Lack of Standardization Continues to Obscure COVID Situation

[Mina]

Throughout the pandemic, it's been hard to get a clear idea of what's really going on, because of inconsistencies around testing and reporting.

Consider Texas and Massachusetts, since they're near opposite ends of the US political spectrum. How bad is COVID right now in each place?

Well, if you take the official stats, TX has a COVID infection rate of 40/100k, versus 24/100k in MA. So, you might think the infection rate is around 67% higher in Texas. But Massachusetts is doing nearly four times as much testing, per capita, as Texas. So, it's reasonable to assume they're catching a larger share of total infections, and that the gap in true infection rates in those two states is much larger than 67%. Since there's no standardization around testing, the official infection rates are practically worthless.

So, how about hospitalization data? Right now TX has 4,062 people hospitalized with COVID, versus 655 in Massachusetts. That's 13.76/100k in TX, versus 9.38/100k in MA. But, are the hospitals applying the same standards? Like could one state be testing a larger share of patients, or reporting more incidental cases up (e.g., people hospitalized for something else, but coincidentally COVID positive)? A reality check is the ICU data -- how many COVID patients are actually in the ICU in each place? It's 2.09/100k in TX and 0.74/10k in MA. That suggests things are 180% worse in TX, not 67% worse.

Official COVID death stats are also practically worthless, since in many cases it's a gray-area judgment call whether to label a given death a COVID death, in a situation where it may have been a contributing factor but it's not certain the person would have survived if not for COVID.

These issues aren't new, either. For example, since the start of the pandemic (March 2020 through the second week of July 2022), TX has counted 326.33 COVID deaths per 100k, versus 268.53/100k in MA. That suggests Texas was just 22% worse. Yet in terms of excess deaths (total deaths relative to those expected from pre-pandemic trends), TX has had 376.74/100k, versus 151.00/100 for MA. So that suggests TX was about 149% worse.

Some of the same problems persist within states, either regionally or across time (e.g., changes in reporting standards creating fictitious improvement or worsening, or differences in standards creating fictitious local hotspots). It's frustrating that so far into the pandemic, there's still no standardization of methods that might allow meaningful analysis of the data, to assess risk.

Like, if you're trying to make an informed decision about whether indoor dining is enough of a risk to avoid in a given place in a given time, you can't just look at official reported stats. You need a deeper awareness of testing and reporting standards in that place and time, to interpret its official data. A reported infection rate of 30/100k in one place and time may indicate an acceptable risk (on par with a normal year's risk of going out to eat during flu season), while the same 30/100k in another time or place may indicate ten times that risk level, such that you'd be wise to steer clear of the restaurants for a while.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Throughout the pandemic, it's been hard to get a clear idea of what's really going on, because of inconsistencies around testing and reporting.

Consider Texas and Massachusetts, since they're near opposite ends of the US political spectrum. How bad is COVID right now in each place?

Well, if you take the official stats, TX has a COVID infection rate of 40/100k, versus 24/100k in MA. So, you might think the infection rate is around 67% higher in Texas. But Massachusetts is doing nearly four times as much testing, per capita, as Texas. So, it's reasonable to assume they're catching a larger share of total infections, and that the gap in true infection rates in those two states is much larger than 67%. Since there's no standardization around testing, the official infection rates are practically worthless.

So, how about hospitalization data? Right now TX has 4,062 people hospitalized with COVID, versus 655 in Massachusetts. That's 13.76/100k in TX, versus 9.38/100k in MA. But, are the hospitals applying the same standards? Like could one state be testing a larger share of patients, or reporting more incidental cases up (e.g., people hospitalized for something else, but coincidentally COVID positive)? A reality check is the ICU data -- how many COVID patients are actually in the ICU in each place? It's 2.09/100k in TX and 0.74/10k in MA. That suggests things are 180% worse in TX, not 67% worse.

Official COVID death stats are also practically worthless, since in many cases it's a gray-area judgment call whether to label a given death a COVID death, in a situation where it may have been a contributing factor but it's not certain the person would have survived if not for COVID.

These issues aren't new, either. For example, since the start of the pandemic (March 2020 through the second week of July 2022), TX has counted 326.33 COVID deaths per 100k, versus 268.53/100k in MA. That suggests Texas was just 22% worse. Yet in terms of excess deaths (total deaths relative to those expected from pre-pandemic trends), TX has had 376.74/100k, versus 151.00/100 for MA. So that suggests TX was about 149% worse.

Some of the same problems persist within states, either regionally or across time (e.g., changes in reporting standards creating fictitious improvement or worsening, or differences in standards creating fictitious local hotspots). It's frustrating that so far into the pandemic, there's still no standardization of methods that might allow meaningful analysis of the data, to assess risk.

Like, if you're trying to make an informed decision about whether indoor dining is enough of a risk to avoid in a given place in a given time, you can't just look at official reported stats. You need a deeper awareness of testing and reporting standards in that place and time, to interpret its official data. A reported infection rate of 30/100k in one place and time may indicate an acceptable risk (on par with a normal year's risk of going out to eat during flu season), while the same 30/100k in another time or place may indicate ten times that risk level, such that you'd be wise to steer clear of the restaurants for a while.

Then there is Canada, where there are so many SNOWFLAKES, testing is common and widely used, including home testing kits, where 85% are vaccinated, and where our death and hospitalization rates are far lower than in the States, and we have few (except for the truckers) really angry anti-vaxxers in Canada, but hey......................

We ain't the U.S. we don't enjoy as many freedumbs and we are all a bunch of SNOWFLAKES.

