Open Thread

This is a page for your use, to try out html tags and see what they look like, to post new ideas, to pass along interesting information, to suggest future topics for discussion, to reach out and contact me directly, the floor is yours.

w.

 

485 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. Willis —
    Your recent Covid-19-related graphs [1] are excellent.
    With regard to your recent “US COVID-19 Associated Deaths … Compared to … Flu Epidemics” graph [2]:

    #1. Am I correct that the intended meaning of the left y-axis legend is “Deaths As A Percentage Of US Population [At Time of Graphed Pandemic]?
    #2. I am unclear as to how the right y-axis legend (“Deaths per 2020 Population”) applies to the displayed pre-2020 pandemic fatalities.
    #3. If there any chance of persuading you to re-issue the graph showing: updated US deaths through the current date and; updated IHME fatalities projections and; adding a horizontal line for the 61,099 2017-18 flu season fatalities [3]?

    Thank you.

    Ref.
    [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/daily-coronavirus-covid-19-data-graph-page/#001
    [2] https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/coronavirus-vs-other-flu_n.jpg?w=606&ssl=1
    [3] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

    Like

  2. Dear Willis,
    Unless I am mistake, there is a change in curve on the recent period for the UK, leading to much higher death figures, the UK overpass if France.
    Did you investigate this point ? Possibly taken into account fatalities outside hospital.
    Best. Daniel

    Like

  3. Willis,
    Just in case you missed this story, Prof Ferguson – the great modeller whose boots we are not fit to lick – has had to resign, at least from his governmental advisory duties. Despite being one of the principal movers toward the economically catastrophic UK lockdown, he didn’t think distancing applied to him – he and his girlfriend have been visiting each other.
    It seems that those makers of the green air travel passes have moved on to Covid-19 with distancing passes for the great and good. Great idea but just don’t get caught if you are a public figure.
    Regards
    Ian

    Like

  4. Willis,

    Thanks for your excellent work.

    I know you are not fond of video interviews, too slow, however you may find these worthwhile. Dr Mikovits has a powerful, frightening and believable story about corruption at the highest level of medicial research. With the trillions of dollars involved corruption is always possible.

    1) “Plandemic The Movie” What your not being told about Dr. Fauci.

    2) Former AIDS Scientist Judy Mikovits PhD EXPOSES Dr Fauci, Dr Birx & UNCOVERS Medical Corruption.

    Here is one of her books:

    —————-

    You may already know of this news conference; 2 Kern County MD’s make the statistical/medical case that the shutdown should end. This conference was filmed by “23ABC Bakersfield” – An ABC affiliate – with multiple reporters asking questions and, after 10’s of thousands of views, YouTube removed it for ‘violating community standards’. Another fine example of either ‘1984’ or ‘Fahrenheit 451’ or both. Fortunately the TV station has a Facebook page. I frequently find that which is censored to be the most interesting.

    Best….Jack

    Like

  5. Dear Willis,
    Regarding your frustration as to IHME higher forecast, it is interesting to have a look on the Following Singapore based forecast of the pandemics end
    https://ddi.sutd.edu.sg/covid-19

    It looks like pandemics may be forecasted to end mid Mid October in the US, vs mid August in most Western Europe. At least this is what current data and a Gauss law assumption would tell.
    Best. Daniel

    Like

  6. Willis, the Minnesota model as updated will be discussed in a webex at 11 am central, there are instructions below to request access to the webex. they are also releasing the code for the model. It would be great for someone like you to review the work.

    The Minnesota Department of Health will hold a WebEx briefing to present members of the media with the latest version of modeling that is used to inform public health and state policy decisions in response to COVID-19. Reporters will have time for questions as part of the briefing.

    Day/Time:

    Wednesday, May 13, 11 a.m. Please note: There will not be a 2 p.m. media call.

    To RSVP for the media briefing, send an email to health.media@state.mn.us by 10 a.m.

