Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Coronavirus/COVID-19
Reload this Page >

Fatality rates in CA

Notices
Coronavirus/COVID-19 Discussion of the novel coronavirus

Fatality rates in CA

Old 06-23-20, 01:09 PM
  #126  
skookum
cyclotourist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calgary, canada
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 70 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
It might be differently capable health services? Maybe Alberta's policies/social compliance are more effective at protecting the oldest, most vulnerable demographic? Would love to see more info.
It was a trick question. Alberta has 7700 cases based on 396 000 tests and BC has 2800 cases based on 180 000 tests. Both provinces have around 150 deaths.
Based on the number of deaths, hospitalizations, I would say the prevalence of the virus is pretty similar in both provinces. Probably a bit higher in Alberta,

Depending on which statistic you look at, one place can look way better than the other. So be careful with numbers.

I'm a bit of a numbers guy too, and I am quite fascinated by all the different statistics and graphs. Its really the only way to understand what is happening. But be cautious when interpreting the numbers.
skookum is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 02:00 PM
  #127  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
I'm all about 'being cautious with numbers'. So only truly randomized testing can claim to produce fatality statistics with no bias (no direction that the statistic is known to be off; I don't mean 'bias' in the pejorative, subjective way, I am using the technical statistical definition)

Wherever testing is not randomized, but based on symptoms or contact, the number of cases are going to be undercounted, because they'll miss the asymptomatic and those that ride their mild illness out at home and never report it. Death counts are inherently different, and basically not subject to underreporting. Basically the only way death statistics could be underreporting would be people dying alone at home and never being discovered. Probably happens here or there, but definitely much rarer than infection case underreporting.

So when BC has half as much testing, they have probably twice as bad case underreporting, so their high fatality stats are further from the truth than AB. Since AB has twice as much testing, they're not underreporting cases nearly as much, so their lower fatality stats are closer to the truth than BC.

If AB is actually conducting randomized testing, and following up on those randomly sampled to determine death or not, then their fatality stats will be unbiased -- as close to the truth as the statistically-derived error-bars dictate, and no reason to assume that whatever error remains might be on the high side or low side.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 03:16 PM
  #128  
skookum
cyclotourist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calgary, canada
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 70 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
I'm all about 'being cautious with numbers'. So only truly randomized testing can claim to produce fatality statistics with no bias (no direction that the statistic is known to be off; I don't mean 'bias' in the pejorative, subjective way, I am using the technical statistical definition)

Wherever testing is not randomized, but based on symptoms or contact, the number of cases are going to be undercounted, because they'll miss the asymptomatic and those that ride their mild illness out at home and never report it. Death counts are inherently different, and basically not subject to underreporting. Basically the only way death statistics could be underreporting would be people dying alone at home and never being discovered. Probably happens here or there, but definitely much rarer than infection case underreporting.

So when BC has half as much testing, they have probably twice as bad case underreporting, so their high fatality stats are further from the truth than AB. Since AB has twice as much testing, they're not underreporting cases nearly as much, so their lower fatality stats are closer to the truth than BC.

If AB is actually conducting randomized testing, and following up on those randomly sampled to determine death or not, then their fatality stats will be unbiased -- as close to the truth as the statistically-derived error-bars dictate, and no reason to assume that whatever error remains might be on the high side or low side.
They are not claiming to be doing random testing at this point, but they have talked about wanting to do that. I think its hard to organize. They are encouraging anyone that wants to be tested to do so. Its allergy season so lots of stuffy noses and sneezes that turn out not to be covid.
skookum is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 03:26 PM
  #129  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 18,790

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18066 Post(s)
Liked 1,694 Times in 1,240 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
I am focusing on the best data I've found, which is the L.A. Times page of coronavirus statistics visualizations. If you have less ephemeral numbers from better measures, please, I welcome them! I thirst for them!
...you will have a long and difficult time with this. The very circumstances that arise with pandemic disease (chaos, fear, confusion, breakdown in established systems) are the same ones that sabotage the numbers. It's just the way it is, and from my very extensive reading about the Spanish FFlu pandemic, I suspect it has always been this way. Thus we still have varying estimates off CFR for that pandemic.


Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
'actual experimental design' is not quite appropriate to what's going on. This snit is happening to us, obviously way out of our control and we're just trying to get a handle on it. There is no experimental design.
...in my statement, I referenced both experimental design and real world objectives. We have a real world objective here.


Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
Fatality rates don't change. For various demographics of age/health/medical access/qualityetc, the kill rate is what it is. The infection rate depends on how we behave as a society, and for every infection, the coronavirus rolls its fatality dice -- it's got a whole bag of differently-loaded dice for different groups of people.

So it's critically important to understand the fatality rate(s), so we can know who exactly are the most vulnerable, and just how vulnerable they are, so we can devote more of our limited protection resources to them. If we're going to do a half-assed job of it (which obviously we are), let's at least get that one cheek on target.
...OK, I begin to see the depth of the problem. You are a numbers guy, and for you, numbers don't lie. Here is an article from back in February, that I linked in teh P+R a month or two ago. Maybe you will enjoy it.


Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
Sigh. If I have time. Meanwhile I take on board your summary.




I don't think I have ever advocated a strategy. I am awash in ignorance. Probably I have asked questions, and probably that appeared to you and everybody else as 'Concern Trolling' (just learned that term on the 2nd closed homophobia thread), trying NOT to explicitly advocate for a certain policy, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. But really, honestly, I'm just asking questions. I just like numbers. I can do numbers.
...thank you. I am not a numbers guy, but I do constantly calculate rough odds in my head as situations arise. This habit is left over from my days in the fire department.

Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
Which I'm pretty sure must include measuring fatality rates. Ideally widespread random sampling, but since we don't have the bandwidth, we have to make the best inferences we can from the statistics we have.
...the science of epidemiology guys I trust and believe all seem to be advocating using a measure of how many deaths are excess from the normal annual curve adjusted for season. They have written extensively on why it's a more reliable measure of the effectiveness of our response. None of them are economists. So if you want to take a risk management approach from an economists standpoint, you're on your own as far as I'm concerned. There are not that many economists I feel have a good handle on pandemic disease.


Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
That sounds like the kind of scaremongering that's anti-mail-ballots. Is there evidence that's a real problem? Presumably CA is getting better results than, say, AZ, because our policies are stricter. If anything, people would be going to AZ to 'be free'. I heard on a podcast one guy talking about how he took his family to Phoenix for a few days of vacation, so they could eat at restaurants, the wife could get her hair did, etc.
...scare mongering ? If you're not afraid right now, I can only assume you are not paying attention. Your part of the state seems to be much more at risk right now than mine. But I can only go by what I read.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 05:02 PM
  #130  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
Originally Posted by skookum View Post
They are not claiming to be doing random testing at this point, but they have talked about wanting to do that. I think its hard to organize. They are encouraging anyone that wants to be tested to do so. Its allergy season so lots of stuffy noses and sneezes that turn out not to be covid.
Yeah, self-selection is fundamentally un-random. But yeah, it's not easy or cheap to organize scientifically random testing, especially if you're scrambling to keep up with testing needs to begin with.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 05:17 PM
  #131  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...OK, I begin to see the depth of the problem. You are a numbers guy, and for you, numbers don't lie. Here is an article from back in February, that I linked in teh P+R a month or two ago. Maybe you will enjoy it.
Thanks, that does look up my alley, I will enjoy reading it tonight and report back.

...the science of epidemiology guys I trust and believe all seem to be advocating using a measure of how many deaths are excess from the normal annual curve adjusted for season. They have written extensively on why it's a more reliable measure of the effectiveness of our response. None of them are economists. So if you want to take a risk management approach from an economists standpoint, you're on your own as far as I'm concerned. There are not that many economists I feel have a good handle on pandemic disease.
At the risk of triggering your maga-alarms again (I am an anti-Trump Republican fwiw), I'm not sure anybody's asking economists to weigh in. You don't ask health officials to think about the economics, and you don't ask economists to think about the epidemiology. You ask each about their respective expertise, and then the policymakers should try to onboard all available information and decide what the best policy is.

