Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 18.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3054

  • Pen

    2322

  • square_25

    1727

  • Arcadia

    1337

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

That's not a blanket right.  If my religion required human sacrifice, I can't practice it.  If my religion required sexual assault, I can't practice it. Freedom of religion isn't a blanket right

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

Sounds like same ballpark:  8% or .87.

Either 8 out of 100 or almost 9 out of 100 

Close enough?

 

 

Oops, no, it's .87% here. I better go fix that. It's 1.1% for those 18-29, 4% for 30-49, 8% for 50-64, 22% for 65-84, and 29% for those 85+.

Edited by kdsuomi
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Oops, no, it's .87% here. I better go fix that.

 

I’d already messed up anyway as I saw it as if it were a .08  I am sure it can’t be 80%!   (But .87% hospitalizations  is lower than figures I have seen.) 

 

An article I saw had:

“The CDC cautions that most reports of coronavirus cases among children are incomplete, which adds uncertainty to the report's specific numbers.

Relatively few children with COVID-19 ended up in the hospital, and fewer still required intensive care. But hospitalization status was known in only 29% of cases involving children. 

Based on the partial data analyzed in this study, between 5.7% and 20% of sick children end up in the hospital, and 2% or fewer end up in intensive care, the paper says. For adults ages 18-64, the proportion hospitalized was between 10% and 33%, and 1.4% to 4.5% required intensive care. “

Edited by Pen
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Yes. They do.

 

 

I don’t have any testing information.

Here is worldometer chart showing Costa Rica and Australia if it comes through properly

 

If HCQ had been helping, I hope getting back on will help them again as they had been doing wonderfully and then went into a steep increase — whether caused by HCQ withdrawal or not

 

C2F2C703-2FD6-41F4-8954-E5EB698E95DB.jpeg

Looks like our cfr is higher and has gone up some since I last calculated (not surprising with the aged care outbreak).

i did check median age and it looks like we have median age of 37 and Costa Rica is 31.7 (from 2018).  Percentage of population over 65 for Aus is 16 versus 10 for Costa Rica.  
 

I guess this is why I really would like to see good trials that correct for all the stuff.  I’m not anti HCQ and I might consider it for myself given no heart issues etc but would probably discourage people in my life with previous heart problems from taking it.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I saw a similar article earlier as well.

The reason the article described for the change in numbers is that they were actually counting people who didn't have Covid on their death certificate.  They were counting people based on having had a covid diagnosis in the past, and not based on what was on their death certificates.  It was almost like those conspiracy theories that talk about people who die in, for example, a car accident, but were then found to be covid positive being counted as covid deaths.

But, I can't find the article now either, it was a couple of hours ago that I saw it.  Maybe some news person published an article without checking for conspiracy theory sources. 🤷‍♀️

 

Ok, I did find something

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-casualties/uk-to-review-potentially-faulty-england-covid-19-death-data-idUSKCN24I1A0

 

 

It makes sense to change it but not to rule out all deaths with covid test over 28 days surely given how many people are sick for longer than that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, my daughter in Switzerland reports that they've gone from about 7 cases (early June or so, after the first big wave and shutdown) then slowly up and up to 274 today following the reopening of almost everything.  On the plus side, Geneva has mandated masks for University students in the fall.  I sent her some pretty masks early in the summer and she's been slowly relearning how to be outside.  She puts me on facetime and "we" walk around the old town or to a shop.  Very few people are wearing them on the street, but I keep telling her what a fashion and health trend she's starting!  There are lots of masks for sale in all the shops, just not on people's faces yet.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

It makes sense to change it but not to rule out all deaths with covid test over 28 days surely given how many people are sick for longer than that?

I don't think it's all deaths with the covid tests over 28 days.  But, I am not sure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't think it's all deaths with the covid tests over 28 days.  But, I am not sure.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53722711?__twitter_impression=true
 

I found this from BBC.  Looks like it’s a hard 28 day cut off.  If you die on a ventilator after 4 weeks and 1 day it won’t be counted as covid.  However apparently lots of other countries are already doing this which seems dumb as well.  UK is also going to publish a 60 day statistic separately.  I had assumed that deaths would have been going on what the certifying doctor believed the person died of not car crashes as covid and not covid as other cause but apparently not.  Weird.

excess mortality is well above the new death statistic although 1000 or so below the old one which seems to indicate they’re doing it wrong either way.  If the stats I’m finding are right.