    Topic: Minnesota COVID-19 Modeling 3.0

    Like

  7. I just ran across this headline in the Daily Mail.

    “Reopened Texas sees a surge in COVID-19 cases with 1,000 new daily infections over five consecutive days after state lifted lockdown measures two weeks ago”

    I looked up the current status here – – -https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83
    and saw nothing justifying using the description of “surg”.

    Like

  8. Willis, here is the link to the Minnesota modeling material, at the bottom of the page, including the actual code. I think it would be great for you to look through the material, run the model and see what you think. I wrote an extensive critique of the original model and am writing one of this one, but I am not the math person.
    https://mn.gov/covid19/data/modeling/index.jsp

    Minnesota has actually been very transparent and I think this is one of the few examples where you can get the code for the full model along with a lot of description of the thinking behind it

    Like

  9. W.E., just wanted to drop you note about your Wuhan Virus graphs. When this thing hit I had exactly two panic attacks. Never had them before so it goes without saying that I bought into the media scared shitless mantra. I’m a regular to WUWT and noticed your update. FIrst time I read it I was still a nonbeliever. But I’m a numbers guy and after a while it started becoming clear that we should NOT have shut down. I grab a graph of yours about ever day to share to others so they can see the light. So, just wanted to say I appreciate what you’ve done here and I go out now all the time and the fear is gone.

    Like

    • Thanks, Darren. The amount of hype about this has been astounding. I’ve lived through two worse pandemics, the Hong Kong Flu with 150,000 US dead, and the Asian Flu with 225,000 US deaths. No hype. No panic. No lockdowns. Life just went on.

      Glad that my work was of value to you, your kind words are appreciated.

      w.

      Like

      • Following on from Darren’s comment Willis, it is clear that – and I can only speak about the UK – the biggest fear now is fear itself. Because we took the ludicrous actions that we did, the nightmare hole that we have dug ourselves is that the question for government ministers has moved from “should we lockdown?” to “can you prove to the public that it is 100% safe before you ease lockdown?” Of course, nobody can answer “yes” to the second question so:
        1) no government official will sanction the removal of lockdown; and
        2) countless “progressive” people and groups are refusing requests, for instance, to go back to work or school their children.
        The other rods for our back that we have created include:
        a) slagging off Trump and anyone that suggests we might take drugs like HCQ (apparently some groups have side-effects but let’s ignore all those for whom there has been benefit);
        b) discussing the cataclysmic “second wave” as if it’s very likely and using sparse data from over 100 years ago that, in all probability, is barely relevant;
        c) refusing to analyse countries like Sweden and Belarus (which the British MSM never even mention) where lockdowns have been limited compared to Britain; and last but not least
        d) total governmental faith in the R number to define the potential for lockdown easing or reinstatement. I’m really sorry but I believe that the creation of this figure to be a purely academic modelled statistical exercise of no practical use. How the hell do they know where and how people contracted the virus and who they gave it to? The odd individual, yes, the whole nation over the past six months – you have to be kidding. The R number’s validity looks to me about as compelling as the global average surface temperature or indeed global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (and the historical graphs created for both
        What a self-inflicted mess.

        Like

  10. Hi Willis, This morning before I was fully awake (apparently) I stumbled on a chart showing about 12 to 15 (maybe more) models and how they have performed over the course of this madness. As one might guess the IHME model is the #1 worst performer among all of them.
    I think I was following a link in one of your posts when I found this. I can no longer find it. I’m not sure but I think it might have been a post somewhere on Github.
    If you run across this could you please post a link to it?
    It is VERY telling.

    Tom

    Like

  11. Willis,

    A couple of things,

    1. The IHME model quit adding new projections to the states on May 16th. Any idea why?

    2. In the U.S., the average daily deaths in the US went from 1,220 the 7 day period beginning 3/29, up to 1,999 the week beginning 4/5, up to 2,159 the week beginning 4/12, then has proceeded steadily downward, to 2,073 the week beginning 4/19, 1,884 the week beginning 4/26, 1,799 the week beginning 5/3, 1,439 the week beginning 5/10, to 1,224 the week beginning 5/17.

