"Stanford expert" again - Printable Version

"Stanford expert" again - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: "Stanford expert" again (/thread-20028.html)

Pages: 1 2

"Stanford expert" again - oregontim - 07-08-2020

Not sure I like the Stanford brand being connected to this one: Stanford Expert Says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients have nothing to do with Covid 19

Quote:Stanford expert says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients 'have nothing to do with COVID-19'

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, said while cases have increased in several parts of the country the death rate has not.

Story at a glance

One doctor said the rate at which high-risk people are being affected and whether the death rate from the virus is increasing is what matters, rather than the total number of cases.

He said the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is less than or equal to the seasonal flu.

Atlas’ comments come as more than 130,000 people have died in the U.S. from coronavirus and more than 2.9 million cases have been confirmed.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

Both of the statements are probably true. It's not like during the pandemic heart attacks, strokes, drug overdoses, asthma exacerbations, bacterial pneumonias, and all the other reasons that people go to the hospital have stopped. It's just that on top of that we have COVID-19.

What I disagree with is the implication that having 15 - 20% of hospitalized cases be COVID shows that it is no big deal. By way of comparison, there are 36 million hospitalizations in the US per year on average, of which about 500,000 are due to influenza. Even if you restrict it to the flu season (October through May), influenza only makes up about 3% of hospitalizations, so the fact that 15 - 20% of Texas hospital patients have something to do with COVID-19 is a big deal!

He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Where I think he is misleading is saying "We know that the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is 0.04 percent — that’s less than or equal to the seasonal flu,” That is true, but it lumps in pediatric cases where the infection fatality rate is 0.001% (much lower than influenza), and 60 - 69 year olds, where the IFR is 0.9%, which is substantially higher than influenza. The rate doesn't get down to 0.04% until you get to 40 - 49 year olds, and as phrased by Atlas, it might give 50 - 69 year olds the false impression that their risk of death is as low as the flu.

BC

RE: "Stanford expert" again - Nan3cy - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Both of the statements are probably true. It's not like during the pandemic heart attacks, strokes, drug overdoses, asthma exacerbations, bacterial pneumonias, and all the other reasons that people go to the hospital have stopped. It's just that on top of that we have COVID-19.

What I disagree with is the implication that having 15 - 20% of hospitalized cases be COVID shows that it is no big deal. By way of comparison, there are 36 million hospitalizations in the US per year on average, of which about 500,000 are due to influenza. Even if you restrict it to the flu season (October through May), influenza only makes up about 3% of hospitalizations, so the fact that 15 - 20% of Texas hospital patients have something to do with COVID-19 is a big deal!

He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Where I think he is misleading is saying "We know that the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is 0.04 percent — that’s less than or equal to the seasonal flu,” That is true, but it lumps in pediatric cases where the infection fatality rate is 0.001% (much lower than influenza), and 60 - 69 year olds, where the IFR is 0.9%, which is substantially higher than influenza. The rate doesn't get down to 0.04% until you get to 40 - 49 year olds, and as phrased by Atlas, it might give 50 - 69 year olds the false impression that their risk of death is as low as the flu.

BC

Or, as Gov. Newsom never seems to tire of saying, we don’t live in the aggregate...

RE: "Stanford expert" again - burger - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Your statement about the death rate is technically correct but only because different parts of the US are in the midst of two completely different phases of the pandemics. In the Northeast, death rates are still declining from the April or May peak. In the sunbelt, death rates are definitely climbing. Add those two trends together, and it comes out flat. It is grossly misleading to use that flat death rate as an indication that things aren't that bad. It's the equivalent of saying that the average income in Haiti and Switzerland combined is around the world median, so things aren't so bad there!

Maybe the med school needs to tighten up its hiring standards. Things like this are an embarrassment.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - teejers1 - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 10:50 AM)oregontim Wrote: Not sure I like the Stanford brand being connected to this one: Stanford Expert Says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients have nothing to do with Covid 19

Quote:Stanford expert says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients 'have nothing to do with COVID-19'

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, said while cases have increased in several parts of the country the death rate has not.

