than that.     Not all wearing them properly but they had them on.

[Belsnickel]

(07-16-2020, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: A little further south than that.     Not all wearing them properly but they had them on.

Yeah, I just forgot where you were for a second, thinking about other folks I know in the area. That shocks me even more, to be honest.