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53722711?__twitter_impression=true
 

I found this from BBC.  Looks like it’s a hard 28 day cut off.  If you die on a ventilator after 4 weeks and 1 day it won’t be counted as covid.  However apparently lots of other countries are already doing this which seems dumb as well.  UK is also going to publish a 60 day statistic separately.  I had assumed that deaths would have been going on what the certifying doctor believed the person died of not car crashes as covid and not covid as other cause but apparently not.  Weird.

excess mortality is well above the new death statistic although 1000 or so below the old one which seems to indicate they’re doing it wrong either way.  If the stats I’m finding are right.

That's the article I saw earlier. It is deaths in England and it's to bring them in line with other parts of the UK. It does seem a bit silly though, as,  if you are on a vent because of Covid and you die after 4 weeks it was still the cause.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Looks like our cfr is higher and has gone up some since I last calculated (not surprising with the aged care outbreak).

i did check median age and it looks like we have median age of 37 and Costa Rica is 31.7 (from 2018).  Percentage of population over 65 for Aus is 16 versus 10 for Costa Rica.  
 

 

It’s hard to make apples to oranges comparisons.  

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I guess this is why I really would like to see good trials that correct for all the stuff.  

I would like for it to be available for use easily without a fight Including for prophylaxis—for more vulnerable people by age or health status or work exposures.

1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not anti HCQ and I might consider it for myself given no heart issues etc but would probably discourage people in my life with previous heart problems from taking it.  

 

 

No. Unless the specific heart issue is evaluated as not a contraindication it should not be used by people with heart problems or known allergy or past bad reactions to drugs in its class.  That just seems like basic common sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

It’s hard to make apples to oranges comparisons.  

I would like for it to be available for use easily without a fight Including for prophylaxis—for more vulnerable people by age or health status or work exposures.

 

No. Unless the specific heart issue is evaluated as not a contraindication it should not be used by people with heart problems or known allergy or past bad reactions to drugs in its class.  That just seems like basic common sense. 

I think as it stands you can use it but it should be part of a clinical trial.  This makes sense to me because it means we are going to build a better picture of the data.  Whereas if we prescribe it without tracking the outcomes we will never actually know whether it’s helping or not. As far as I can see from data we have now the risks are relatively low but so are the benefits.   I’m open to changing my mind on that but I just want to see something to make it seem like that.  Also not that I have a tonne of say but I hope that we don’t invest so much into researching this one drug that isn’t showing dramatic changes in outcomes and miss spending money and time on researching something else that might be better.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TCB said:

That's the article I saw earlier. It is deaths in England and it's to bring them in line with other parts of the UK. It does seem a bit silly though, as,  if you are on a vent because of Covid and you die after 4 weeks it was still the cause.

If anything it would seem like countries using this method may have been undercounting deaths by a bit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No new cases here again.  Still a little soon to be confident but hopefully the little outbreak hasn’t led to anymore spread.  
 

they are changing rules in SA so people can’t work across multiple aged care facilities and anyone coming within 1.5m of An aged care resident must wear appropriate PPE (basically just a mask except on certain circumstances a face shield).  Laws are being tightened around border communities which I imagine will be a major headache for some.  We are watching NZ with a bit of trepidation although we have kept some measure of distancing here we haven’t gone to fully open.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think as it stands you can use it but it should be part of a clinical trial.  This makes sense to me because it means we are going to build a better picture of the data.  Whereas if we prescribe it without tracking the outcomes we will never actually know whether it’s helping or not. As far as I can see from data we have now the risks are relatively low but so are the benefits.   I’m open to changing my mind on that but I just want to see something to make it seem like that.  Also not that I have a tonne of say but I hope that we don’t invest so much into researching this one drug that isn’t showing dramatic changes in outcomes and miss spending money and time on researching something else that might be better.  

 

I think Australia has few enough cases and deaths per population that that’s a reasonable approach for Australia.