    3. The average daily deaths have dropped 43.29% from the week beginning 4/12 to the week beginning 5/17. If the rate keeps dropping at the same rate, the average daily deaths will near zero the week beginning 6/22.

    4. The last four weeks, each successive Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday has seen a decline. Overall, Wednesdays have trended down, but weirdly, every Wednesday from 4/1 to 5/6 saw each Wednesday increase, with the last two dropping. Saturdays have trended down too, until this week, which saw an increase from the previous Saturday, after drops in the three previous weeks.

    5. For some reason, probably a quirk of how the states report deaths, Sundays are typically 70% or so as compared to Tuesdays. If this week follows suit, then daily deaths tomorrow in the U.S. will be around 884. The biggest discrepancy was 5/3 compared to 5/5, which was at 59%, which could mean tomorrow could be as high as 1,045.

    6. Of course, who knows how good or even timely the data is…

    Thanks for everything you do.

    Johnny

    Like

    • Willis,

      After I saw your thread on WUWT which referenced Our World in Data, I’ve been tracking daily deaths in the United States there, in Worldometer and in IHME. For the weeks beginning on Sunday May 3rd through June 7th, both data sources have shown weekly drops in deaths.

      For each week, Our World in Data shows total weekly deaths, the decrease from the previous week, and the average daily deaths as:

      Week Total deaths Increase/(Decrease) Average daily deaths

      5/3-5/9 12,112 (1,939) 1,730
      5/10-5/16 10,388 (1,724) 1,484
      5/17-5/23 8,439 (1,949) 1,206
      5/24-5/30 6,289 (1,610) 976
      5/31-6/6 6,307 (522) 901
      6/7-6/13 5,526 (781) 789

      For each week, Worldometer shows total weekly deaths, the decrease from the previous week, and the average daily deaths as:

      Week Total deaths Increase/(Decrease) Average daily deaths

      5/3-5/9 12,593 (595) 1,799
      5/10-5/16 10,076 (2,517) 1,439
      5/17-5/23 12,593 (1,511) 1,224
      5/24-5/30 8,565 (1,686) 983
      5/31-6/6 6,879 (576) 900
      6/7-6/13 5,431 (872) 776

      For each week, the IHME smoothed data (only up-to-date through 6/6) shows weekly total deaths, the decrease from the previous week, and the average daily deaths as:

      Week Total deaths Increase/(Decrease) Average daily deaths

      5/3-5/9 11,473 (1,695) 1,639
      5/10-5/16 9,868 (1,605) 1,410
      5/17-5/23 8,295 (1,573) 1,185
      5/24-5/30 6,861 (1,434) 980
      5/31-6/6 5,787 (1,074) 827

      Daily deaths in Worldometer and Our World in Data have both been decreasing, on average, about 14% per week. At that rate, the average daily deaths would be about 670 this week, and would approach 200 per week the week of August 15th.

      IHME forecasts today that daily deaths will decline from 778 on 6/6 to 366.49 on 8/12, at which point average daily deaths will begin to increase, presumably with the dreaded second wave.

      As an aside, I haven’t drilled down into any of their ultimate sources, exactly how their timing works, or how IHME has smoothed their data. Having deaths on 6/7 of 764.59 hearkens back “I’m not dead yet” from Monty Python and mostly dead from The Princess Bride. Both Worldometer’s and IHME’s historical data changes over time, which is annoying.

      Also annoying are the wild swings in IHME’s model. On April 21st they forecast Texas to have 1,241 deaths by August 1, 2020. On April 26th, the forecast jumped up by 415 to 1,656. On April 27th, the forecast went down by (209) to 1,447. On April 28th, it went down again by (159) to 1,288. On May 1st, it went up by 2,344 to 3,632. On May 8th, it went down by (1,065) to 2,567. On May 16th, it went up by 1,143 to 3,710. On May 23rd, it went down by (725) to 2,985. On May 28th, it went down by (960) to 2,025. On June 3rd, it went up by 729 to 2,754. On June 6th, it went up by 694 to 3,448. On June 8th, when they extended the forecast out to October 1, 2020, the forecast for August 1, 2020 went down (814) to 2,674. What kind of crazy rollercoaster ride would the Texas governor have put his residents through if he made day-to-day decisions based on their model? By the way, actual total Texas deaths per IHME went from 533 on April 21st to 1,828 on June 8th.

      I can’t discern a pattern in the IHME forecasts for this crazy hopping around. Other states exhibit swings, but not at the same time or in the same degree. From April 21st through June 3rd, the August 1, 2020 total death figure for California was forecast to go up in every single update, from 1,719 up to 12,951, then on June 3rd the forecast went down (5,999) to 6,952. On June 6th, it went up 1,770 to 8,722, then on June 8th, it went down (1,348) to 7,374.

      time will tell. Stay safe.

      Johnny

      Like

  12. Just a thought….correlation to weekly international air flights to state airports….maybe ? since your correlation to population density was unexpectedly near zero, yet NY has many cases…..

    Like

  13. Further…..There was close correlation, but not a big sample, to international travel shown here:
    https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm until international flights were shut down…..Alberta is interesting, 1/3 of the mortality of Canada as a whole, most cases in Calgary which has a busy international airport and flights to China, Iran, Europe…Eastern Canada especially Quebec hit heavily, and is blamed on bad luck of spring break being the two weeks before lockdown, and very large elder care facilities where most deaths occurred.

    Like

  14. Hi Willis — doing some research on covid, I ran across Inglesby, et al. (2006) Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza Biosecurity And Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, And Science 4(4), 366-375.

    Under Large-Scale Quarantine Measures it says,
    There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.””

    It goes on to discuss home quarantine, restricted social gatherings, school closures, and is very cautious about implementation of any and all of them.

    It looks to me that both the CDC and the WHO ignored their own best-practices knowledge.

    I figured if you don’t have the paper, you’d like a copy. But the email address I have for you bounces.

    If you’d like the paper, let me know.

    Best,

    Pat

    Like

    • “Inglesby, et al. (2006) Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza Biosecurity And Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, And Science 4(4), 366-375.”

      Pat, I would appreciate a copy of the paper if you can send it to me: kurt@legalytix.net. Thanks!

      Like

  15. Willis,
    I like your plots on the CV–19. You have a lot of plots on death. Can you also plot total cases per 10 million population and do it by state for the US? Looking at JHU data, it is interesting that number of new cases in the previous hot-spot states have really fallen off and the other states are flat or falling slowly. I wonder if they will all trend toward the same case incident rate.

    I find the correlations interesting. The lack of correlation on population density is counter-intuitive. This could also be done with US counties and may give a better answer. Defining population density may be difficult. Note that some countries in Europe have large land mass, but most people live along the coast (Sweden is an example).

    Again, I like the plots and I apologize for offering this unwanted advice or more to do but am curious (like many are).

    Like

    • Thanks, Keith. I’ve stayed away from cases because they are totally dependent on testing. So when any government say doubles the testing, they double the number of cases … which is less than meaningless, it’s totally misleading as to the spread of the disease..

      The only case related graphs I’ve done are the percentage of positive tests to total tests. When that goes up it means another peak may be on the way.

      w.

      Like

  16. Hello Willis, Wondering what some of your illness / hospitalizations / deaths / data / stats / graphs would look like, one year ago, before the Wuhan Flu, side by side (I realize there is a lot of ‘definition “slop”‘.

