Drastic increase in hospitalization?!?
It’s going down...last I checked. All of these numbers were lower than the previous:
Link
OT 100% NOT the Official Off-Topic/Politics/Corona Thread
- Thread starter portlandhog
- Start date
It’s going down...last I checked. All of these numbers were lower than the previous:
Link
I mean hell man, you quoted my post earlier which showed a significant increase in hospitalized pts.
- May 11, 2002
- 34,280
- 33,947
- 113
I have 2 cooks going to get tested today bc they may have been exposed to it about a week ago at the protests.
For Arkansas...which, as I pointed out, is exceptionally anecdotal. You’re really surprising me here with these really bad takes.
How can hard data be anecdotal?
had I said “well I put two patients in the hospital today so things must be getting worse!”, then ok. But looking at a curve that takes off straight upwards over the last 30 days ain’t anecdotal.
And your mortality numbers on patients from nursing homes/correctional facilities may be accurate, but morbidity is important too. The increase in hospitalizations will attest to that. Deaths are terrible but so is spending time in isolation in the ICU.
All anecdotal data is hard data. It’s just on an incredibly small scale.
For example, you had an increase of 50 patients to 150 patients. Or a 90 person increase.
So that means, from a large data perspective, you went from about 0.1% of total hospitalizations to 0.5 % hospitalizations. Again, anecdotal.
You are connected at WRMC, what do the numbers look like over the last week? What about at Mercy in Rogers?
Dude. Look at your sentence “or reliable,” you’re opinion that “hospitalizations are going up,” isn’t researched or on the full facts because hospitalizations are going down. But your personal account, like the singular data you’re looking at, it’s going up.and you are questioning my takes...
- May 11, 2002
- 34,280
- 33,947
- 113
Well I can’t win, then. I posted data from Arkansas showing a significant increase in new cases and new hospitalizations. Not sure what else I can do. If you don’t believe that data, I suggest you take it up with the people that compiled it. Hell, maybe it was surgisphere, I don’t know. I think you’re a smart individual as well, so I don’t understand why a couple of graphs are that hard for you to accept.
Haven’t asked in about 10 days. At that time it was, “Protein industry cases. All Marshallese and Latino right now. Next 2 weeks will be telling.”
Well I could tell you but I suppose that would be anecdotal since it comes from personal conversations.
I’m not saying I don’t believe it. Point the one time I said that. I’m saying it’s going up because of a singular group of people. You then asked about the total set of cases going up, I showed that was wrong. You then asked about total hospitalizations going up, I showed that was wrong.
Are Arkansas hospitalizations going up? Yes. As I’ve said, almost entirely due to a singular group of people in a singular industry.
Not sure how this has gotten skewed.
I honestly think you need to read anecdotal in a few sentences. Saying a data set is anecdotal doesn’t infer it’s wrong. It’s just not complete or indicative of the total data set.
And should that matter? A case is a case. OK if it’s being driven by an increase in the poultry industry, do those folks exclusively associate with others in the poultry industry? I saw two Hispanic pts and one Marshallese pt today whose family works in the poultry industry. My receptionist, my nurses, the people at the gas station where they stopped for gas on the way to clinic all interacted with them.
When data is referred to as anecdotal, it means that I compiled it based on my experience. IE “I’m seeing more positive cases lately so that means cases must be increasing.”. It is inherently skewed because my personal experience may not accurately represent what is actually happening. Looking at published hospitalization data is not in any way anecdotal. An anecdote is a story. Verifiable data is not an an anecdote. This is Research 101 and is not arguable.
It matters when you point to the increase and then point to business opening up and go, “you aren’t concerned.”
Correlation does not equal causation. Logic literally 101. Just because hospitalizations are going up, doesn’t mean it is associated with the economy opening up. Quite the opposite in this case as it was associated with a group of individuals who got infected and spread it among all of their relatives...not because Bobby sue got it from Maggie at the local piggly wiggly in its first day back in business.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. You present “hospitalizations going up and cases going up...”
Again, nationally, they’re not.
Shit man, I said hospitalizations are going up in Arkansas and Arizona. Also in California, North Carolina, Florida, and other places. I never once mentioned the national rates. And you still can’t grasp the meaning of the term “anecdotal” so I don’t know that I can logically argue with you anymore.
This is literally the first time you’ve said a state other than Arkansas in this whole conversation. But cool.
I really don’t think you understand the word anecdotal. Friend to friend. Anecdotal evidence can be easily verifiable...you didn’t need to add the “but.”
By that I mean that you are choosing to incorrectly defend your definition of a term in a manner that any college freshman studying the basics of research science would correct you on.
Haha use it in a sentence for me. I’ll use it in a sentence.
An immunologist pointed to an anecdotal data set which encapsulated less than 1% of the total data set and made statements about a national virus and the ramifications of the economy opening back up.
In that post I used my conversations with a fellow physician to suggest an increase in hospitalizations in the Phoenix area. He might have had 10 new patients in his particular hospital and there might’ve been zero in any other hospital. Hence his perceived increase could theoretically been an anecdote that has nothing to do with the actual situation. By saying that there is actually verifiable population-level statistics to back that statement up confirms that his anecdotal data holds true across the entire population and is thus verifiable.
An anecdote:
“It is raining at my house right now, NW Arkansas better get their umbrellas out.”
Verifiable data:
“Weather stations across NW Arkansas confirm that multiple sites are seeing an increase in precipitation.”
Not an anecdote:
“Based on their verified reports, Multiple weather stations in NW Arkansas are seeing increased precipitation.”
Absolutely. I’m getting wet. But just because I’m getting wet doesn’t mean that I should assume the guy across the highway is just because I am.
That’s anecdotal evidence in a nutshell, assuming that what I’ve experienced firsthand is applicable to a larger population.
Kind of like assuming just because one industry has an increase in patients, specifically your parents, means you can assume an increase in total statewide patients is inevitable and/or correlated to opening of commerce?
But the increase is not something I’ve personally observed. I never said: “I saw 10 new COVID cases today and every damn one of them worked at George’s!”. That’s anecdotal evidence.
You’re right, you didn’t say they were your patients. You pointed to an increase in hospitalizations for a state which is experiencing an unnaturally odd increase in patients from a singular group of individuals, mapped it alongside a statewide opening, and said “aren’t we worried.”
I’m confused how you’re not seeing this. Looking at such a small population of a region and making statements based upon the entire region based upon that small population is exactly like your rain analogy.
Just because it’s “raining” on the poultry industry, doesn’t mean it’s “raining” on the whole state.
i mean, maybe in the definition of “biases” I’m guilty of one, but it has nothing to do with anecdotal data. You can surely admit that, right?