Probably pretty out of date by now in this rapidly changing situation, but here's a conversation with an economist: https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/58647
See especially the last segment, 'Experts should be on tap, not on top', although I also appreciated the middle section stressing the importance of random testing, that the best way out of this is for basically everybody that wants to be out in public has to get tested like weekly or more, and be able to display their sufficiently-recent coronavirus negative certification in order to gain access to public spaces.

...scare mongering ? If you're not afraid right now, I can only assume you are not paying attention. Your part of the state seems to be much more at risk right now than mine. But I can only go by what I read.
I am much more of a 'What, me scared?' chill kinda guy. But something that is definitely not on my list of things to be afraid of is covid patients being turned away from AZ/NV/UT hospitals and driving into CA to overrun our hospitals. Sounds about as realistic to me as 'all the mail ballots will be stolen and fraudulated!'
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 06:20 PM
  #132  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 18,790

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18066 Post(s)
Liked 1,694 Times in 1,240 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post


I am much more of a 'What, me scared?' chill kinda guy. But something that is definitely not on my list of things to be afraid of is covid patients being turned away from AZ/NV/UT hospitals and driving into CA to overrun our hospitals. Sounds about as realistic to me as 'all the mail ballots will be stolen and fraudulated!'
...no. I think I've been referencing hospital resources overwhelmed by Californians, especially in rural areas. But if there was some confusion, let me clear it up. What I was talking about was tourism, which is a big industry here, and draws people from all over the country. They pack their suitcases for a trip to Disneyland, and the germs just come along for the ride.

Do you find it as odd as I do, that a guy who does whatever you do in SoCal ,(who is not working with his hands and is OK for 9 months of shutdown), and has a doctorate in math is telling some bozo on the internet who spent the last part of his working life responding to all the serious injury/ shootings/ things that make you dead incidents, in the part of town he worked, 10 days a month on the A shift, not to be afraid ?

Maybe I have more of a sense of the random nature of how people die. I always wondered if any of those guys we worked on who croaked, or who were already croaked when we got there, had some premonition that today was the day ? Irrational fear is a bad thing. It paralyzes you. Rational fear is a built in instinct that helps keep you alive.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 06:28 PM
  #133  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
Well (a) I'm not telling you not to be afraid, I'm just saying I'm not afraid. (b) I'm sure from your public safety background you have a much more extensive 'sense of the random nature of how people die'. I'll admit I'm pretty sheltered from death, like most Americans. (c) problems from tourists seems more likely than the scenario I said. Has Disneyland reopened yet? I can't imagine anybody traveling for a vacation right now, knowing access to public attractions, restaurants, etc would be limited. But people do a lot of things I can't imagine doing.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 08:46 PM
  #134  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 18,790

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18066 Post(s)
Liked 1,694 Times in 1,240 Posts

.
Disneyland plans to reopen its parks July 17 but with no parades or character meet-and-greets


...so you can forget about getting your selfies with Mickey and Goofy.
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 06-23-20, 09:32 PM
  #135  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
Thanks, that does look up my alley, I will enjoy reading it tonight and report back.
Thanks for the link, I read it, and although it is very old by now (Feb!) it did teach me about one important factor that I had overlooked, and that is LAG. With a growing pandemic, it is not accurate to divide today's deaths by today's cases. Today's deaths need to be divided by the number of cases that led to the deaths, which was one incubation period ago, a smaller number of known active cases. Dividing by a smaller number makes the fatality rate bigger.

Here is my new spreadsheet, anybody can view it and make their own copy to play around with.

Here is a screenshot.


So new assessment: as I've been discussing all along, the numbers in the OP were inflated due to unknown undercounting of cases, but also deflated by not accounting for lag.