Story at a glance

One doctor said the rate at which high-risk people are being affected and whether the death rate from the virus is increasing is what matters, rather than the total number of cases.

He said the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is less than or equal to the seasonal flu.

Atlas’ comments come as more than 130,000 people have died in the U.S. from coronavirus and more than 2.9 million cases have been confirmed.

An anecdote, fwliw: a relative is on Board of Trustees at big Houston hospital and he mentioned that the reporting on capacity - to extent it states or implies - that Covid cases are causing the burst at seams, was misleading (at least respecting the hospital he has info on). I presume his opinion was based on the same factors outlined above.

As a long-time advocate for data on hospital capacity, broken down by Covid/non-Covid - and including number of LTCF cases that comprise those hospitalized - I believe a few observations are in order. First, while it may be true that Covid patients comprise <25% (I just picked a number, no clue what real numbers are) of ICU beds, it can also be true that the incremental boost in ICU cases from Covid is the tipping point, especially if projected cases are on the rise. In other words, Covid can both be a non-majority of ICU (and non-ICU) hospitalizations, yet still be deemed a legit cause for "bursting at the seams."

It is also true that many hospitals shut down operations initially, in anticipation of NY level cases . . . which did not occur. Thus, after weeks/months of losing money due to fewer "regular" cases, hospitals began re-admitting "regular" patients. Thus, you can see from an optics standpoint why someone might say "It's not Covid, it's other patients taking up the lion's share of beds" as those kind of patients are on the rise, too. But even if true, you want hospitals treating "regular" patients with needed (or even elective) surgeries, as they historically have done. Indeed, that's part and parcel of "reopening" that you want. And of course, I'm sure there is the ability to determine what historical "normals" are for hospital bed usage in non-Covid times, which is also enlightening.

Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening. Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.

P.S. I drafted this post and thought I had posted long before I did - in the interim I see BC raised similar points previously. Apologies for the duplicative thoughts.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - lex24 - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 11:53 AM)burger Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Your statement about the death rate is technically correct but only because different parts of the US are in the midst of two completely different phases of the pandemics. In the Northeast, death rates are still declining from the April or May peak. In the sunbelt, death rates are definitely climbing. Add those two trends together, and it comes out flat. It is grossly misleading to use that flat death rate as an indication that things aren't that bad. It's the equivalent of saying that the average income in Haiti and Switzerland combined is around the world median, so things aren't so bad there!

Maybe the med school needs to tighten up its hiring standards. Things like this are an embarrassment.

Why? If I’m interpreting BC (who has more knowledge than the average - I was going to say Bear but I wiill change that to Card:)) he’s saying the guy is generally correct.

(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:53 AM)burger Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Your statement about the death rate is technically correct but only because different parts of the US are in the midst of two completely different phases of the pandemics. In the Northeast, death rates are still declining from the April or May peak. In the sunbelt, death rates are definitely climbing. Add those two trends together, and it comes out flat. It is grossly misleading to use that flat death rate as an indication that things aren't that bad. It's the equivalent of saying that the average income in Haiti and Switzerland combined is around the world median, so things aren't so bad there!

Maybe the med school needs to tighten up its hiring standards. Things like this are an embarrassment.

Why? If I’m interpreting BC (who has more knowledge than the average - I was going to say Bear but I wiill change that to Card:)) he’s saying the guy is generally correct.

I also have a question. I heard that when they refer to “number of beds” it’s not literally that. It’s the number of beds that can be staffed. No idea if this is true.

We do know that when this hit, to prepare for the expected high number of hospitalizations, elective surgeries etc were pushed back. When the wave did not hit, hospitals started laying off staff. So now, because of the lower number of staff members, the number of “available beds” has dropped.

Is it true that the numbers are tied to staff and thus the layoffs have reduced the number?

(07-08-2020, 12:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 10:50 AM)oregontim Wrote: Not sure I like the Stanford brand being connected to this one: Stanford Expert Says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients have nothing to do with Covid 19

Quote:Stanford expert says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients 'have nothing to do with COVID-19'

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, said while cases have increased in several parts of the country the death rate has not.

Story at a glance

One doctor said the rate at which high-risk people are being affected and whether the death rate from the virus is increasing is what matters, rather than the total number of cases.

