CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

[The Mountains Voice]

CDC has released newest numbers.....
http://cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm

Old June 12 Total Case Count = 17,855 cases
New June 19 Total Case Count = 21,449 cases

Old June 12 Total Death Count = 44 deaths
New June 19 Total Death Count = 87 deaths

Flutrackers Total Death Count = 103
(Provided by the ever talented and hard working :tiphat:AppleBlossom - with lots of support from many others!)

 

[gsgs]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

MMWR23 is up : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5823.pdf

deaths from pneumonia and influenza is up to 773

weeks 17-23 : 799,810,751,751,619,697,773

9 regions: week 23,week 22 :
55,41
94,113
151,115 EN-central
47,33
70,69
78,50 ES-central
73,88
66,54
139,136

 

[JimO]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

It's clear to me that based on what is being reported to the CDC, testing is way down in many states. I also wonder if case reporting is being delayed. For example, Wisconsin's total case count is the same as last week at 3,008. The city of Milwaukee reports 2,610 cases as of yesterday afternoon. I think they were at less than 2,000 last week, so the state's total is underestimated. Also, and this could simply be a function of meeting the reporting deadline, but there have been 5 deaths in Wisconsin, but the CDC still shows only one. It seems like somebody missed their submission deadline in Wisconsin. Why is that?

What is telling to me is that the case count only went up by 20% and the death count went up 98% (using the CDC data).

My fear is that critical information will not be provided due to political and economic pressures and this ever-present paranoia over creating public panic.

 

[The Mountains Voice]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

Old June 12 Total Death Count = 44 deaths
New June 19 Total Death Count = 87 deaths

Flutrackers Total Death Count = 103

Below is a PDF Chart Attachment in PDF for easier comparison - shows the differece in state breakdowns between what we have found, and what CDC reports.

 

[The Mountains Voice]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

What is telling to me is that the case count only went up by 20% and the death count went up 98% (using the CDC data).

Thanks Jim! Good observation that needs to be added to the info.....

Old June 12 Total Case Count = 17,855 cases
New June 19 Total Case Count = 21,449 cases
Percentage Increase = 20%

Old June 12 Total Death Count = 44 deaths
New June 19 Total Death Count = 87 deaths
Percentage Increase = 98%

Possible Reasons for Substantial Percentage Increase Differences:

• Mortality Rate has increased
  (flu is killing larger percentage of people infected)
• They aren't testing and counting cases to any significant degree anymore
  (mostly just hospitalized cases)
• A combination of both.

Anyone else see any correlating factors in the numbers?

 

[hornblower]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

Possible Reasons for Substantial Percentage Increase Differences:

• Mortality Rate has increased
  (flu is killing larger percentage of people infected)
• They aren't testing and counting cases to any significant degree anymore
  (mostly just hospitalized cases)
• A combination of both.

Anyone else see any correlating factors in the numbers?

The other possibility is crest of wave.
You could be seeing a slow down in the rate of increase of new infections.

But for the seriously ill, there's always a time lag - we need to wait to see how they resolve: ie. recover/continue tx/succumb. So you could be seeing a bulge of the serious cases resolving.

Not saying this is so, but it's an alternative explanation for the data.

 

[The Mountains Voice]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

Not saying this is so, but it's an alternative explanation for the data.

That's very valid. A lot of the death cases we are seeing are just now being reported - but actually occurred back during the previous (or earlier) reporting period. There is a lag.

And while we are seeing a lot of Sudden deaths - there are as you mentioned, a lot of really long hospitalization periods prior to the final end.

This brings up the question of How many people are out there in hospitals that aren't going to make it. I know that sounds callous - but the fact is that we're not getting true and accurate hospitalization numbers - and there are a lot of reference stories posted here that indicate it's Very High!

 

[JimO]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

That's very valid. A lot of the death cases we are seeing are just now being reported - but actually occurred back during the previous (or earlier) reporting period. There is a lag.

And while we are seeing a lot of Sudden deaths - there are as you mentioned, a lot of really long hospitalization periods prior to the final end.

This brings up the question of How many people are out there in hospitals that aren't going to make it. I know that sounds callous - but the fact is that we're not getting true and accurate hospitalization numbers - and there are a lot of reference stories posted here that indicate it's Very High!