 

[HIP56948]

I understand what you're saying and you are correct. Ever since the pandemic showed up, there's been accusations here
in Florida nearly every other day regarding the covid and monkeypox viruses reporting. DeSantis and his cockroach administration have
repeatedly played down the figures all over the board, mainly so (I quote) "The Tourists don't need to hear the downside of Florida"
Which makes perfect sense..If you ignore something bad, it will go away..according to Florida-Man.

 

[Mina]

I understand what you're saying and you are correct. Ever since the pandemic showed up, there's been accusations here
in Florida nearly every other day regarding the covid and monkeypox viruses reporting. DeSantis and his cockroach administration have
repeatedly played down the figures all over the board, mainly so (I quote) "The Tourists don't need to hear the downside of Florida"
Which makes perfect sense..If you ignore something bad, it will go away..according to Florida-Man.

Florida was particularly cynical in how they did COVID death reporting. Basically, when they report COVID deaths, they back-date them to whenever they occurred. That sounds reasonable, but what it does is to create the illusion that COVID has ALWAYS recently vanished in the state:



Regardless of when you look at that chart, the far-right end of the chart will look like that -- with COVID cases plummeting towards zero. The deaths being reported today and yesterday have already been back-dated to some prior date, while the deaths that will eventually be listed for today and yesterday haven't yet been reported, so it will always look like COVID disappeared over the last few days.

For example, here's the same chart from a few weeks ago:



At that point (as we see in the new chart) deaths were rising, but in the chart it looks like they were falling to zero.

It's not like that with most states. Florida uses its own reporting method, which creates that permanent fake appearance of COVID recently having vanished. That's great if you're trying to lure tourists to the state, but it's wildly misleading.

Again, that's the issue I'm calling out. Without standardization, it's impossible to make informed decisions. Like say I'm trying to decide whether to go to Disney World or Disneyland. If COVID risk is part of my equation, I need to be sophisticated enough to know that a California/Florida data comparison is apples to oranges. I can't just take the DeSantisized data from Florida and imagine it's giving me a fair appraisal of the risk level there. I need to adjust it to account for the gaming of the numbers by the DeSantis regime.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I understand what you're saying and you are correct. Ever since the pandemic showed up, there's been accusations here
in Florida nearly every other day regarding the covid and monkeypox viruses reporting. DeSantis and his cockroach administration have
repeatedly played down the figures all over the board, mainly so (I quote) "The Tourists don't need to hear the downside of Florida"
Which makes perfect sense..If you ignore something bad, it will go away..according to Florida-Man.

Florida Department of Health Sets the Record Straight on False Data Claims by the Miami Herald | Florida Department of Health

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Today, the Miami Herald published an article riddled with contradictions and false claims – specifically in regards to their front page headline[https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253796898.html]: “Florida changed its COVID-19 data, creating an ‘artificial...

www.floridahealth.gov

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Throughout the pandemic, it's been hard to get a clear idea of what's really going on, because of inconsistencies around testing and reporting.

Consider Texas and Massachusetts, since they're near opposite ends of the US political spectrum. How bad is COVID right now in each place?

Well, if you take the official stats, TX has a COVID infection rate of 40/100k, versus 24/100k in MA. So, you might think the infection rate is around 67% higher in Texas. But Massachusetts is doing nearly four times as much testing, per capita, as Texas. So, it's reasonable to assume they're catching a larger share of total infections, and that the gap in true infection rates in those two states is much larger than 67%. Since there's no standardization around testing, the official infection rates are practically worthless.

So, how about hospitalization data? Right now TX has 4,062 people hospitalized with COVID, versus 655 in Massachusetts. That's 13.76/100k in TX, versus 9.38/100k in MA. But, are the hospitals applying the same standards? Like could one state be testing a larger share of patients, or reporting more incidental cases up (e.g., people hospitalized for something else, but coincidentally COVID positive)? A reality check is the ICU data -- how many COVID patients are actually in the ICU in each place? It's 2.09/100k in TX and 0.74/10k in MA. That suggests things are 180% worse in TX, not 67% worse.

Official COVID death stats are also practically worthless, since in many cases it's a gray-area judgment call whether to label a given death a COVID death, in a situation where it may have been a contributing factor but it's not certain the person would have survived if not for COVID.

These issues aren't new, either. For example, since the start of the pandemic (March 2020 through the second week of July 2022), TX has counted 326.33 COVID deaths per 100k, versus 268.53/100k in MA. That suggests Texas was just 22% worse. Yet in terms of excess deaths (total deaths relative to those expected from pre-pandemic trends), TX has had 376.74/100k, versus 151.00/100 for MA. So that suggests TX was about 149% worse.

Some of the same problems persist within states, either regionally or across time (e.g., changes in reporting standards creating fictitious improvement or worsening, or differences in standards creating fictitious local hotspots). It's frustrating that so far into the pandemic, there's still no standardization of methods that might allow meaningful analysis of the data, to assess risk.

Like, if you're trying to make an informed decision about whether indoor dining is enough of a risk to avoid in a given place in a given time, you can't just look at official reported stats. You need a deeper awareness of testing and reporting standards in that place and time, to interpret its official data. A reported infection rate of 30/100k in one place and time may indicate an acceptable risk (on par with a normal year's risk of going out to eat during flu season), while the same 30/100k in another time or place may indicate ten times that risk level, such that you'd be wise to steer clear of the restaurants for a while.

While it is very likely that there is no interstate standardization, each state is likely to be using its own "fudge factor" consistently.

That means that, while the raw numbers may not accurately reflect the actual state of affairs, the changes in those raw numbers are likely to accurately reflect the change in the actual state of affairs.