He said the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is less than or equal to the seasonal flu.

Atlas’ comments come as more than 130,000 people have died in the U.S. from coronavirus and more than 2.9 million cases have been confirmed.

[\quote]

An anecdote, fwliw: a relative is on Board of Trustees at big Houston hospital and he mentioned that the reporting on capacity - to extent it states or implies - that Covid cases are causing the burst at seams, was misleading (at least respecting the hospital he has info on). I presume his opinion was based on the same factors outlined above.

As a long-time advocate for data on hospital capacity, broken down by Covid/non-Covid - and including number of LTCF cases that comprise those hospitalized - I believe a few observations are in order. First, while it may be true that Covid patients comprise <25% (I just picked a number, no clue what real numbers are) of ICU beds, it can also be true that the incremental boost in ICU cases from Covid is the tipping point, especially if projected cases are on the rise. In other words, Covid can both be a non-majority of ICU (and non-ICU) hospitalizations, yet still be deemed a legit cause for "bursting at the seams."

It is also true that many hospitals shut down operations initially, in anticipation of NY level cases . . . which did not occur. Thus, after weeks/months of losing money due to fewer "regular" cases, hospitals began re-admitting "regular" patients. Thus, you can see from an optics standpoint why someone might say "It's not Covid, it's other patients taking up the lion's share of beds" as those kind of patients are on the rise, too. But even if true, you want hospitals treating "regular" patients with needed (or even elective) surgeries, as they historically have done. Indeed, that's part and parcel of "reopening" that you want. And of course, I'm sure there is the ability to determine what historical "normals" are for hospital bed usage in non-Covid times, which is also enlightening.

Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening. Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.

P.S. I drafted this post and thought I had posted long before I did - in the interim I see BC raised similar points previously. Apologies for the duplicative thoughts.

“Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening. Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.”

You are right. Unfortunately, not likely to get that. We don’t get much “good reporting” anymore. Just opinion journalism.....

(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:53 AM)burger Wrote: [quote="BostonCard" pid='285104' dateline='1594232100']
He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Your statement about the death rate is technically correct but only because different parts of the US are in the midst of two completely different phases of the pandemics. In the Northeast, death rates are still declining from the April or May peak. In the sunbelt, death rates are definitely climbing. Add those two trends together, and it comes out flat. It is grossly misleading to use that flat death rate as an indication that things aren't that bad. It's the equivalent of saying that the average income in Haiti and Switzerland combined is around the world median, so things aren't so bad there!

Maybe the med school needs to tighten up its hiring standards. Things like this are an embarrassment.

Why? If I’m interpreting BC (who has more knowledge than the average - I was going to say Bear but I wiill change that to Card:)) he’s saying the guy is generally correct.

(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:53 AM)burger Wrote: [quote="BostonCard" pid='285104' dateline='1594232100']
He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Your statement about the death rate is technically correct but only because different parts of the US are in the midst of two completely different phases of the pandemics. In the Northeast, death rates are still declining from the April or May peak. In the sunbelt, death rates are definitely climbing. Add those two trends together, and it comes out flat. It is grossly misleading to use that flat death rate as an indication that things aren't that bad. It's the equivalent of saying that the average income in Haiti and Switzerland combined is around the world median, so things aren't so bad there!

Maybe the med school needs to tighten up its hiring standards. Things like this are an embarrassment.

Why? If I’m interpreting BC (who has more knowledge than the average - I was going to say Bear but I wiill change that to Card:)) he’s saying the guy is generally correct.

(07-08-2020, 12:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 10:50 AM)oregontim Wrote: Not sure I like the Stanford brand being connected to this one: Stanford Expert Says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients have nothing to do with Covid 19

Quote:Stanford expert says 80-85 percent of Texas hospital patients 'have nothing to do with COVID-19'

Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center, said while cases have increased in several parts of the country the death rate has not.

Story at a glance

One doctor said the rate at which high-risk people are being affected and whether the death rate from the virus is increasing is what matters, rather than the total number of cases.

He said the infection-fatality rate for people under 70 is less than or equal to the seasonal flu.

