Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Washington State positive test results stable or declining?

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 20–SEE MARCH 26 UPDATE

The University of Washington has led the way in COVID-19 testing, and in the midst of the country's worst initial outbreak.  Their daily tracker of test results (scroll down to see the chart) suggests positive results are not increasing and may even be declining in just the last couple of days.  Perhaps this is due to strict containtment measures in the last few weeks there, or something else.  Thoughts from  knowledgeable readers?

UPDATE:   Statistician Nate Silver on the Washington data.

MARCH 26 UPDATE:   It looks like the rate of new confirmed infections in Washington has indeed stabilized, a good bit of evidence for the value of social distancing and business closures.

Leave a Reply to Jake Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 responses to “Washington State positive test results stable or declining?”

  1. Jake

    Just an aside: U of W is doing testing for states beyond Washington. Many samples from Oregon are being sent there (don't know which, if any, other states) because our in-state testing ability is low. However, there may be bias in the types of samples they're getting; from what I understand, Oregon has been reserving its very limited in-state testing capacity (~80 per day) for those with acute viral pneumonia who have already tested negative for the flu. So perhaps as states ramp up their own testing abilities, they are sending (seemingly) lower probability / less urgent tests to the U of W lab. That's speculative, though.

    Reply
  2. Brian Leiter

    Thanks, that's very useful context.

    Reply
  3. Kenny

    Here's the data for the state as a whole. Not as encouraging, but not dismal.

    https://covidtracking.com/data/state/washington/

    Reply
  4. Luca Ferrero

    At a first glance, it does not look that encouraging. In the last week, they have not really upped the number of test significantly – on average 1.7K per day – so there is still a bottleneck that limits how many cases are going to be confirmed. I hope I am wrong but the quasi linear increase in cases seems to make the quasi linear increase in testing.

    Reply
  5. Luca Ferrero

    I meant 'match' not 'make'

    Reply
  6. A in Sahron

    Prof. Leiter, your daily posts have been a helpful alternative resource for information about the crisis. You started to regularly post about it around the 1st of March. I wonder if you care to comment about what you thought then about where we would be now in contrast to what you think about where we are now. What it looks like to me is that we will have very uneven outbreaks. There will be hot spots and other places where nothing has changed much. Do you agree?

    Reply
  7. Brian Leiter

    I'm not sure my forecasts are worth much. I did post this on March 14:
    https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2020/03/looking-ahead-for-universities-and-colleges.html

    As Dr. Fauci said the other day, this new coronavirus is likely to become a regular part of our lives. That means even if current social distancing efforts and closures reduce the caseload, the caseload will rise again, probably everywhere to varying degrees starting next fall into winter. So unless there are some effective treatments developed, my guess is the new normal will be lockdowns, some loosening up, then more lockdowns for the next 1-2 years. An alternative scenario, that some experts have sketched, would require extensive testing and then focused control of those who test positive. This would be less disruptive, but it requires testing capacity, which has so far alluded this beninghted country. Hopefully that will change.

    Reply
  8. Mark S

    Not entirely related to this post on Washington state, but this report out of the UK seems to show that the virus spreads faster and wider than thought, which also leads to the inference that the virus is less lethal than originally thought (and also provides some support for the effectiveness of social distancing): https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/

    Reply
  9. Brian Leiter

    Here's an assessment from a new article in The Atlantic:

    It’s likely, then, that the new coronavirus will be a lingering part of American life for at least a year, if not much longer. If the current round of social-distancing measures works, the pandemic may ebb enough for things to return to a semblance of normalcy. Offices could fill and bars could bustle. Schools could reopen and friends could reunite. But as the status quo returns, so too will the virus. This doesn’t mean that society must be on continuous lockdown until 2022. But “we need to be prepared to do multiple periods of social distancing,” says Stephen Kissler of Harvard.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/how-will-coronavirus-end/608719/

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress