Coronavirus in DFW - News & Discussion (Dallas, Howe: guidelines, health care)

[RJ312]

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavi...ounty/2340435/

Most current tally of the Dallas County death toll. 367 infected.

[lpepping]

Originally Posted by RJ312

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavi...ounty/2340435/

Most current tally of the Dallas County death toll. 367 deaths.

Article says 367 infected. Not deaths.

[RJ312]

Originally Posted by lpepping

Article says 367 infected. Not deaths.

Early morning. Missed that. Original post edited. 367 cases isn't a lot for a county of Dallas' size. The real total is above 367 due to limited testing.

[MrJester]

Seems like Dallas quickly and decisively responded to COVID-19.

They shut down the GW Bush pres. Library and Ross Perot Museum on 3/14. I think even most cities on the West Coast hadn't closed their museums that early.

[CDContribuitor]

This is just my opinion based obseving data around the world; 3 Factors working in favor of DFW - Relatively lower density of people, relatively lower number of tourism and relatively higher temperatures.

Also, I have to commend Judge Jenkins on his leadership to announce the shelter-in-place relatively quicker than other places.

Originally Posted by RJ312

Early morning. Missed that. Original post edited. 367 cases isn't a lot for a county of Dallas' size. The real total is above 367 due to limited testing.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by sanz7887

Thanks for the the info. I had been telling everyone about it . There must be a reason that in China we saw the authorities cracking down on people who were outside without masks.

In the rest of the world , we are being told its no big deal . Masks are only to be worn by the sick. When someone is asymptomatic, they dont know and can spread germs without knowing

The medical community is lying to us about the masks.


N95 masks such as these are explicitly designed, tested (by both the government and the manufacturers), and advertised to prevent particles and vapors (atomized droplets) from being inhaled. I've used them for decades when spray painting projects or using chemicals that emit dangerous fumes. That's what they're designed for.


Now, that's not the case with "surgical masks." I haven't personally done any research on the effectiveness of surgical masks because I've researched and bought the devices that do what I need them to do...the N95 masks. I suspect that even surgical masks help by a small factor, though; someone is going to have to explain to me the science that says a fiber filter is not equally effective in both directions.



I've noted the medical community "deceives with specific facts" in this regard by conflating less effective surgical masks with the highly effective N95 masks and just says, "Masks won't help you."


If they said something like, "The full effectiveness of masks is dependent on proper fit," that would be the truth. If they said, "Surgical masks are less effective than N95 masks," that would also be the truth.


But "Masks won't help prevent contracting the disease" is a lie. If they're not lying, then the manufacturers of the masks and the government that tests them has been lying to us for decades.


I think, rather, it's the medical community that is lying now because they want to have more masks available for their use. And I get that. I totally get that, I totally understand that, and I totally agree with that. They should be honest with it, and government and manufacturers should make sure they get first choice and lion's share of all the masks that are available.


But don't lie to us about it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

The medical community is lying to us about the masks.


N95 masks such as these are explicitly designed, tested (by both the government and the manufacturers), and advertised to prevent particles and vapors (atomized droplets) from being inhaled. I've used them for decades when spray painting projects or using chemicals that emit dangerous fumes. That's what they're designed for.


Now, that's not the case with "surgical masks." I haven't personally done any research on the effectiveness of surgical masks because I've researched and bought the devices that do what I need them to do...the N95 masks. I suspect that even surgical masks help by a small factor, though; someone is going to have to explain to me the science that says a fiber filter is not equally effective in both directions.



I've noted the medical community "deceives with specific facts" in this regard by conflating less effective surgical masks with the highly effective N95 masks and just says, "Masks won't help you."


If they said something like, "The full effectiveness of masks is dependent on proper fit," that would be the truth. If they said, "Surgical masks are less effective than N95 masks," that would also be the truth.


But "Masks won't help prevent contracting the disease" is a lie. If they're not lying, then the manufacturers of the masks and the government that tests them has been lying to us for decades.


I think, rather, it's the medical community that is lying now because they want to have more masks available for their use. And I get that. I totally get that, I totally understand that, and I totally agree with that. They should be honest with it, and government and manufacturers should make sure they get first choice and lion's share of all the masks that are available.


But don't lie to us about it.

I'm not sure the medical community is saying N95 masks won't help -- at least not at this point. There is a very good argument, though, that given the shortage of N95 masks, we shouldn't be trying to buy them at this point.

I heard Dr. Fauci explain that the holes in an N95 mask are about three times the size of a small droplet that can carry coronavirus, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective. His analogy was that of a crowd of people trying to rush into a building that had doorways that were only three times the size of a human. With that many people, there will be a significant filtering/slowing effect.

I found (!) an N95 in my cabinet a couple weeks ago, and I've worn it when I have gone to the grocery store. I also have a P95 (even better) that is still in the packaging that I bought last year. I'll use it if this thing continues and I have more than one or two trips to the grocery store to make.

[RJ312]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...omparison.html

This article has a good comparison of cases of Coronavirus per 1,000 residents by area. The most affected areas as measured by cases per thousand residents are

1. New York City
2. Albany, Georgia
3. New Orleans
4. Edwards, Colorado
5. Hailey, Idaho

Edwards, Colorado is near Vail and Beaver Creek. The two ski/snowboard mountain spots seemed to produce an inordinate amount of cases. Earlier in this thread, a poster mentioned a DFW resident who likely contracted it in Vail. Hailey, Idaho is near Sun Valley, another very popular mountain resort. New Orleans has Mardi Gras.

Houston and San Antonio are the large Texas metros with the lowest rates of Coronavirus infections. Austin is the highest, followed by Dallas/DFW. Waco and Bryan/College Station are midsized areas with a fair number of cases.

Far West Texas seems isolated from this.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by RJ312

Early morning. Missed that. Original post edited. 367 cases isn't a lot for a county of Dallas' size. The real total is above 367 due to limited testing.

The concern with pandemics is growth rate, and unfortunately, that's not good.

As you mentioned, our testing is only capturing a portion of cases, too. In fact, if our testing has been reasonably decent, we (the whole country) have a ~5% death rate with this virus. How do I know that? By looking at the number of deaths each new case is producing. New deaths run on a roughly one week lag from new positive tests (new positive tests run on about a one week lag from virus contraction). One week ago, we had 5,588 new cases. Yesterday, we had 401 deaths. That's a 7% death rate. Even if we average out yesterday's deaths with those from the day before (268), we get a 5.9% death rate. Moving this forward or back a day or two doesn't change much. This virus does not have a 5%+ death rate. Rather, we simply have way more cases than our positive test results are showing.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

The concern with pandemics is growth rate, and unfortunately, that's not good.

As you mentioned, our testing is only capturing a portion of cases, too. In fact, if our testing has been reasonably decent, we (the whole country) have a ~5% death rate with this virus. How do I know that? By looking at the number of deaths each new case is producing. New deaths run on a roughly one week lag from new positive tests (new positive tests run on about a one week lag from virus contraction). One week ago, we had 5,588 new cases. Yesterday, we had 401 deaths. That's a 7% death rate. Even if we average out yesterday's deaths with those from the day before (268), we get a 5.9% death rate. Moving this forward or back a day or two doesn't change much. This virus does not have a 5%+ death rate. Rather, we simply have way more cases than our positive test results are showing.

My son mentioned something called "doubling rate". Our doubling rate as of about 24hrs. ago was slowing in the face of increased testing. That seems to indicate that shutting social gatherings and cleaning practices etc. may be working to a degree.

Your logic vis a vis positive test results and death rates seems right on to me.