Atlas’ comments come as more than 130,000 people have died in the U.S. from coronavirus and more than 2.9 million cases have been confirmed.

[\quote]

An anecdote, fwliw: a relative is on Board of Trustees at big Houston hospital and he mentioned that the reporting on capacity - to extent it states or implies - that Covid cases are causing the burst at seams, was misleading (at least respecting the hospital he has info on). I presume his opinion was based on the same factors outlined above.

As a long-time advocate for data on hospital capacity, broken down by Covid/non-Covid - and including number of LTCF cases that comprise those hospitalized - I believe a few observations are in order. First, while it may be true that Covid patients comprise <25% (I just picked a number, no clue what real numbers are) of ICU beds, it can also be true that the incremental boost in ICU cases from Covid is the tipping point, especially if projected cases are on the rise. In other words, Covid can both be a non-majority of ICU (and non-ICU) hospitalizations, yet still be deemed a legit cause for "bursting at the seams."

It is also true that many hospitals shut down operations initially, in anticipation of NY level cases . . . which did not occur. Thus, after weeks/months of losing money due to fewer "regular" cases, hospitals began re-admitting "regular" patients. Thus, you can see from an optics standpoint why someone might say "It's not Covid, it's other patients taking up the lion's share of beds" as those kind of patients are on the rise, too. But even if true, you want hospitals treating "regular" patients with needed (or even elective) surgeries, as they historically have done. Indeed, that's part and parcel of "reopening" that you want. And of course, I'm sure there is the ability to determine what historical "normals" are for hospital bed usage in non-Covid times, which is also enlightening.

Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening. Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.

P.S. I drafted this post and thought I had posted long before I did - in the interim I see BC raised similar points previously. Apologies for the duplicative thoughts.

“Long way of saying that all of this hospitalization data is important - I think the most important - when it comes to making policy decisions on SiP loosening/tightening. Good reporting would include all the above data so as to inform the public and paint an accurate picture of what's going on.”

You are right. Unfortunately, not likely to get that. We don’t get much “good reporting” anymore. Just opinion journalism..... My old prof Ben Bagdikian is turning in his grave.

Why can’t we get this (I’ll use SCC as an example: Santa Clara County has a total of X hospital beds. Of those Y are ICU beds. On April 15, ___ on the beds were in use___ were Covid Patients. ____ICU beds were in use.____. On May 15 (put in numbers) June 15 (put in numbers. July 15 put in numbers.

That should be done countywide and statewide. It shouldnt be that difficult.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

There are a lot of theories about the death rate. I have seen the idea that the declining death rate in New York has counteracted an increasing death rate in other parts of the country. However, case numbers have been going up since roughly mid-June (the nadir in the 7-day moving average is just a few days before June 15). Although you would expect a delay between new cases and new deaths, we are now more than three weeks after the rise in cases, so patients in the new hotspots who contracted the disease back in mid-June should start affecting the death rate by now.

My guess is that part of it is that the patients in the new hotspots have tended to be younger and healthier, and so their case fatality rate is a bit lower. Thus, you have fewer older, sicker patients in the northeast with a high CFR dying, while the new cases, which occur in younger, healthier patients in the South and Southwest with a low CFR aren't really pushing the overall deaths up. If this is true, then we will eventually see the number of deaths go up, though the overall CFR will be lower, and the number of deaths will go up more slowly than the number of cases. At least that's what I hope.

BC

RE: "Stanford expert" again - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote: Why can’t we get this (I’ll use SCC as an example: Santa Clara County has a total of X hospital beds. Of those Y are ICU beds. On April 15, ___ on the beds were in use___ were Covid Patients. ____ICU beds were in use.____. On May 15 (put in numbers) June 15 (put in numbers. July 15 put in numbers.

That should be done countywide and statewide. It shouldnt be that difficult.

San Mateo county does that, though it doesn't report the data for all hospitalizations (we know from the link below that 55 patients are hospitalized with COVID, but it doesn't have the numbers for non-COVID patients).

https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-health-data

On July 8, 38 out of 110 ICU beds were in use; 15 of those beds were in use for COVID patients. The data in the dashboard goes back to June 30. I agree it would be helpful to have more historical data readily available and more data about total hospitalizations.