I think USA is in more of an India, Costa Rica, Brazil situation and needs  potential help in pandemic illness reduction tools more readily and more immediately available.  And that time and energy should go to the research of new something elses that would be better. I think when excellent something elses are established people will gravitate to those new something betters.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Just saw that NZ had another 13 cases linked to the 4 so 17 in total!  I’m sure they are glad they locked down so fast.

I saw that 😞 . I hope they figure this out soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Quite a lot of people take longer than 4 weeks.

 

Yes. The underlying  impetus for this is that Scotland and Wales already count this way, so England looks worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Yes. The underlying  impetus for this is that Scotland and Wales already count this way, so England looks worse. 

 

So based on how much it dropped the figures  England , what should we use as a multiplier to get a picture of UK deaths including those who died more than 28 days out? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

So based on how much it dropped the figures  England , what should we use as a multiplier to get a picture of UK deaths including those who died more than 28 days out? 

 

This page gives three measures of numbers of deaths. Probably death certificates is most complete 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

ETA: This statistician discusses the overall figures in a fairly dispassionate way (article from ten days ago):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/02/uk-covid-19-excess-deaths?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

NYT article suggests that we are seriously undercounting Covid deaths, since there were 219,000 excess deaths from March 1st to July 25th. There are lots more charts and graphs in the article, which is well worth a read.

Screen Shot 2020-08-13 at 1.45.35 AM.png

Excess deaths are useful but don't necessary show Covid deaths only.  People with other illnesses who don't go to hospital because they fear Covid would also be included, for example.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We shopped on store today . Not groceries but department store because I needed some stationery for school.  The shelves are definitely looking bare here.  I’m wondering how long till they go back to normal.  If ever?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

“#UAE’s Phase III COVID-19 inactivated vaccine trial achieves milestone of 15,000 vaccinated volunteers from 107 Nationalities. 
The UAE Nation Thanks You.
The World Thanks You.
We Thank You For Joining #4Humanity”

from UAEs health department.  I hadn’t heard about this trial.  Good to see another one getting closer.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Israeli press tends to breathlessly report domestic scientific advances, and three patients are three patients, but this is encouraging nonetheless.  Bodes well for those monoclonal antibody products under development as well.  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2020 at 9:50 PM, TCB said:

I think the worrying thing for me is that a number of people taking months to recover, or at least having problems months later as we don’t know enough to know about actually recovering, are people who weren’t severely ill initially and were not hospitalized. My cousin’s friend, mid 20s, wasn’t severely ill with it, didn’t have to even go to the ER, now has sats down to 84% when she exercises. It is a really weird disease.

Now that we are trying not to intubate people I think that in some ways it is more difficult for them, although fantastic that they survive. They sit there for days, coughing and breathing with optiflow tubing stuck up their nose, getting very little sleep because of all the coughing and breathing etc. It is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

I really appreciate your perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I’d already messed up anyway as I saw it as if it were a .08  I am sure it can’t be 80%!   (But .87% hospitalizations  is lower than figures I have seen.) 

 

An article I saw had:

“The CDC cautions that most reports of coronavirus cases among children are incomplete, which adds uncertainty to the report's specific numbers.

Relatively few children with COVID-19 ended up in the hospital, and fewer still required intensive care. But hospitalization status was known in only 29% of cases involving children. 

Based on the partial data analyzed in this study, between 5.7% and 20% of sick children end up in the hospital, and 2% or fewer end up in intensive care, the paper says. For adults ages 18-64, the proportion hospitalized was between 10% and 33%, and 1.4% to 4.5% required intensive care. “

MN numbers are a lot lower than this too. 2.9% of under 20 yo cases are hospitalized. 0.5% have needed care in ICU. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

So far, here .87% of confirmed cases in under 18s has been hospitalized. 

 

13 hours ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

There's a factor of 10 there.

8% would be close to .087 if they're meaning it as a decimal.  Or if it's .87% it would be close to 0.8%.

I think all of that was corrected before I read the replies, but I am nearly positive the local guy said 8% and that he prefaced it moments earlier with a mention of "nearly 10%" or something like that.

