Skip to content

Coronavirus Growth in Western Countries: July 10 Update

Published on 22 Comments on Coronavirus Growth in Western Countries: July 10 Update

Here’s the officially reported coronavirus death toll through July 10. The raw data from Johns Hopkins is here.

22 thoughts on “Coronavirus Growth in Western Countries: July 10 Update”

  1. golack

    Some of the bump we see in the US is due to artifacts from the 4th of July holiday--but overall we are in the Delta wave of the pandemic.
    In US, now at 5 new cases/day/100K, still a bit lower than the high ca. 77 in Jan.
    7 states are above 10, all still climbing; leader is AR at 23--their high was just over 100 in Jan.

    1. rational thought

      Just from the report you cited, very sceptical.

      It would be more accurate to say that 40% of those who chose to respond self reported that they had symptoms that conceivably could have been caused by covid ( not that actually were).

      Things like headaches and fatigue are fairly common occassionally. So what %age of those who never got covid would report having such things at some point in a year? Maybe as many as those who got covid.

      For a symptom like loss of taste, which is more linked specifically to covid and is not as common otherwise, that seems more likely to be caused by covid. But some smaller %age there will still not be covid related.

      And it says even some reported zero symptoms when having covid, zero after 3 months but then the symptoms only started 6 or 9 months after? I doubt that is covid caused.

        1. Clyde Schechter

          "It will obviously be designed to screen out ordinary aches and pains."

          Not obvious at all. And nothing in the abstract (I did not read the full article) suggests that this was done. In fact, relying on surveys and interview it would be pretty much impossible to distinguish coincidental common symptoms from sequelae of covid. Even supplementing that with exams and lab tests and perhaps imaging studies it would be very difficult at best.

          The only reliable way to know what's going on is to compare the incidence of these symptoms to the incidence in a control group that never had covid. But there was no control group in that study.

          1. cld

            If they don't do that it would make their whole effort pointless, it's absurd to think they would not, what could they say they would get out of it?

        2. rational thought

          Read what you cited. This newer cite goes into more detail so thanks for that.

          It does give the data based on severity. Look at the data tables. And, no looks like it did not "screen out" symptoms that were mild. It shows how many ( I e. most) were the mildest category of severity for most of the listed symptoms. Such as the mildest category of fatigue where there is no limitation on daily activities.

          And now even more convinced this study tells me very little. As I said I am sceptical on anything self- reported especially when a large number drop out and do not cooperate. Clearly more likely that those who feel that they might be suffering from continued symptoms are more likely to respond.

          And the study does honestly state these problems.

          Even ignoring that, to find that around 40% of people have one of such a broad variety of symptoms at any time, including mild symptoms, is just no surprise at all. Completely consistent with the possibility that actual long covid is non existent ( not that I am saying that just that this does not prove it even exists at all).

          If I had been surveyed in the last few months, i think i would have been able to report at least 4 of these symptoms myself ( I have not had covid).

    2. rational thought

      Please read the actual earlier study you cited and maybe you can see the point.

      On this latest study, since it is behind a registration wall, I am not going to read it and see if it is flawed in the same way.

      How could i miss it? Maybe because i was not trying to go all over the internet trying to find any study that supports what you are saying? And I was not even trying to contend that there is no study conducted differently that would show evidence of long covid. Was just saying the the first study you cited really did not. Although since the first study only found 40% or so reporting symptoms afterward including a long list of common things even if very mild, that to me indicates that there is not all that much long covid.

      Should we believe everyone? Of course not , especially with some scientists who might have an agenda ( but that first study does not seem to be that type to me).

      But, in my earlier response, I effectively assumed that everyone in the study was at least being honest. Where did i even hint at dishonestly being an issue? Maybe you thought by bringing up self reporting, I was saying the residents could be lying? No. It is just that people can sometimes imagine symptoms they do not really have but they still honestly believe they do.

      And my point in the end is that even if self reporting and drop in response rate and etc., etc. caused zero bias, the reported symptoms and severity seem within the range of what you would expect for any general population ( i.e. if actually zero long covid itself). I do not know for sure because I do not have a good study of that sort of control group.

      1. cld

        Fine. If you can't see a knife sticking out of somebody's chest it's just the sniffles. But if I mistook your meaning, let me apologize.

        I've just seen the NIH has a similar symptom tracking program, entirely self-reported,

        https://directorsblog.nih.gov/?s=long+covid

        Should we assume they don't know what they're doing, either?

        Covid causes such a variety of symptoms in so many different parts of the body it would seem to me surprising if there were not lingering effects, maybe some that won't appear for years, like shingles or post-polio syndrome.

        1. rational thought

          Can you just try to directly say what you mean rather then these attempted cute phrases like not seeing a knife sticking out of someone's chest. I again see nothing I said that would relate to that comment.

          The study we were initially talking about listed the symptoms and their severity including the mildest which really did amount to more like the sniffles. I fail to see how simply nothing that the their own study said a large number of the symptoms are mild ( and not they gave a definition of each severity class).

          I did not see a "knife sticking out of the chest" because the study itself described symptoms that clearly do not warrant any such comparison. There were the more severe categories where that comparison is more apt but they were rarer.

          And main point is still that, without anything saying what sort of self reported symptoms would be shown based on same definition if they have surveyed those that did not have covid, it really tells is very little.

          What if someone surveyed 5000 people who attended BLM protests and found that the same 40% reported symptoms at the same rates as shown in thr study for covid? Or even at lesser rates? Would you concede then that they proved " long BLM protest"?

          And again have to ask if you yet have actually read through the study you cited?

          And nowhere have I stated that I believe that there is no such thing as long covid. I expect there is of course to some extent. It would be shocking if an illness severe enough to hospitalize a decent number would never cause long lasting effects. But 40% seems way way too high. In fact that swiss study would definitely seem to show that it must be less than that 40%. Because if you track ALL reported types of symptoms even if very mild, of course some %age of them will be ones that had nothing to do with covid. After all, mild fatigue and headaches and such were not exactly unknown before covid.

          Was that % of symptoms found only 25% of them leaving 30% ( 75% of 40%) as actual long covid? Or 50% leaving only 20% long covid . Or 90% leaving only 4% long covid? I do not know and neither do you based on that study. It is useful data but tells us not so much without knowing what the symptom rates are without covid to compare.

          And would note that one thing mentioned in your latest cite is a study finding long covid in 5% or 10%. Not enough details to comment much on how persuasive it seems.

          1. cld

            Yes, I read it and saw nothing in it that I got wrong about it.

            You are saying that people who are describing symptoms that are affecting them that are distinct from their ordinary state are not trustworthy because you cannot actually see what they are saying they are experiencing, therefore because you cannot see the knife sticking out of their chest you do not believe them.

            I don't think that can be hard to follow, except for someone whose reading comprehension is limited to only what he wants to see.

            As when you thought you read somewhere I'd said you were denying long covid entirely, like an eidetic image of what you know ought to be there.

            I don't disagree the 40% figure is all but certainly going to be the high end, and that the number will all but inevitably be found to be lower, and that's the reason the article caught my attention, it's an obvious limit. But individual studies do find results outside the mean which are still real, in that situation in that moment. In the future you're only going to be seeing more reports of more studies tracking people and relying on their own self-reporting in exactly this way and it seems hard to imagine that if they weren't meaningful they would be done at all.

            In the end your objection seems to be to even knowing this study exists, and, I'm just going guess, I'll guess any other as well. You'll just keep imagining increasing criteria that whatever is brought up will fail to provide.

  4. cld

    Flu shot reduces multiple symptoms of covid-19,

    . . ..
    The incidence of 15 adverse outcomes (sepsis; strokes; deep vein thrombosis or DVT; pulmonary embolism; acute respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome; arthralgia or joint pain; renal failure; anorexia; heart attack; pneumonia; emergency department visits; hospital admission; ICU admission; and death) within 120 days of testing positive for COVID-19 was then compared between the two groups.

    The analysis revealed that those who had not had the flu jab were significantly more likely (up to 20% more likely) to have been admitted to ICU.

    They were also significantly more likely to visit the Emergency Department (up to 58% more likely), to develop sepsis (up to 45% more likely), to have a stroke (up to 58% more likely) and a DVT (up to 40% more likely). The risk of death was not reduced.

    It isn't known exactly how the flu jab provides protection against COVID-19 but most theories centre around it boosting the innate immune system - "general" defences we are born with that are not tailored to any particular illness.
    . . . .

  5. jakejjj

    Quick! Crank up the fear to 11! And by all means wear your masks inside your cars, "progressive" Karens! LOL. By the way, normals are laughing at you.

Comments are closed.