What makes this even more difficult is that the testing frequency and protocol have changed dramatically over the past two weeks, such that confirmed case counts might have slowed, but is this because there are fewer cases or because there are fewer tests?

 

[Chuck]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

Another limiting factor in the case count might simply be the number of lab techs that are running the tests. A couple of weeks ago it was mentioned that some states had backlogs of thousands of samples to be tested. If the number of new cases reported is about the same from week to week, it could just reflect the capacity of the testing staffs. Of course, serious cases and deaths could get pushed to the head of the line (I hope!), but the total number of tests performed would be about the same.

 

[JimO]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

Another limiting factor in the case count might simply be the number of lab techs that are running the tests. A couple of weeks ago it was mentioned that some states had backlogs of thousands of samples to be tested. If the number of new cases reported is about the same from week to week, it could just reflect the capacity of the testing staffs. Of course, serious cases and deaths could get pushed to the head of the line (I hope!), but the total number of tests performed would be about the same.

I agree, but I have also noted on several state health department sites that testing has been limited to hospitalizations, deaths, and/or clusters. If memory serves me, this includes at least WA, TX, UT, WI, NH, and, I believe, NYC. So, understandably, those with the most cases are beginning to limit testing for various legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, this blunts the ability to evaluate how the virus is spreading and when a true peak occurs. Given that Harvard is doing a public health study related to this flu outbreak with the City of Milwaukee, and given that the City is still providing updated information on its website, that might be the best place to look for clues as to infection rates and the demographics of those infected.

http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/fluseason/2009SwineFlu.htm

 

[gsgs]