    Peyelut

    Like

  17. Hi Willis,

    On your update of 2020-06-01.
    qoute
    excess deaths won’t help us because the numbers are all over the map
    /quote.

    I.m.o. Excess death might say more about corona death then the ‘official’ count. Take for instance The Netherlands, where I live, and Belgium. In The Netherlands we count as corona death only the people who are tested positive before they die, no post-mortum, and most likely not tested when you die in a care home. So we are under counting what is confirmed by the chart. Belgium count as corona death if there is the slightest possibility that the deceased had corona, so way over counting the corona death. That is why Belgium is at the top of the chart with death per capita but low in the chart of excess death vs corona death.

    Regards,
    Jan Fluitsma

    Like

  18. Hi Willis – I’ve only recently started following your site (my loss in waiting so long), and wanted to thank you for your dedicated work. I also wanted to make a suggestion that you might want to explore another aspect of the spread of the pandemic that may not have been given much scrutiny yet. I don’t have your skill with the necessary analysis to see if there are any strong correlations between public transportation utilization by area – in particular by MSA. I don’t think anyone is breaking it down by MSA. From the wiki article I’ll link below:

    “The OMB defines a Metropolitan Statistical Area as one or more adjacent counties, or county equivalents, that have at least one urban core area of at least 50,000 population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by the commuting tie.”

    I’m wondering if the shapes of the curves in the early stages vary between MSAs with high transit ridership versus those with a low percentage, or anything else you might tease out of this. If you’re interested, these links may serve as a useful start:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership

    Like

  19. Hi Willis,
    I have been following your plots on WUWT for a while now. And there is still no sign of a second wave.
    What do you think about this twitter thread: He is using the Wapo as a source … and they are presenting an increase in positive cases

    I am getting so tired of the fearmongering but I am even more tired to see so many people following for it: intelligent people who are supposed to be educated in modelling and biology.

    For example they looked at the now retracted Lancet article (Mehra et al 2020) and found the stats convincing and were surprise by the very conservative conclusions, despite the apparent clear results they obtained.
    When I read this article, I couldn’t say anything about the stats because it’s not my field, but oh boy I had so many questions about the control and treatments groups, so many things were not making sense. So I start looking at observational studies and learn about confounding by indication and the problem with the propensity score matching method.

    Then the article was retracted and they were wondering if the retraction was related with pressure from the pharmaceutical industry … insert palm face here …
    I suppose that if you are not following anything other that the MSM you don’t know about the problem about the database used for the study and the suspected conflict of interest with the authors.
    Ok, I am stopping my ranting now, I suppose I was needing that: I am feeling quite isolated among people who don’t question the officiel narrative.

    Thank you for your good work.

    Best
    GaL

    Like

  20. I’ve enjoyed your posts at WUWT and finally wandered over to your site. Thought I would provide you with some actual under Arctic sea ice video taken with a low light black/white camera located in the sail of nuclear submarine. Dark is generally deeper sea ice (less light transmission) and light is thinner sea ice; very few “skating” spots to be had. Let me know if you would like to see more. https://www.dropbox.com/s/odaaot0v789typk/Ice%202.mp4?dl=0
    PS: I hope this link works.
    Travis

    Like

  21. Am a humble CPA who follows your COVID-19 graph pages… Could you please comment/share your thoughts on this article:
    The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin
    https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/
    This appears to be a valid article but have no background real backgroud in Science.

    FWIW, I really like this COVID-19 graph page showing daily tests and % positive: https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/06/june-14-covid-19-test-results.html

    Like

  22. Willis, your last graph on the trend of Texas deaths dated June 14 showed things past a peak, slowing down, and somewhat leveled out. As of today the Texas Health and Human Services people are showing what looks like an uptick in that trend since that date. https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83

    Your graph corresponds to their’s with little exception, but that little makes me think that your data source is different. Not surprising, locally we are reporting nineteen county cases while the state is saying sixteen. Information is scarce for providing understanding of whys and wherefores. A lot of testing is going on, so what is being turned up as case numbers is saying little about case circumstances.

    Whether sixteen or nineteen locally, these numbers represent about a doubling of what we had until just the last couple of days. In this number range doubling is a much easier thing to achieve than say with our statewide cases. Most of the increase is reported to be in a nursing home, a rich territory for infections. But, an evaluation of whether this represents something of increased current or future consequence is impossible for me to evaluate with some possible factors involved not necessarily having dark implications. For instance, nothing is said whether the cases are symptomatic. Two were reported by the hospital which suggests a possibility of being current and symptomatic. However, the state reports no current cases. Dribbling information? Perhaps time will tell.

    After racking up eighty two years of interesting incarceration on planet Earth, the many implications of current events strikes me as suggesting that people grow bored with an excess of successful nationhood feeling a need for reversing the pattern to something less comfortable- especially, if the discomforted are someone else. I appreciate your sharing your view of this existence from your place in it. It has been a truly valued enhancement of my own viewing.

    Like

  23. Hi Willis,

    I could understand the early focus on controlling the infection rate, or the number of infections especially the infection per million population because of the initial high mortality rates. After all a person could not die from the COVID if the person is not infected. Looking at the statistics, morbidity per infection has gone down. Looking at the worldometer.info the number of critical patients relative number of outstanding cases is only 1 per cent, it was 2 per cent a few days back and if I recall back in March it was almost 12 per cent with Italy and Spain reporting almost 20 per cent. I look at the present situation like a traveler planning his trip. If the airline has a bad record, he would look at the number of accidents per trip in the last few months but if the accident has come a record low, he just board the plane. The accident rate or accident per trip does not matter anymore is no longer of any relevance. In fact, it might even be good for getting the herd immunity if the infection rate or number of infections skyrocket to hundreds of millions or even a few billions if the mortality rate per infection is very low.

    Lock down seems to be a strategy when the mortality to infection is very high. Isolate the infection until a vaccine is available. On less draconian measure, identify the weak and the highly vulnerable, isolate them until a vaccine is available but not the whole population that not only weaken the immunity of the strong through mental stress, poor diets and even exercise but destroy the economy and future of the whole society. Complete lock down may work in the short term but as the destruction of the economy becomes unbearable, the infection will just take place. Unknown is the extra death due to the reduced immunity induced by the lock down.

    Like

  24. I live in Utah and have been monitoring the COVID test result.
    https://coronavirus.utah.gov/case-counts/

    Recently there daily tested positive rate essentially doubled (150 to 300). There is all the hype about more exposure and need for more controls.

    I have an alternate theory. When I look at the data, it looks more like a step change, not an exponential change. My theory is that step change is caused by testing method change. FDA has over 31 emergency COVID test methods. It isn’t clear to me there isn’t a testing bias.

    I work on lab acceptance methods and to me the change looks like a test method bias change. Although the daily rate has doubled, the hospitalization, ICU rate, death rate hasn’t correspondently increased.

    Just wondering your opinion

    Like

  25. willis: If this is a question I should simply research myself, tell me to F-off and I’ll do it. (I have searched at your article and all comments.)
    Even I, as a dumb injuneer, noticed the daily death numbers vary weekly from a low that suddenly jumps to a high and then declines again only to be repeated. Is this cycle an artifact of something about our medical system? I can’t imagine it’s related to the disease.

    Like

  26. Hi, Mr. Eschenbach;

    Thank you very much for your frequent Covid-19 contribution at WUWT (https://wattsupwiththat.com/daily-coronavirus-covid-19-data-graph-page/#001). You now say that it has become even more difficult to extract true information from the noise, and I perfectly understand.

    You say that CDC now asks to register deaths WITH Covid-19 instead of deaths OF Covid-19. I have two questions about that:
    a) Is that why we seem to see an uptick in Covid deaths, since one or two weeks, in the US?
    b) May you provide a reference for that change of mind of the CDC? It looks very, very important to me.