This graph has the lag error somewhat fixed*, but the undercounting of cases I can't do anything about besides making a guess for exactly what the right count should be, which I have no reasonable way to do.

So the new graph is also an overestimate of fatality rates, but a larger upper bound than before, so the truth, wherever it lies below these numbers, is higher than I might have thought before.

The 80+ jumped from 23% to 29%. In line with everything I said before, I think the 80+ demo will have the smallest amount of case undercounting, meaning that ridiculously large 29%, although it's an overestimate, it's probably not by much. I would speculate the true fatality rate for 80+ in CA is north of 25%. (Note I originally speculated that with an overestimate of 23% the truth might be north of 20% -- no matter how you slice it, it's huge)

* to truly 'fix' the lag, you need to use a lag equal to the time from infection to death, or at least the incubation time (assuming it takes a certain number of days to die). The number that is always thrown around for corona is 14 days. But the LA Times graphs didn't have enough detail for me to read off the total number of cases on Jun 9. My original spreadsheet was made on June 6, 17 days ago, so I used exactly the same numbers for case totals and demographics as in the original spreadsheet. So I'm dividing by numbers of cases which are too small by about 3 days, which means the lag fix is a little bit of an overcorrection. But not much. As a sensitivity test, I tried putting 130000 in for total deaths instead of 126000 (as a guesstimate of what 3 more days might have added), and the 80+ number only dropped to 28%.

Last edited by RubeRad; 06-23-20 at 09:38 PM.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-23-20, 09:37 PM
  #136  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
I edited the OP to include the new spreadsheet and info about incubation lag
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-28-20, 02:01 PM
  #137  
jjafterdark
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Completely fake, manufactured stats. Hospital staff in CA have been laid off by the thousands. The ones remaining are having their hours slashed drastically. So much free time for tik Tok dancing videos.

Their only source of revenue has been fake coronavirus deaths, which aren't actually coronavirus deaths but "suspected" coronavirus deaths. That's a best case scenario as just about every serious condition is being labeled as "coronavirus." See Italy for example where 99.2% of "coronavirus" deaths were due to other underlying serious medical conditions.

Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
The L.A. Times maintains an excellent page of statistical visualizations of the state of the pandemic in CA. One statistic that they don't present, however, is fatality rate; likely because they judge they can't assess it accurately (the 'denominator problem').

However it's easy enough to get a rough view by combining other statistics on their page.















So given that these statstics have the death numbers pretty close, but the cases number missing a significant number of un-reported/un-tested cases, I think it's safe to say that the fatality rate for coronavirus for under age 50 is significantly lower than 0.6%.

But past age 50 (probably pretty tightly correlated with general decline in health) the fatality rate rises radically, so that over 80 years old if you are infected, you have probably no better than 1 in 5 chance of dying (if not necessarily dying 'from' the virus, dying of a co-morbidity 'with' the virus) [EDIT: not to imply that a co-morbidity 'doesn't count']

[EDIT: HT to 3alarmer for pointing me [url=https://towardsdatascience.com/why-the-coronavirus-mortality-rate-is-misleading-cc63f571b6a6]to this article, which taught me that proper fatality statistics have to account for incubation lag; you can't divide today's deaths by today's cases, you have to divide it by the smaller number of cases at the time today's deaths got infected. Smaller divisor means larger fatality statistics.

Here is my new spreadsheet, anybody can view it and make their own copy to play around with.

Here is a screenshot.


I continue the discussion in post 135
jjafterdark is offline  
Old 06-28-20, 02:03 PM
  #138  
jjafterdark
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
"Incubation lag" lol. "Coronavirus" has never been isolated. All that has been isolated is random genetic material from lung fluid which is less than an 80% match for "sars," yet another hoax virus.

All viruses are hoaxes since there is zero experimental evidence that they are infectious agents. ZERO.

