Tag Archives: health care

Panic Over Kern County, California

Posted on by
Reply

Kern County, California, is in serious Wuhan Virus trouble. Or so think some journalists and the State of California.

Residents of the agriculture-rich Central Valley are falling victim to Covid-19 at the highest rates in California….

And

Kern County, which lies in the Central Valley’s southernmost part, had the highest per capita rate of new Covid-19 infections in California between July 31 and Aug. 13, averaging 56.2 new cases per 100,000 people….

Now for some context, using Alejandro Lazo’s—he’s the author of the piece at the link—own numbers.

In total, 25,888 people there have been infected and 204 have died, according to the county health department. Statewide, California recorded 601,075 cases as of Friday and 10,996 deaths.

The mortality rate in Kern, given an infection, is 0.8%

Statewide, the mortality rate is 1.8%.

Both rates are quite low (so why are Newsom and the NLMSM in such a blind panic?), but Kern looks quite a bit safer than the State at large, contrary to the tone of the article.

Go figure.

The Doctors Video

Posted on by
1

Here, through the efforts of One America News Network, is the video of facts and considered medical opinion that the amateur censors of Facebook, Alphabet (through its YouTube and Google subsidiaries) and Twitter don’t want you to see because it runs counter to their pre-written narratives.

It’s 45 minutes long and well worth every moment, whether or not you agree with their opinions, because it’s useful to get all sides of the matter. Especially if Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey don’t want you to see the whole story.

New Case Rates and Death Rates

Posted on by
Reply

Current data indicate a reduction in new (read: confirmed) cases of Wuhan Virus—45,000 cases on Independence Day vs 50,000 cases the day prior.  Fun with statistics: that’s a 10% drop—wow.

It is promising, but a single datum isn’t very dispositive.

What really interested me, though, is this, also presented in the article at the link:

In contrast to the surge in positive diagnoses, the death rate has slowed mostly to the hundreds a day in recent weeks, from a peak of more than 2,000 daily during several weeks in April.

And:

Infectious-disease epidemiologists caution that deaths typically lag behind other indicators, as the disease often progresses over the course of weeks in the most severe cases.

The rise in new case detections has only been in progress for a week, or so, and many of those detections are the result of massively increased testing finding massively increased existing infections (hence my correction above to consider “confirmed” rather than solely “new”).

With this virus’ incubation period of 2-14 days, and the fact that, if the infection proves fatal to an individual, that will occur generally from 4-11 days after hospitalization, I’ll be looking at hospitalization rates over the next week, or so, and mortality rates over the latter half of July. Those are the data most likely to be associated with the recent rise in cases detected.

New/confirmed infection rates by themselves are pretty meaningless.

A Judicial…Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has struck Louisiana’s abortion law that required doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital before they could be permitted to carry out abortions. The ruling was by a 5-4 vote; the five hung their ruling on the Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health decision holding that there were “no medical benefits” to such a requirement, and so “a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy” was circumscribed.

One of the five was Chief Justice John Roberts.

Here’s his rationalization for his vote:

I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.

Wow.

If the decision being used as precedent was wrongly decided, the correct response is to overrule that precedent and correct the error, not to flip and bureaucratically uphold the error and, by doing so, codify it.

Codifying error as precedent also has a strong whiff of legislating from the bench.

With his logic, maybe Roberts would have argued against going to war to overrule a Dred Scott, or argued against altering Plessy.

Borderline….

Posted on by
Reply

According to Johns Hopkins’ CSSE data, the US has suffered 116,000 deaths from the Wuhan Virus as of 16 June. That’s not the whole story, though, and the raw number overstates the case along one critical dimension.

The US death toll from [Wuhan Virus] in nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities has topped 50,000….

That’s 43% of all our virus fatalities occurring in those old folks homes.

Those same CSSE data indicate that the US has some 2,100,000 cases—of which 250,000 have occurred in those facilities. That’s 12% of all our virus infections concentrated in those old folks homes, and a 20% fatality rate for our old folks, given infection in our old folks homes. Which compares with a 3% fatality rate outside those facilities.

Unfortunately (or conveniently, depending on perspective), many States don’t disaggregate cases effectively, so that old folks home death rate actually maybe be understated to some degree.

New York, for example, doesn’t include cases in which nursing-home residents died in a hospital….

Some States—New York and New Jersey come to mind—badly exacerbated this death toll concentration and infection disportionality by actually requiring nursing homes and the like to accept into their midst Wuhan Virus-infected patients simply because those facilities had empty beds.

Borderline? It’s right next door to criminal.