BC

RE: "Stanford expert" again - lex24 - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 03:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are a lot of theories about the death rate. I have seen the idea that the declining death rate in New York has counteracted an increasing death rate in other parts of the country. However, case numbers have been going up since roughly mid-June (the nadir in the 7-day moving average is just a few days before June 15). Although you would expect a delay between new cases and new deaths, we are now more than three weeks after the rise in cases, so patients in the new hotspots who contracted the disease back in mid-June should start affecting the death rate by now.

My guess is that part of it is that the patients in the new hotspots have tended to be younger and healthier, and so their case fatality rate is a bit lower. Thus, you have fewer older, sicker patients in the northeast with a high CFR dying, while the new cases, which occur in younger, healthier patients in the South and Southwest with a low CFR aren't really pushing the overall deaths up. If this is true, then we will eventually see the number of deaths go up, though the overall CFR will be lower, and the number of deaths will go up more slowly than the number of cases. At least that's what I hope.

BC

What about the brobdingnagian numbers that had or have it and never even know it? The death rate based on known cases is not anywhere close to an accurate indicator.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - akiddoc - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 11:53 AM)burger Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: He is also correct that the death rate has not gone up. We will see if we start seeing an increase this week (Tuesday's numbers were the highest in a few weeks, but probably represent delayed reporting during the three-day week end), but through last week, the weekly death numbers had been decreasing since April.

Your statement about the death rate is technically correct but only because different parts of the US are in the midst of two completely different phases of the pandemics. In the Northeast, death rates are still declining from the April or May peak. In the sunbelt, death rates are definitely climbing. Add those two trends together, and it comes out flat. It is grossly misleading to use that flat death rate as an indication that things aren't that bad. It's the equivalent of saying that the average income in Haiti and Switzerland combined is around the world median, so things aren't so bad there!

Maybe the med school needs to tighten up its hiring standards. Things like this are an embarrassment.

He doesn't work at the med school. He works at Hoover. Another ex doctor pontificating outside his area of expertise.

The new wave of infections is definitely in younger individuals. They aren't nearly as likely to die. On the average 15 years younger than in the initial wave of infections - per Fauci.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - dabigv13 - 07-08-2020

Our covid ICU has been mostly people in their 40s recently. And they do seem to have shorter stays and better outcomes.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - 2006alum - 07-08-2020

When 'better outcome" is used to describe a stay in the ICU by someone a mere half decade older than I am, that's all I need to hear to keep up the motivation to be socially distancing...

RE: "Stanford expert" again - magnus - 07-08-2020

In my town, there's been a surge over the last week+.

Since July 1st:
10-19 = +5
20-29 = +8
30-39 = +1
40-49 = +1
50-59 = +1

That's a heavy weight towards the younger crowd. Very possible (and hopeful) that none of the above will be hospitalized.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - teejers1 - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 04:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote: Why can’t we get this (I’ll use SCC as an example: Santa Clara County has a total of X hospital beds. Of those Y are ICU beds. On April 15, ___ on the beds were in use___ were Covid Patients. ____ICU beds were in use.____. On May 15 (put in numbers) June 15 (put in numbers. July 15 put in numbers.

That should be done countywide and statewide. It shouldnt be that difficult.

San Mateo county does that, though it doesn't report the data for all hospitalizations (we know from the link below that 55 patients are hospitalized with COVID, but it doesn't have the numbers for non-COVID patients).

https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-health-data

On July 8, 38 out of 110 ICU beds were in use; 15 of those beds were in use for COVID patients. The data in the dashboard goes back to June 30. I agree it would be helpful to have more historical data readily available and more data about total hospitalizations.

BC

the bummer for this SCC resident is that Santa Clara's dashboard used to have this info readily available - and in an easily digestible, color-coded bar chart. But alas, the powers that be, removed that data . . . strange.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 04:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote: Why can’t we get this (I’ll use SCC as an example: Santa Clara County has a total of X hospital beds. Of those Y are ICU beds. On April 15, ___ on the beds were in use___ were Covid Patients. ____ICU beds were in use.____. On May 15 (put in numbers) June 15 (put in numbers. July 15 put in numbers.

