That downward trend is driven by New York (particularly New York City) which has by far the largest number of cases and deaths and dominates those graphs. If you look at the graphs that exclude New York you will see a steadily rising trend. And some mid-western and southern states have rapidly rising trends (e. g., Iowa, South Dakota, Arkansas). Because of their small populations, they have little impact on the total US numbers, but on a per population basis, they are starting to show the worst trends in the US.
(Can someone please explain how to use the EvC datadropsite to show a graph or image?)
I don't understand your results. At this moment there are 1,668,083 confirmed cases of covid19 and 100,040 deaths in the US. That gives a death rate of 5.99%! What am I missing? Those numbers have been subject to a lot of discussion and challenge, particularly the case number, but are certainly not off by a factor greater than 2.
That's a 1:4 ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic infections.
But the CDC is reporting an asymptomatic rate of 35%, not 75%! Maybe the difference is in the sample size: 1.7million vs. 217.
Here is the CDC site that lays out their scenarios that LNA uses to get the .26% fatality rate. I honestly don't understand where they are getting the model numbers from and .26% of what, confirmed cases? US population? or what? The only numbers I am able to tract down are 1.7million confirmed cases and 100,000 deaths giving >5%. To say that that percentage is off by a factor of 20 requires analysis and details that I can't find.
As I pointed out previously, NY state, with 6% of the country's population, has 20% of the country's confirmed cases and 25% of the deaths. If you remove NY state from your graphs, the rest of the country is remaining pretty steady to slightly increasing in both statistics. Since NY's cases and deaths are now both in rapid decline and will have a declining impact, I suspect that you will see your graphs steadily becoming more worrisome.
Governor Andrew Cuomo of NY likes to point out that that state's front line workers (medical personel, police, emts) have half the coronavirus incidence as the general population despite being in frequent and often close contact with infected individuals. He considers this to be proof of the effectiveness of wearing masks and how they protect the wearer as well as others.
New CDC estimates of coronavirus death rates look suspiciously low and present almost no data to back them up, say public health experts who are concerned that the agency is buckling under political pressure to restart the economy.... While no one yet knows the coronavirus’s actual death rate, the agency’s range of possible rates seemed alarmingly low to many epidemiologists, compared to existing data in places both inside and outside the US.... Researchers also lambasted the CDC’s lack of transparency about its data sources. The eight-page document disclosed almost nothing about its numbers, citing only internal data and a preprint — a study that has not been peer-reviewed — led by scientists in Iran.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who finds the CDC numbers to be pig detergent.
The article I gave you was for the people on a cruise ship. You will notice that about half the people on that ship tested positive. "All of the 217 people who remained on board were tested for COVID-19. More than half (59 percent) tested positive, but just 19 percent of those patients had symptoms. The other 81 percent were symptom-free.”
The vast majority of people dyeing from cover are very old, very sick, or very poor. So, I’m guessing that 217 passengers on a luxury cruise ship are not a representative sample of that demographic and not a good basis for estimating the overall covid mortality rate. On the other hand, this article entitled
Study shows 10 times more New Yorkers had Covid-19 by April than previously counted
reports that “By the end of March, 1 in 7 New York adults had Covid-19 -- about 10 times higher than the official account, according to a new study sponsored by the New York State Department of Health. This adds to a growing body of evidence that the virus was much more prevalent early on in the outbreak than health officials thought at the time. “, so that he 5% mortality rate one gets using just confirmed cases may really indicate a 0.5% mortality rate. On yet another hand (these analyses are approaching octopus status), this article entitled “CDC warns antibody testing still too inaccurate to use for coronavirus-related policy decisions”reports that current serologic test might have 50% false positives, so maybe the mortality rate is closer to 1% (maybe!). It’s obvious that far, far more data and analyses are required to figure out what is really happening with this disease.
What is most worrying to me about this level os scatter in the data is that proper testing of any vaccine will require a huge sample size covering diverse populations and extended periods of time.
It would be interesting, if the data is available, to compare these numbers with the percentage of nursing home deaths from flu infections in previous years and to see if there is an explanation if it is significantly different.