    Thanks again,

    Francis.

    Like

  27. Hi Willis, masterly summaries of the COVID-19 virus and its impact.

    Australia is a basket case on steroids. We are now an island of isolation and no end in sight because our politicians are so scared. We have had few cases, in a few locations but the whole place is only just beginning to allow businesses to operate.

    With no record of how many may have had symptom-less cases – and that may still not be very many – we are sitting ducks in a way. To survive people are now talking of becoming a self-sufficient economy again, as we probably were pre WWI. All is madness.

    Cheers

    Like

  28. Hi Willis. Quick question. Do those countries which routinely wear masks all year have a lower incidence of the “seasonal flu”? Thanks

    Like

  29. Hi Willis,

    First of all, thanks for the podcast w/ Anthony a few days ago RE models. It’s nice to associate a voice with your WUWT blogs and data analysis. Secondly, I’ve observed that the US COVID-19 daily deaths stopped declining and rapidly started increasing exactly 18 days after the FDA revoked the HCQ Emergency Use Authorization. I have a write-up w/ graphed data through 7/15 that tells the story which I would like to share w/ you. Here’s the text that accompanies the graph:

    US COVID-19 cases began showing an uptick in mid-June as testing was increasing. The daily reported deaths began increasing July 3rd (see my graph below). I’ve added timeline notes to the graph including phased state reopenings, street protests and riots, and the date the FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from the Strategic National Stockpile. The average time between first symptoms and death is 18.5 days. The uptick in deaths began 18 days following the HCQ EUA revocation by the FDA. As a scientist/engineer, correlation does not mean causation, but this is a correlation that needs to be checked by somebody. I have not seen data showing HCQ has been used less since the FDA action but have read that an FDA revocation can have a chilling effect on doctors, pharmacists, and insurance companies regarding use of a drug. In support of HCQ effectiveness, a new study was published July 1st in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases that concluded HCQ cuts COVID-19 mortality in half (https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext). For the scientists out there, here is a quote “The Cox regression result for the two propensity matched groups (Table 4) indicates that treatment with hydroxychloroquine resulted in a mortality hazard ratio decrease of 51% (p = 0.009).”
    The source data for my graph below is from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

    Please let me know how I can share the graph on this blog. I have ppt, pdf, & jpg formats. I also have a YouTube channel but don’t think I can upload a still graphic.

    regards – Ken

    Like

    • Willis – it was nice to associate a your voice with the blogs & data analysis (from your interview w/ Anthony on models). Here’s the text that goes w/ graph. I thought this was already posted but haven’t seen it.

      US COVID-19 cases began showing an uptick in mid-June as testing was increasing. The daily reported deaths began increasing July 3rd (see my graph). I’ve added timeline notes to the graph including phased state reopenings, street protests and riots, and the date the FDA revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from the Strategic National Stockpile. The average time between first symptoms and death is 18.5 days. The uptick in deaths began 18 days following the HCQ EUA revocation by the FDA. As a scientist/engineer, correlation does not mean causation, but this is a correlation that needs to be checked by somebody. I have not seen data showing HCQ has been used less since the FDA action but have read that an FDA revocation can have a chilling effect on doctors, pharmacists, and insurance companies regarding use of a drug. In support of HCQ effectiveness, a new study was published July 1st in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases that concluded HCQ cuts COVID-19 mortality in half (https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext). For the scientists out there, here is a quote “The Cox regression result for the two propensity matched groups (Table 4) indicates that treatment with hydroxychloroquine resulted in a mortality hazard ratio decrease of 51% (p = 0.009).”
      The source data for my graph below is from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

      Like

      • To preserve this WUWT comment from open thread weekend, I’m reposting here:

        7/20/20 Update on HQC revocation deaths:

        Dr. Harvey Risch (epidemiology prof at Yale) estimates 75,000 to 100,000 excess US deaths due to FDA revocation of HCQ EUA. I estimate over 3,000 excess deaths in first two weeks since uptick began (July 4 – 17th).