12 hours ago, Pen said:

An article I saw had:

“The CDC cautions that most reports of coronavirus cases among children are incomplete, which adds uncertainty to the report's specific numbers.

Relatively few children with COVID-19 ended up in the hospital, and fewer still required intensive care. But hospitalization status was known in only 29% of cases involving children. 

Based on the partial data analyzed in this study, between 5.7% and 20% of sick children end up in the hospital, and 2% or fewer end up in intensive care, the paper says. For adults ages 18-64, the proportion hospitalized was between 10% and 33%, and 1.4% to 4.5% required intensive care. “

The local children's hospital guy said that their cases are also likely incomplete, but he feels it's a decent number based on who/why they test. He went through the various profiles of kids who get tested, and it includes presumably healthy kids who are having surgery to find asymptomatic cases (and possibly other invasive procedures--I can't remember). These hospitals do a lot of surgery ranging from heart stuff to removing teeth. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TracyP said:

MN numbers are a lot lower than this too. 2.9% of under 20 yo cases are hospitalized. 0.5% have needed care in ICU. 

 

I have friends in medicine fields in some different places (not MN), but talking with them it seems like very different situations and experiences exist in different places.  I think it is mostly a matter of who is in hotspots or hospitals dealing more with CV  (or also field of work) versus not, but there may be more than that — like additional host internal environment or external factors that make things different and that have not yet been identified. 

 

ETA: 

I don’t know if you can use your local situation as fitting perhaps for your own area’s risk to children when making personal decisions or would be better off considering figures from elsewhere as a warning of not to let guard down because your area could become like _____ .   

 

We don’t even have any way I know of to have information on whether enough people have caught on to things like Vitamin D, zinc and ionophores, and/or degree of mask wearing, etc in some localities and if there are self help actions that could be making some difference in severity of cases and hospitalization. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TracyP said:

MN numbers are a lot lower than this too. 2.9% of under 20 yo cases are hospitalized. 0.5% have needed care in ICU. 

 

2 hours ago, kbutton said:

 

I think all of that was corrected before I read the replies, but I am nearly positive the local guy said 8% and that he prefaced it moments earlier with a mention of "nearly 10%" or something like that.

The local children's hospital guy said that their cases are also likely incomplete, but he feels it's a decent number based on who/why they test. He went through the various profiles of kids who get tested, and it includes presumably healthy kids who are having surgery to find asymptomatic cases (and possibly other invasive procedures--I can't remember). These hospitals do a lot of surgery ranging from heart stuff to removing teeth. 

 

OK.

Let’s assume that both figures are correct.

 

Can you two compare what you know of local area and practices and perhaps that would lead to some potential ideas of why the one area apparently has children doing so very very much better if they get sick than the other area? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I have friends in medicine fields in some different places (not MN), but talking with them it seems like very different situations and experiences exist in different places.  I think it is mostly a matter of who is in hotspots or hospitals dealing more with CV  (or also field of work) versus not, but there may be more than that — like additional host internal environment or external factors that make things different and that have not yet been identified. 

 

 

It really does seem like there can be vast differences depending on location. My own theory is that the big difference is testing. I think these low numbers 0.87% - 2.9% reflect what it looks like when you are finding say 30-50% of the cases. I think in hotspots that number looks more like finding 10-20% of cases at best, and that really skews the numbers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

 

OK.

Let’s assume that both figures are correct.

 

Can you two compare what you know of local area and practices and perhaps that would lead to some potential ideas of why the one area apparently has children doing so very very much better if they get sick than the other area? 

 

To expand on what I just posted, we are doing a lot of testing in MN. Pretty much every location that has a healthcare facility has testing. The state has a site that lets people know each location's guidelines, about half of the sites test symptomatic people. The other half tests both symptomatic and anyone asymptomatic with suspected exposure. It seems like most people get results in 3-5 days and we have decent contact tracing as far as I can tell. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TracyP said:

To expand on what I just posted, we are doing a lot of testing in MN. Pretty much every location that has a healthcare facility has testing. The state has a site that lets people know each location's guidelines, about half of the sites test symptomatic people. The other half tests both symptomatic and anyone asymptomatic with suspected exposure. It seems like most people get results in 3-5 days and we have decent contact tracing as far as I can tell. 