Re: CDC Weekly Numbers Update: Friday, June 19 2009

weekly deaths from 122 cities, week23 in computer-readable form
total,>65,25-64,1-24,<1,P+I
-----------------------------
136,86,34,5,2,9,17,Boston, MA
190,128,40,17,3,2,3,Atlanta, GA
25,19,5,1,0,0,4,Bridgeport, CT
159,83,46,22,7,1,11,Baltimore, MD
9,6,3,0,0,0,0,Cambridge, MA
144,86,33,12,6,7,14,Charlotte, NC
19,12,6,1,0,0,1,Fall River, MA
193,111,64,9,5,4,11,Jacksonville, FL
55,41,10,3,0,1,7,Hartford, CT
89,48,32,3,2,4,5,Miami, FL
20,15,5,0,0,0,0,Lowell, MA
78,45,21,4,0,8,1,Norfolk, VA
11,6,4,0,1,0,0,Lynn, MA
63,30,21,8,1,3,2,Richmond, VA
31,28,3,0,0,0,2,New Bedford, MA
59,42,16,1,0,0,5,Savannah, GA
19,16,3,0,0,0,1,New Haven, CT
75,49,15,5,3,3,3,St. Petersburg, FL
57,42,11,2,2,0,2,Providence, RI
180,121,41,8,5,5,10,Tampa, FL
1,1,0,0,0,0,0,Somerville, MA
113,74,27,10,0,2,3,Washington, D.C.
47,27,13,4,1,2,7,Springfield, MA
13,9,3,1,0,0,2,Wilmington, DE
30,23,7,0,0,0,5,Waterbury, CT
57,41,14,1,0,1,9,Worcester, MA
187,118,47,13,3,6,14,Birmingham, AL
71,50,14,4,3,0,5,Chattanooga, TN
38,33,5,0,0,0,2,Albany, NY
95,67,19,6,2,1,12,Knoxville, TN
22,17,4,1,0,0,2,Allentown, PA
87,55,25,3,2,2,7,Lexington, KY
86,59,15,6,3,3,7,Buffalo, NY
166,86,53,20,4,3,14,Memphis, TN
28,14,8,2,1,3,1,Camden, NJ
108,81,24,3,0,0,6,Mobile, AL
14,8,5,1,0,0,4,Elizabeth, NJ
74,49,19,2,3,1,4,Montgomery, AL
48,37,9,0,1,1,5,Erie, PA
141,78,50,5,5,3,16,Nashville, TN
17,13,3,1,0,0,2,Jersey City, NJ
818,576,170,53,14,5,29,New York City, NY
87,48,21,6,5,7,9,Austin, TX
44,21,18,2,2,1,2,Newark, NJ
57,44,9,2,2,0,0,Baton Rouge, LA
12,8,2,2,0,0,2,Paterson, NJ
52,34,15,1,0,2,1,Corpus Christi, TX
320,188,94,28,2,8,9,Philadelphia, PA
164,96,37,21,5,5,10,Dallas, TX
50,37,6,4,0,3,3,Pittsburgh, PA?
89,67,14,4,2,2,3,El Paso, TX
33,25,7,1,0,0,4,Reading, PA
-,-,-,-,-,-,-,Fort Worth, TX
119,91,21,4,0,3,8,Rochester, NY
375,213,92,29,25,16,25,Houston, TX
26,19,5,2,0,0,1,Schenectady, NY
68,47,14,4,1,2,3,Little Rock, AR
29,23,6,0,0,0,2,Scranton, PA
-,-,-,-,-,-,-,New Orleans, LA
83,66,10,5,1,1,8,Syracuse, NY
220,141,53,15,4,7,11,San Antonio, TX
19,12,5,1,0,1,0,Trenton, NJ
46,26,15,1,2,2,6,Shreveport, LA
11,7,1,2,1,0,0,Utica, NY
110,71,33,5,1,0,5,Tulsa, OK
18,13,4,1,0,0,3,Yonkers, NY
106,74,20,6,4,2,3,Albuquerque, NM
70,39,24,6,0,1,1,Akron, OH
49,36,10,2,0,1,5,Boise, ID
42,27,10,3,1,1,3,Canton, OH
71,52,12,6,0,1,2,Colorado Springs, CO
342,201,102,30,6,2,42,Chicago, IL
59,41,11,5,1,1,6,Denver, CO
96,60,26,5,1,4,11,Cincinnati, OH
230,166,46,8,4,6,16,Las Vegas, NV
222,153,48,14,1,6,5,Cleveland, OH
26,17,6,1,2,0,1,Ogden, UT
209,144,47,8,3,7,17,Columbus, OH
181,110,49,11,6,4,16,Phoenix, AZ
135,102,21,9,2,1,8,Dayton, OH
28,23,4,1,0,0,1,Pueblo, CO
158,93,42,12,9,2,14,Detroit, MI
134,87,34,8,4,1,15,Salt Lake City, UT
43,26,11,5,1,0,2,Evansville, IN
112,77,28,4,3,0,1,Tucson, AZ
91,69,15,4,1,2,6,Fort Wayne, IN
16,5,8,3,0,0,0,Gary, IN
16,8,5,3,0,0,0,Berkeley, CA
51,36,8,4,0,3,7,Grand Rapids, MI
106,73,24,8,0,1,9,Fresno, CA
205,121,52,20,3,9,12,Indianapolis, IN
37,19,12,2,0,4,7,Glendale, CA
37,30,7,0,0,0,4,Lansing, MI
64,45,14,3,2,0,6,Honolulu, HI
97,47,30,13,3,4,2,Milwaukee, WI
-,-,-,-,-,-,-,Long Beach, CA
52,33,14,2,1,2,7,Peoria, IL
226,131,61,23,9,2,27,Los Angeles, CA
65,44,16,4,0,1,2,Rockford, IL
19,9,6,1,0,3,2,Pasadena, CA
41,27,11,2,0,1,1,South Bend, IN
89,58,19,5,4,2,6,Portland, OR
98,68,21,4,2,3,4,Toledo, OH
190,132,37,15,2,4,22,Sacramento, CA
45,37,7,1,0,0,3,Youngstown, OH
133,87,31,6,5,3,12,San Diego, CA
106,66,27,10,3,0,8,San Francisco, CA
131,91,29,8,1,2,8,Des Moines, IA
166,127,24,7,6,2,19,San Jose, CA
24,17,5,1,0,1,1,Duluth, MN
31,23,5,2,1,0,3,Santa Cruz, CA
22,9,9,3,1,0,1,Kansas City, KS
109,67,30,10,1,1,9,Seattle, WA
105,63,24,9,5,4,7,Kansas City, MO
65,51,8,2,2,2,5,Spokane, WA
41,34,7,0,0,0,1,Lincoln, NE
102,74,16,6,4,2,4,Tacoma, WA
53,31,15,4,2,1,3,Minneapolis, MN
72,53,12,2,2,3,8,Omaha, NE
86,49,28,2,3,2,7,St. Louis, MO
42,28,6,7,1,0,3,St. Paul, MN
75,57,13,2,1,2,8,Wichita, KS