        US combat deaths for comparison:
        2,335 – Pearl Harbor
        33,686 – Korea ’50-’53
        47,424 – Vietnam ’55-’75

        It is plausible that deaths due to FDA revocation of the HCQ EUA could result in the deaths of more US residents than were killed in combat during the Korean and Vietnam Wars combined in a fraction of the time. . . . and no media fanfare . . .

        Please share this analysis (graph above and applicable references) with your State Medical Licensing Boards, who are targeting some doctors for using HCQ according to Dr. Risch. The front-line Drs know whats up on this.

        Like

  30. Hi, Any chance of updating your Covid death rate by country graphs. England has just changed the accounting so you don’t get included if you test positive and get run down a month later. It’s dropped the total by about 5400 and I’d be curious to see what it looks like now.

    Like

  31. Hi Willis–three quick points. First, a belated ‘thank you’ for all the fun/informative writing you’ve provided at WUWT and elsewhere. I especially enjoy your interesting stories involving your ‘former fiance’, travel, and the thunderstorm thermostat concept–great stuff. Second, on Feb. 8th I started the ‘pandemic prepping’, incl. buying/planting crops around the property, stockpiling canned goods, stockpiling firewood, buying N95 masks, and more, out of concerns re supply chain and utilities; fortunately the only truly bad thing that came out of this was that my tomatoes were planted too early and thus were under-productive (and some money was wasted, but now I have ‘stuff’ to donate to charity). Third, early on I put together a little worksheet that showed what percent of the US population had died in the pandemics of 1918/19, 1957, 1969, and the current C-19. We recently exceeded the percentage from 1969, and we still have 33K more deaths until we equal 1957 (when nothing was shut down). We’re still over 2M deaths away from the severity of 1918/19. My prediction is we will slowly exceed that of 1957, but not by much, and likely end up around 230K deaths. Obviously, all the data should be questioned. Anywho, wishing you the best, and if you ever get up Sacramento way, please give a shout. Would love to enjoy a glass of wine w/you around the fire. Rgs, DY

    Like

  32. Willis,
    The link below is from the ever-reliable BBC website and an ever-reliable anthropogenic climate change fanatic “Environment Correspondent” called Matt McGrath.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fscience-environment-54193334
    The article is about research indicating that a clear oceanic heating footprint can be found from analysing the recorded sound wave data from earthquake studies. Apparently, sound waves travel faster in warmer water.
    If true and robust, this idea could have real importance in analysing oceanic temperature trends.
    Now, as you will have guessed from my occasional previous correspondences, I am no luke-warmer. In fact, prior to a recent post of yours I thought I was a sceptic. Now, however, I realise that I am a fully paid-up heretic (and indeed expect to be burned at the – sustainable – stake in due course). Thank you for that.
    Back to the reported science. Can this be for real? Is it that simple? Are they sure there are no other factors (other than temperature) were involved in changing the soundwave velocities and/or could variations in recording technologies and processes explain things? What about water depths and salinity? What are the error bars and do they – as so often in climate science – go beyond the supposed trends? Colour me a sceptic, I mean heretic but it looks as if the researchers could have been specifically seeking a warming footprint here, rather than seeking to discover an underlying truth in an open-minded and unbiased fashion.
    As I trained originally as an Earth scientist, I am intrigued by this but my knowledge did not extent to the “sound waves speed up in warmer water” meme and I can’t find reference to it in my old text books. I have however, shown this to one of my student peers (who did have a career in the field) and he is looking into it (it intrigued him too). What do you reckon?
    Regards
    Ian
    PS Please feel free to pass this to others – like David Middleton – if you think their input would add value.

    Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s