Originally Posted by RubeRad View Post
I edited the OP to include the new spreadsheet and info about incubation lag
jjafterdark is offline  
Old 06-28-20, 06:09 PM
  #139  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 18,790

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18066 Post(s)
Liked 1,694 Times in 1,240 Posts
3alarmer is offline  
Old 06-29-20, 10:19 AM
  #140  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
Originally Posted by jjafterdark View Post
Completely fake, manufactured stats. Hospital staff in CA have been laid off by the thousands. The ones remaining are having their hours slashed drastically. So much free time for tik Tok dancing videos.
Hi jj, I've missed our lovely chats so much!

Yup, I believe it's accurate to say that CA cleared out their hospitals to prepare for a tsunami of cases, but because of earlier/more successful lockdowns, hospitalizations have remained under control.


As I have said somewhere, I can't remember which thread, some states may have gone overboard on clearing out hospital capacity.

But AZ (and TX and FL) right now are experiencing a surge of hospitalizations

Arizona reported 1,702 people currently hospitalized on a seven-day average, a near 29% increase compared with a week ago. As of Saturday, the Arizona Department of Health Services reported that 83% of inpatient beds and 85% of intensive-care unit beds were in use.
If the hospitals are at 83+% capacity right now, another week of 29% growth takes them to 107% capacity.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-29-20, 10:29 AM
  #141  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
jj, I made a new non-covid thread, maybe you can help me out with some bike advice?

I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but I think something's going on...
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-29-20, 11:56 AM
  #142  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 18,790

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18066 Post(s)
Liked 1,694 Times in 1,240 Posts
.
... jjafterdark is gone, man. Only the good die young.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 06-29-20, 12:04 PM
  #143  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
What's more 'crazy'? Believing in a conspiracy theory, or believing that one more well-phrased, well-documented factual post will finally crack through and make a conspiracy theorist say 'hmm, I don't think my position can account for that factual data, I'll have to re-evaluate' ?
RubeRad is offline  
Old 06-29-20, 12:08 PM
  #144  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,431

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 708 Times in 493 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
.
... jjafterdark is gone, man. Only the good die young.
He was suspended for a week. I saw several posts by him yesterday.

Edit: Just went to Banned Users, I see his parole lasted hours and he got sent back for life..

Last edited by 79pmooney; 06-29-20 at 12:16 PM.
79pmooney is offline  
Likes For 79pmooney:
Old 06-29-20, 12:28 PM
  #145  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
OK well I'll have to wait and see whether a new user named kkbeforelight shows up.
RubeRad is offline  
Likes For RubeRad:
Old 06-29-20, 12:52 PM
  #146  
3alarmer
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 18,790

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18066 Post(s)
Liked 1,694 Times in 1,240 Posts
Please turn to # 46 in your hymnals, and join me in song.

3alarmer is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 02:40 PM
  #147  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
The 2-month long gradual decrease in the CA daily new deaths curve has now pretty decisively started turning upwards.


RubeRad is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 02:55 PM
  #148  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,431

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2295 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 708 Times in 493 Posts
Hardly a surprise. New cases started going back up 3 weeks ago.

We need a new goal. Not flattening the curve (easily done with log graph paper) but going for every cyclists joy, the screaming descent. We see the death rate level out and the feeling is "oh good. That's under control. We can get back to life as before."

As I've said before, we are intent on holding off the second wave by riding this one to the beach.
79pmooney is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 02:58 PM
  #149  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
Yeah I was starting to feel optimistic that, even though the cases graph was climbing, at least the death rate was gradually decreasing; like maybe the infection pool was shifting to less-at-risk demographics. But I guess that was too much to hope for.
RubeRad is offline  
Old 07-30-20, 02:19 PM
  #150  
RubeRad
Keepin it Wheel
Thread Starter
 
RubeRad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,220

Bikes: Surly CrossCheck, Moto Fantom29 ProSL hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 590 Times in 442 Posts
The L A Times is apparently no longer offering their online coronavirus coverage for free
https://www.latimes.com/projects/cal...king-outbreak/

opening the link incognito seems to still work though
RubeRad is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.