For the "Close School" Crowd, help me with interpret these numbers...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Both Moco and MCPS 7 day positivity going down rapidly.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/covid19/data/ very low risk of transmission even as we have a high number of cases. This means positive case rate is dropping, as we are seeing in MCPS: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/coronavirus/dashboard/ https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2020%20Daily%20Data.pdf 1/20 - grand total 279 https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2013%20Daily%20Data.pdf 1/13 - grand total 1015 1/6 - grand total 1842 I'm so glad my kids' schools stayed open even though one DC was quarantined for 10 days. |
Anonymous
Ditto. When my 15 yo DD tested positive she cried - not because she had Covid, but because she was going to miss so much in person school. |
Anonymous
You're still exploiting that poor family? |
Anonymous
Thanks for gathering the data in one place! |
Anonymous
Seriously. Some of these posters have lost all touch with reality. They’re borderline hysterical. And I don’t mean funny. |
Anonymous
The chart you posted says “high risk of transmission,” not “very low.” |
Anonymous
NP. Are we really doing this again? There are five metrics. Some of them show "high risk." One of them shows "very low risk." You can debate which metric you think matters most, but let's have the literacy skills you'd expect from a high school freshman. |
Anonymous
Hah, of course there's a typo in a message where I'm snarky. There are three metrics that show transmission risk, not five. |
Anonymous
I'm not in any particular camp on this issue, but I think some of what you posted above is fairly misleading, and we should put in context. As a whole, MoCo considers the hospital system to be "low utilization" when less than 80% of beds in the county are occupied. Right now, we are at 75%. This has been relatively steady over the past few weeks. Note that MoCo is holding up better than the state as a whole given we have a higher vaccination rate, healthier population, and better hospital infrastructure. Your use of the CHATS data is cherry picked and is going to create unnecessary fear. First of all, 17 of the 26 Region V hospitals are not in yellow or red status. Second, what it means to be yellow or red is not quite what you're implying. In the normal course, hospitals go into yellow or red status constantly. For example, if you go back to the data before Covid, you'll see most hospitals frequently having brief temporary periods of being yellow or red. This is a way for EMS to route new patients to hospitals with the most capacity, and it's a function of the fact that our system operates in the normal course with limited flex capacity. For the vast majority of people, it is perfectly fine to go to an ER at a hospital that is temporarily in yellow or red status. If there's a need to admit and it makes sense to transport to another hospital, they will do that. Note too for some context that one of the red status hospitals you cite above currently has a 15 minute ER wait time. If the existence of some hospitals in the county being in yellow or red status means schools should close, schools would frequently be closed, and all of us would have grown up with 13 years of frequently virtual instruction. As for hospitalizations lagging cases... the state data shows hospitalizations already declining. Acute Covid patients in the state are down 400 over the last week, and ICU Covid patients are down about 70. The peak of hospital usage from this wave was around January 10th. It has past. |
Anonymous
People see what they want to see, even if the evidence is right before their eyes. Case in point: Trump and his followers. Yes, it shows right on the dashboard: "Percent change in cases: very low risk of transmission". "test Positivity rate: high transmission". I stated clearly "very low RISK of transmission". The doomsdayers only see "high transmission", not the "RISK". The doomsdayers do not know how to assess RISK. Do these people ever go skiing? Because that's kind of a "high risk" sport -- people die; break bones, etc.. yet, people still go skiing. We do (though we haven't in the past few years), even though I have been hurt skiing. I got hit by a car crossing the road. Bones fractured; concussion. I still cross the road, same spot. Why? Because there is still LOW RISK. Not NO RISK, but LOW RISK. I'm just more careful. Same for skiing; we use helmets now and are more careful. I hope using shouty capitals for RISK gets the point across that this is about RISK, not about whether there is or is not covid going around. |
Anonymous
Wastewater analysis shows you are wrong. |
Anonymous
Don't waste your breath. Doomsdayers see what they want to see. They can hole up in their house forever with their high anxiety. I'm telling my DC to become a therapist. Whole lot of people are going to need mental health therapy due to their high anxiety. |
Anonymous
The amount of testing in the state and the county has been pretty much constant this month. The data for the 20th was just reported, and the seven day average in MoCo is now 15.02% for tests administered. For context, the seven day average on the 13th was 23.58%, and on the 6th it was 26.1%. The daily percentage has been around 10% in recent days, so you will see the seven day average fall below 15% beginning tomorrow, and it will continue to fall from there. |
Anonymous
Even if the amount of testing is down, it could mean several things: 1. people are not showing symptoms, so they don't test 2. people are not being exposed to people who tested positive, so they don't test 3. people recently had covid (which we know a lot of people did recently), so, they don't need to test again. In any case, all signs are going in a positive direction, that is it's going negative. Event the covid ICU hospitalization rate has been trending down rapidly. That should be a good indicator as well that less and less people are getting serious symptoms. |
Anonymous
PP at whom you were snarking here. Writing "five" where you meant "three" is not a typo. At any rate, the real number is six. So, you misread the chart. Maybe you shouldn't be so snarky. I did not misread the chart. This set of charts has a summary at the top, headed "Level of community transmission" that says "high risk." That's the overall COVID-related risk, assessed via the cumulative consideration of the six (not three or five) metrics on the page labeled "1 of 7." That high level of overall risk is reflected in the two things labeled "primary metrics" both reading "high transmission" and one out of the five others labeled as "secondary indicators" reading "very low." The only "very low" metric is the metric that reflects rate of change. Rate of change is important to us as a group but irrelevant to an individual, since an individual's likelihood of encountering COVID in the community has nothing to do with the rate of change and everything to do with what proportion of people are walking around with active COVID infections. |