 

Maybe it just hasn’t been enough time yet from increase in children infected for cases to turn more serious?

https://www.startribune.com/children-teens-fuel-minnesota-covid-19-case-growth/572076732/

 

My impression has been that older people seem to be more like to get very very sick and die more quickly or even to be dead before CV19 was realized.  With children there seems to be a much longer time from infection... maybe even a huge gap to a later possibly related MIS

I wish though that it would turn out that MN is actively doing something that helps and that elsewhere could copy. 

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

 

OK.

Let’s assume that both figures are correct.

 

Can you two compare what you know of local area and practices and perhaps that would lead to some potential ideas of why the one area apparently has children doing so very very much better if they get sick than the other area? 

 

 

From what we've been told, our area tests more children than other places, so that could affect our numbers. We've also been lower on the bad outcomes than neighboring places, and our director of public health isn't entirely sure why. Our county is very, very, very big on being outside whenever possible, though, so I think that has something to do with it. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

Maybe it just hasn’t been enough time yet from increase in children infected for cases to turn more serious?

https://www.startribune.com/children-teens-fuel-minnesota-covid-19-case-growth/572076732/

I don't think that is it. That increase has been going on since June. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox9.com/news/covid-19-cases-among-minnesota-children-and-young-people-surged-in-june.amp

Quote

 

My impression has been that older people seem to be more like to get very very sick and die more quickly or even to be dead before CV19 was realized.  With children there seems to be a much longer time from infection... maybe even a huge gap to a later possibly related MIS

There can definitely be a gap when MIS becomes an issue. This could become an issue going forward. Otherwise, I've heard that cases in young people often become severe more quickly than older people. This was due to cytokine storm causing more issues in younger people and pneumonia impacting older people. I don't remember where I heard that so feel free to correct me if you have a source for the opposite being true.

Quote

I wish though that it would turn out that MN is actively doing something that helps and that elsewhere could copy. 

Yeah, that'd be great but I don't think that's the case. I definitely could be wrong, but I suspect that places with these lower rates will eventually be shown to be much closer to accurate. It comes back to the number problem we have always had - we just aren't working with a good denominator yet. When places not experiencing outbreaks are doing a decent job on testing we start to get a clearer picture.

Edited by TracyP
Removed info that was really beside the point
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TracyP said:

I don't think that is it. That increase has been going on since June. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox9.com/news/covid-19-cases-among-minnesota-children-and-young-people-surged-in-june.amp

Also while more cases would cause the raw numbers to increase, the percentage being hospitalized should remain steady assuming there is consistency in the percentage of cases you are testing/finding.

There can definitely be a gap when MIS becomes an issue. This could become an issue going forward. Otherwise, I've heard that cases in young people often become severe more quickly than older people. This was due to cytokine storm causing more issues in younger people and pneumonia impacting older people. I don't remember where I heard that so feel free to correct me if you have a source for the opposite being true.

Yeah, that'd be great but I don't think that's the case. I definitely could be wrong, but I suspect that places with these lower rates will eventually be shown to be much closer to accurate. It comes back to the number problem we have always had - we just aren't working with a good denominator yet. When places not experiencing outbreaks are doing a decent job on testing we start to get a clearer picture.

 

Could there be an ethnic/racial aspect?  

 

For example, Does MN have a large percentage of Native American, Hispanic, Black, or South Asian or even perhaps darker skinned Mediterranean descent people? 

 

Hispanic children seem to need to be hospitalized at ~8 times rate for white children. So if MN has a low Hispanic population that itself might largely account for low pediatric hospitalization rates.

 

 

Do you know an MN CV19 hospitalization rate for children per population of children which could remove some of the testing and tracing aspect?

Edited by Pen
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Excess deaths are useful but don't necessary show Covid deaths only.  People with other illnesses who don't go to hospital because they fear Covid would also be included, for example.

Yes, of course the excess deaths aren't only Covid deaths, but that is a huge number of deaths that are unaccounted for. Worldometer lists 150,000 US Covid deaths as of 7/25, but the true excess death count was nearly 70,000 higher than that. 

It is a widespread talking point in certain US political circles that the Covid death count is vastly inflated, and that the disease is not nearly as dangerous as scientists claim. If that were true then the excess death count should be close to the official Covid count, or even below it, because a lot of non-Covid deaths would have been falsely included in the Covid count. Instead there have been nearly 70,000 more deaths, which certainly suggests that we are undercounting Covid deaths, not inflating them.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

“Members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network analyzed data on 576 children under age 18 years from 14 states who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1 and July 25, 2020.

The hospitalization rate for children was eight per 100,000 compared to 164.5 per 100,000 for adults, according to a new Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The weekly rate of pediatric hospitalizations rose throughout the study period.

Overall, the rate was highest for children under age 2 years at 25 per 100,000 children, compared to four per 100,000 for ages 2-4 years and six per 100,000 for ages 5-17 years.

Medical chart reviews for 208 patients showed the median hospital stay was 2.5 days. About 33% were admitted to the ICU and 6% required invasive mechanical ventilation compared to 32% and 19%, respectively for adults. One child with multiple underlying conditions died.

About 42% of the hospitalized children had an underlying condition, most commonly obesity, chronic lung disease or prematurity, according to the study.

The rate of hospitalization for Hispanic children was eight times higher than White children, and the rate for Black children was five times higher than White children. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My best friend’s mother is in a nursing home in Brenham, TX. Covid swept thru it months ago. Three more elderly have it now, and they’ve been moved 75 miles away to Halletsville. I tend to be suspicious, because this place tried to keep the news of their original patients secret. Now I’m trying to find numbers for Halletsville.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Just saw that NZ had another 13 cases linked to the 4 so 17 in total!  I’m sure they are glad they locked down so fast.

4 workers at the cold transport company and 10 of their family members (including 3 kids at 3 different schools).  2 at a financial agency where one of the cold storage family members worked. 1 friend. = 17 people in the cluster. All will be moved into the quarantine facilities.  No other cases in any other clusters have yet been found with 10K tests from yesterday. We will get more info from the next 10K tests this morning, and hopefully the genomic testing. 

One thing we get right is that we can turn on a dime.  One day everything open including a 43,000 person rugby match, next day all schools and workplaces closed and roadblocks set up.  The decision was made 6 hours after the positive test was found, and the lockdown was implemented overnight.

Edited by lewelma
  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cases in those ages <19 have doubled in the last two weeks in our area.  The big push for testing of school aged kids before the start of school in a month began earlier this week, and I'm told it's being attempted by health departments statewide.  Coincidentally, our state cases today were double what they were yesterday at 1,121.  Our local representatives said it will take a week to begin to see the test results in our county from these school testing sites.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pen said:

OK.

Let’s assume that both figures are correct.

Can you two compare what you know of local area and practices and perhaps that would lead to some potential ideas of why the one area apparently has children doing so very very much better if they get sick than the other area? 

I am really wondering about what I heard since the other numbers look different, but Ohio, particularly SW Ohio has some die-hard anti-mask groups, and there are plenty of people who have had kids out and about all summer.

2 hours ago, Pen said:

Could there be an ethnic/racial aspect?  

For example, Does MN have a large percentage of Native American, Hispanic, Black, or South Asian or even perhaps darker skinned Mediterranean descent people? 

Hispanic children seem to need to be hospitalized at ~8 times rate for white children. So if MN has a low Hispanic population that itself might largely account for low pediatric hospitalization rates.

Racial disparities (more cases and more severe cases among minority groups) were addressed by the various hospital directors in the press conference, but that's not the same as knowing what percentage of the sampled population is made up of individuals from minority groups affected by the disparity. 

I do know they feel that they are close to a random sampling as we could get in our state because they test both symptomatic and asymptomatic kids. 

2 hours ago, Pen said:

“Members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network analyzed data on 576 children under age 18 years from 14 states who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1 and July 25, 2020.

The hospitalization rate for children was eight per 100,000 compared to 164.5 per 100,000 for adults, according to a new Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The weekly rate of pediatric hospitalizations rose throughout the study period.