That should be done countywide and statewide. It shouldnt be that difficult.

San Mateo county does that, though it doesn't report the data for all hospitalizations (we know from the link below that 55 patients are hospitalized with COVID, but it doesn't have the numbers for non-COVID patients).

https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-health-data

On July 8, 38 out of 110 ICU beds were in use; 15 of those beds were in use for COVID patients. The data in the dashboard goes back to June 30. I agree it would be helpful to have more historical data readily available and more data about total hospitalizations.

BC

the bummer for this SCC resident is that Santa Clara's dashboard used to have this info readily available - and in an easily digestible, color-coded bar chart. But alas, the powers that be, removed that data . . . strange.

This page looks like it has most of what you seek:

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard-hospitals.aspx

I never saw what it used to offer, but it gives you COVID hospital bed use, ICU use, and ventilator use and availability. So are you worried that you don't have a picture of how many beds are being used by non-COVID patients and the total number of beds available?

BC

RE: "Stanford expert" again - teejers1 - 07-09-2020

(07-08-2020, 11:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 11:12 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 04:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 02:39 PM)lex24 Wrote: Why can’t we get this (I’ll use SCC as an example: Santa Clara County has a total of X hospital beds. Of those Y are ICU beds. On April 15, ___ on the beds were in use___ were Covid Patients. ____ICU beds were in use.____. On May 15 (put in numbers) June 15 (put in numbers. July 15 put in numbers.

That should be done countywide and statewide. It shouldnt be that difficult.

San Mateo county does that, though it doesn't report the data for all hospitalizations (we know from the link below that 55 patients are hospitalized with COVID, but it doesn't have the numbers for non-COVID patients).

https://www.smchealth.org/coronavirus-health-data

On July 8, 38 out of 110 ICU beds were in use; 15 of those beds were in use for COVID patients. The data in the dashboard goes back to June 30. I agree it would be helpful to have more historical data readily available and more data about total hospitalizations.

BC

the bummer for this SCC resident is that Santa Clara's dashboard used to have this info readily available - and in an easily digestible, color-coded bar chart. But alas, the powers that be, removed that data . . . strange.

This page looks like it has most of what you seek:

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/dashboard-hospitals.aspx

I never saw what it used to offer, but it gives you COVID hospital bed use, ICU use, and ventilator use and availability. So are you worried that you don't have a picture of how many beds are being used by non-COVID patients and the total number of beds available?

BC

Yes, which was previously available. I think that data is very useful and informative, and am having a hard time understanding why it was removed.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - M T - 07-09-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote: An anecdote, fwliw: a relative is on Board of Trustees at big Houston hospital and he mentioned that the reporting on capacity - to extent it states or implies - that Covid cases are causing the burst at seams, was misleading (at least respecting the hospital he has info on). I presume his opinion was based on the same factors outlined above.

I believe I've posted on this. Texas Medical Center ("TMC", a collection of the hospitals in Houston) has quite thorough and transparent data. I have family that are on the staff there and live there, so it is of interest to me. They have a very flexible way of accounting for their ICU numbers. Basically, they can expand their ICU capacity from 1300 beds to 2100 beds. They seem to try to keep it close to the normal "max" capacity of around 1300, but they have two stages beyond 1300. When I looked in late June, they had something like 950 non-COVID patients in ICU. The charts for expected usage in two weeks kept that 950 and added expected COVID patients, leading to a "We'll run out of room" situation. What got into the news was that the ICU was about to hit 100% of (normal) capacity.

It got in the newss & people were worried about an immediate NYC or Italy scenario. Personally, I wasn't worried yet as I was pretty sure that 950 could be reduced, at least temporarily. And they have, when I looked 3 days ago, it was down to about 775 non-COVID ICU beds, but the projection still was "We'll run out of room" in 2 weeks if the non-COVID stays the same and the COVID grows as expected.

Whether this projection helped or not, the governor & (I think) the city tightened controls so as to limit how quickly COVID spread. I think I saw the curves were bending from less exponential.

