From the way it looks to me, the ‘testing positive percentage’ has remained relatively flat the past five weeks, at around five percent. It does look like it’s now ticking just a bit upward, so that’s definitely something to keep an eye on, but in the third chart you can see that testing is increasing right along with positive results. And if you look closely at that chart, it actually includes separate bars for both negative and positive results, with this in the header:
The daily number of positive persons is largely a function of the daily number of tests rather than a measure of how fast the virus is spreading.
But otherwise, I think there is lots to be encouraged about. The hospital utilization is I think about exactly what you would hope to see from a place that was more or less managing the crisis well. The death charts definitely appear to be headed in very much the right direction, with excess deaths as compared to last year now approaching zero. And every chart that is designed to explore temporal trends seems to show the exact same thing: an epidemic with a very clear peak in July.
Not that Florida is necessarily well out of the woods, of course, and I note that there seems to be no assessment of seropositivity rates, which might be a useful metric to also have. But if the question was ‘Can we open things up without it being a disaster?’, then the answer to that seems encouragingly clear.
lol It looks like you’re giving the report some credence, if and only if you think a sentence of the report supports some claim you’ve made. Same as you’ve done with every report, study and article I’ve ever seen put in front of you.
The article is about the increase in cases in Florida and a suggestion of mitigation efforts by the White House coronavirus task force. That’s what I quoted.
I pointed to a university dashboard with data from the state, to support my claim that the state had reopened without disastrous results. One very important measure of that – perhaps the most important, in fact – is hospitalization.
That’s my claim, and those are the data. That’s what relevant. In as much as the report you offered would disprove that claim or those data, I would certainly give it full consideration. Trouble is that it doesn’t at all seem to. So I really don’t know what you are trying to accomplish with this line you are taking. I had already addressed the ‘increase in cases’.
That’s what’s relevant. . . to you. Hospitalization rates are generally a lagging indicator while infection rates are a leading indicator. Most prudent people would look at the leading indicators to make their decisions. That’s what the White House coronavirus task force has done. It has made a recommendation for more mitigation efforts based on the leading indicators, not the lagging ones.
Your claim was this:
The White House coronavirus task force disagrees with you. Opening things up leads to larger infection rates that they recommend should be mitigated against. The answer to them and to most scientists I’ve read is not “encouragingly clear” about opening up.
That you disagree with the White House coronavirus task force and most scientific reports and studies is probably not a discussion for this thread, so perhaps it’s better discussed in this thread in the Pit instead so as not to hijack this thread.
The positivity rate has gone from about 4.5 percent five or six weeks ago to about six percent today. It was 15 percent at the peak in July, after a relatively steep and swift rise.
I will happily leave you to your own interpretation of those evident facts.
The Biden transition team says that a national lockdown is NOT in Biden’s plans. This is just one guy saying what he thinks could happen. He’s saying that if people got paid for 4-6 weeks from the federal government to lockdown, it would protect the economy and lessen the infection spread.
Deutsche Banks says that if the government proposed a 5% tax on those people working from home after the pandemic, that could pay for the lower income people who can’t work from home. I’m not seeing how that helps to incentivize people to work face-to-face by adding a tax to those people working from home.
Today the 7 day average positivity rate is 9.1% with the trend line moving sharply upwards. I will leave you with these evident facts, which you can dismiss if you like.
Not arguing, because I think that’s a wasted exercise and futile, but you invited comment on these specific figures.
I read a comment in a paper in Nature [sorry cant be bothered to track it down] which discussed positivity rates that noted that US data was particularly aberrant and unreliable to at least mid-year because in many states restrictive testing practices, such as requiring payment for testing or restricting them to the symptomatic meant a much higher rate of positives in the test results, but also served as a poor general measure of actual population positivity.
I’d see that as one applicable interpretation of these evident facts, ie July’s 15% may be suspect and not comparable to November.
I donno. I don’t trust Deutsche Bank any more than I could trust Donald Trump. But being able to work from home is a great benefit. Yes my value as an employee is the same, but some have HAD to go to work. I don’t. I should have been working from home for the last 10 years or so.
So many people have to put up with so much new shit. I would be happy to try to find a way to reward them. Myself, with working at home, my life has improved greatly. I’ve been very lucky. Other people are being put on the front lines. That doesn’t seem fair.
I have purchased about $3000 in new computer equipment for home, but understand that I own it, regardless of working from home or not. So yeah, the money I save in travel and time does get spent. But my ass is not on the line every day.
I feel very sorry for parents with young children for both the parents and the kids not getting social interaction. One coworker with a 5 year old had a hard time adjusting. But she did, and very much likes working from home. One of the jobs my department does is mapping new COVID cases in our county for public health. Tracking possible exposure in businesses and personal interaction.
I can’t imagine how bad it would be if you had a roommate you hated, or an abusive spouse. Winter is here, and it’s going to be hard to duck out to a park to just read or walk around.
It’s going to get worse for many, and I would be happy to help out.
That’s super nice of you. You’re restoring my faith in humanity.
But I’m wondering if the incentive to add more tax to people working at home would add incentives for companies to force more people to work in an office. For a time, there was a movement for people to work from home to save companies the cost of creating a physical workspace for people. The pendulum seems to have swung away from that before the pandemic. Now because of the pandemic, the pendulum is swinging again toward employees working at home. I wonder if pushing a tax on people working at home would force the pendulum back the other way.
Good point. I assumed this tax would be on the employee, not the employer. But then employees may push to get back in the office.
In the beginning my employer was paying each employee an additional $50 a month to work from home. Citing that we are going to be paying more for electricity and heat and stuff at our homes. And I guess incidentals to set up a home office, but we could bring home office chairs and such. Seemed odd to me, but hey, not gonna complain. I’m saving at least $80 a month in gas. This program has since ended. Some people in my ‘company’ (county government) are essential workers that can’t work from home. I would imagine that that program pissed them off quite a bit.
When I worked for a sales agency in Manhattan back in the early 1990’s, certain salespeople ( those who covered territories like Eastern Long Island and NJ ) were expected to keep home offices and received a “home office allowance” . It was similar to the “car allowance” we all received. Those salespeople did not have a desk in a main office. This was before working from home was common and salespeople that were closer were expected to show up at the office regularly.
These allowances were pre-determined, usually a couple of hundred bucks a month, and made accounting easier for the company. This money was added to your paycheck, but was not subject to withholding.
You didn’t have to save gas receipts and keep mileage logs in order to be reimbursed by the company, however you were still supposed to keep such records so you could make the appropriate business expense deductions on your own tax returns.
I have no idea if companies still handle expenses in this way, the laws might have changed.
It wasn’t a request for information, it was a statement. He cited data for the US as a whole, not for Florida as a state. While the Florida data on that cite did indeed show the percentage trending upward, it was not at the level that he quoted for the US.
Why’s it gotta be all ‘nonsense’ and such with you? Why not carry on a civil discussion?
The seven-day moving average in Florida is 8.6% as of today, and I sure as heck don’t like the looks of that exponential curve – not just in Florida, but throughout most of the states. I’m in the Midwest (Chicago), and it’s just red zone all around here. It’s crazy. Wisconsin went from being mildly affected in the first wave to incredible growth. A couple days ago the positivity rate for the day was in the 30s. (!)