Overall, the rate was highest for children under age 2 years at 25 per 100,000 children, compared to four per 100,000 for ages 2-4 years and six per 100,000 for ages 5-17 years.

Medical chart reviews for 208 patients showed the median hospital stay was 2.5 days. About 33% were admitted to the ICU and 6% required invasive mechanical ventilation compared to 32% and 19%, respectively for adults. One child with multiple underlying conditions died.

About 42% of the hospitalized children had an underlying condition, most commonly obesity, chronic lung disease or prematurity, according to the study.

The rate of hospitalization for Hispanic children was eight times higher than White children, and the rate for Black children was five times higher than White children. “

So are these rates the number of hospitalized kids out of 100,000 kids who have COVID or 100,000 kids total, some of whom may not have COVID (so just 8/100,000 kids)? The numbers I heard were 8% of kids who have COVID are hospitalized. So, say the hospitalization rate of kids for COVID is 8 of 100,000 kids, not all of whom have COVID, that could still be in line with 8% of kids who have COVID, right? The stats I heard were for kids 18 and under, BTW, not broken down by age group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Could there be an ethnic/racial aspect?  

 

For example, Does MN have a large percentage of Native American, Hispanic, Black, or South Asian or even perhaps darker skinned Mediterranean descent people? 

 

Hispanic children seem to need to be hospitalized at ~8 times rate for white children. So if MN has a low Hispanic population that itself might largely account for low pediatric hospitalization rates.

MN is 83% white yet around 50% of our cases are in people of color. Hispanic and Black Minnesotans have been hit particularly hard by covid. (This gets a lot of news coverage here because that is such a huge disparity.) So I would say no, that does not seem to explain the difference

2 hours ago, Pen said:

 

 

Do you know an MN CV19 hospitalization rate for children per population of children which could remove some of the testing and tracing aspect?

Sorry, not sure what you're asking here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I am really wondering about what I heard since the other numbers look different, but Ohio, particularly SW Ohio has some die-hard anti-mask groups, and there are plenty of people who have had kids out and about all summer.

 

It looks like you guys have really good testing so I started digging into Ohio's numbers. I'm thinking maybe something got lost in translation. The overall hospitalization rate for your state is 11%. I found 235 hospitalizations for under 18yo there. I can't find the number of cases for this group. I found a newspaper article that said 13% of cases were from this group, but I couldn't tell if that was cumulative or for the month of July. Anyway if I go with 10% to be safe, that gives us 10,500. 235/10500 gives a 2.2% hospitalization rate in the under 18 crowd. That makes it really close to the 2.9% MN is seeing. 

Of course, I can't be sure. Maybe they meant 8% because they are seeing a new trend or something. Hopefully that's not the case...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TracyP said:

MN is 83% white yet around 50% of our cases are in people of color. 

Why do you say that would make no difference?

as compared to a state that is less than 40% white [people] and perhaps a higher Hispanic population than MN’s entire non-white population? 

 

 

20 minutes ago, TracyP said:

Hispanic and Black Minnesotans have been hit particularly hard by covid. (This gets a lot of news coverage here because that is such a huge disparity.) So I would say no, that does not seem to explain the difference

Sorry, not sure what you're asking here.

 

Some places publish hospitalization or other such statistics on a per population basis—in addition to a per case basis 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TracyP said:

It looks like you guys have really good testing so I started digging into Ohio's numbers. I'm thinking maybe something got lost in translation. The overall hospitalization rate for your state is 11%. I found 235 hospitalizations for under 18yo there. I can't find the number of cases for this group. I found a newspaper article that said 13% of cases were from this group, but I couldn't tell if that was cumulative or for the month of July. Anyway if I go with 10% to be safe, that gives us 10,500. 235/10500 gives a 2.2% hospitalization rate in the under 18 crowd. That makes it really close to the 2.9% MN is seeing. 

Of course, I can't be sure. Maybe they meant 8% because they are seeing a new trend or something. Hopefully that's not the case...

Thanks!

Our testing is decent--there are still people who struggle to get timely results or have some quirky things happen, but the state has tried really hard to shunt the testing to where it's most needed via pop-up sites that anyone can access. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...