But, as BC said, if R0 > 1, it may take longer, but the growth will still happen. [Btw, I think of R0 as a measure of what happened, not as a predictor. Kinda like saying if you won a game, then you must have scored more points. That's a backwards way of looking at it. If you scored more points, then you won. If you have exponential increases, then R0 > 1. So, i actually see BC's statement as a tautology.]

I will also note that we usually think of almost all medical procedures as being necessary. Some are more urgent than others. If we recognize that the current state of affairs may go on for 5 years are more, most of those 950 (or more) ICU patients in that perhaps typical (or perhaps artificially reduced) snapshot will eventually need the procedures, then Houston is getting a logjam of procedures that are waiting for a break in COVID that may not come for 5 years or more. In the meantime, those necessary procedures may become more critical & more urgent, so the flexibility in scheduling them gets lost.

I'm glad that particular medical center had the flexibility (so far), and I'm glad the government there found a different balance of liberty and life.
Not all (probably not many) medical centers have that flexibility.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - fullmetal - 07-09-2020

Gotta love the experts who point to a low fatality rate as if covid survivors could bounce back to health just like flu survivors. That we don't refer to people recovered from the flu as survivors shows you the difference between flu and covid...

(Of note, there are several cases of Olympic or pre-elite athletes contracting this disease, and they are reporting very long recovery times before they can return to training.)

I keep tabs on Houston because I have family there (one doctor) and am adjacent. Their sustainable surge capacity was helped when Texas Children's opened up their facility to adult patients. The last of the granular data reporting showed that there were twelve days before sustainable surge capacity was exhausted and TMC would be moving into unsustainable surge capacity (not sure how fungible beds are between the different hospitals in TMC).

Shortly after that data was reported, there were...political consequences. The TMC CEOs put out a joint statement saying there was no reason to worry. I believe the governor got involved. TMC has revised their verbiage and changed their charts such that neutral words and blue/gray color schemes now dominate despite the same data being presented.

The message was clear: don't make this state look bad. Mayor Sylvester Turner just yesterday ordered next week's in-person GOP state convention to be canceled. All the prominent keynote speakers had decided to deliver their address via teleconference anyway (ha!). Today, the state GOP has filed a lawsuit against the city of Houston.

Thankfully, TMC bed usage is still within the sustainable surge capacity and their curve might be bending ever so slightly right now. It's perhaps not an entirely good sign: An increase in people dying at home suggests coronavirus deaths in Houston may be higher than reported

Tulsa is seeing an uptick in cases as well, and authorities are pointing to the late June political rally as a likely cause. Houston should fight hard to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen in Texas.

RE: "Stanford expert" again - burger - 07-09-2020

(07-09-2020, 04:03 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Gotta love the experts who point to a low fatality rate as if covid survivors could bounce back to health just like flu survivors. That we don't refer to people recovered from the flu as survivors shows you the difference between flu and covid...

When this all started, I thought deaths would be the best indicator of what's happening because cases were basically a function of testing rates, and hospitalization data was hard to come by. Now, IFRs and CFRs seem to be dropping (a good thing if true), but that's giving people like this med school guy false confidence that we don't need to worry about current growth in cases. As fullmetal pointed out, there will still be a lot of negative consequences short of death for many people.

A good analogy is the 2nd Iraq War. IIRC, fatality rates in combat were much lower than in previous US wars, but that was only because soldiers who would've died in previous wars were being saved by modern medicine. Many of those saved ended up with major disabilities. The point being that death rates alone can give a false sense of what's happening.

I'm thinking now that hospitalizations may be the best measure going forward. This should be insensitive to both testing effects (hospitals get first dibs on tests regardless of availability) and death rates. California does a great job of reporting hospital numbers for the state and by county: https://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19HospitalsDashboard/Hospitals?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no

RE: "Stanford expert" again - BostonCard - 07-09-2020

Note, today is the third consecutive day that the daily count of new deaths exceeded the new deaths one week ago. On Tuesday and Wednesday I wondered if it was just delayed reporting for the long week end, but now it is starting to look like a trend, as the 7-day average starts to tick up. We will know for sure by next week, but this is not good.

BC