Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 101 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
By the way, a direct result of the above:

The European Union is looking to soon reopen its borders, and it is reportedly considering denying entry to Americans because of how the US has handled the coronavirus pandemic.

The New York Timess reports:

That prospect, which would lump American visitors in with Russians and Brazilians as unwelcome, is a stinging blow to American prestige in the world and a repudiation of President Trump’s handling of the virus in the United States, which has more than 2.3 million cases and upward of 120,000 deaths, more than any other country.
European nations are currently haggling over two potential lists of acceptable visitors based on how countries are faring with the coronavirus pandemic. Both include China, as well as developing nations like Uganda, Cuba and Vietnam.
Travelers from the United States and the rest of the world have been excluded from visiting the European Union — with few exceptions mostly for repatriations or ‘essential travel’ —- since mid-March. But a final decision on reopening the borders is expected early next week, before the bloc reopens on July 1.
 
So this is political and it doesn't belong here.



I don't know/haven't looked at other States but here in California the testing is way up. Gov Newsom's goal was 60k tests per day and we have averaged significantly more than that since June 1. Both ICU and hospitalizations due to C19 have remained stable since April. The daily death count (raw number of dead attributed to C19) peaked in late April and is on a steady downward trajectory (since the peak). LA County alone accounts for about 44% of the new positives. Nearly 80% of the dead are 65 or older and 80+ account for 45% of all deaths in Cali C19 related. Half of the dead contracted C19 while in skilled nursing.



Not in California.

https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/
You and I will continue to disagree about 'political'. If the standard is that mentioning a politician's name is political then you broke you own rule naming Newsom. Quoting the person who has ultimate control over our plan to deal with C19 is not political. That person is more concerned with appearances than lives, and slowed testing to that end. Knowing that testing was purposely slowed is important to the general discussion of the path of the pandemic.
 
Here's an interesting article about a current vaccine that may actually be giving partial immunity to Covid currently. It appears people who have recently had the MMR vaccine and do get Covid have milder cases of it. Here's the article:
This is like the Polio vaccine effect. Dr. Gallo mentioned in his talk that Polio vaccine, BCG, and measles vaccine should engage the immune response in a protective way because they are living (but attenuated) viruses so are capable of activating a non-specific antiviral innate immune reaction after they are given. At least hypothetically.
By the way, a direct result of the above:

The European Union is looking to soon reopen its borders, and it is reportedly considering denying entry to Americans because of how the US has handled the coronavirus pandemic.

The New York Timess reports:

That prospect, which would lump American visitors in with Russians and Brazilians as unwelcome, is a stinging blow to American prestige in the world and a repudiation of President Trump’s handling of the virus in the United States, which has more than 2.3 million cases and upward of 120,000 deaths, more than any other country.
European nations are currently haggling over two potential lists of acceptable visitors based on how countries are faring with the coronavirus pandemic. Both include China, as well as developing nations like Uganda, Cuba and Vietnam.
Travelers from the United States and the rest of the world have been excluded from visiting the European Union — with few exceptions mostly for repatriations or ‘essential travel’ —- since mid-March. But a final decision on reopening the borders is expected early next week, before the bloc reopens on July 1.
It would be foolhardy to let US citizens travel freely into the EU zone given the current situation. I think places like Tahiti and some other island nations are planning on allowing travel from the USA provided that there is a negative PCR test within 3 days of embarkation. Good luck with that time line in most places here.
 
Reactions: Koronin
So this is political and it doesn't belong here.



I don't know/haven't looked at other States but here in California the testing is way up. Gov Newsom's goal was 60k tests per day and we have averaged significantly more than that since June 1. Both ICU and hospitalizations due to C19 have remained stable since April. The daily death count (raw number of dead attributed to C19) peaked in late April and is on a steady downward trajectory (since the peak). LA County alone accounts for about 44% of the new positives. Nearly 80% of the dead are 65 or older and 80+ account for 45% of all deaths in Cali C19 related. Half of the dead contracted C19 while in skilled nursing.



Not in California.

https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/
If I'm reading the graph correctly, Cali really is doing well because their testing is up ~25%, but their cases are only up ~5%. Other states are flipped and much wider than that (like I mentioned above, one state has 13% increase in tests, but a 77% increase in positives).
 
If I'm reading the graph correctly, Cali really is doing well because their testing is up ~25%, but their cases are only up ~5%. Other states are flipped and much wider than that (like I mentioned above, one state has 13% increase in tests, but a 77% increase in positives).
I guess then I should be grateful to be in NC where our $ of positive has remained the same with more testing. If that is correct for California, then they are actually doing better than what is being portrayed with just numbers. Plus Cali has the population of country so there's that as well.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
By the way, a direct result of the above:

The European Union is looking to soon reopen its borders, and it is reportedly considering denying entry to Americans because of how the US has handled the coronavirus pandemic.

The New York Timess reports:

That prospect, which would lump American visitors in with Russians and Brazilians as unwelcome, is a stinging blow to American prestige in the world and a repudiation of President Trump’s handling of the virus in the United States, which has more than 2.3 million cases and upward of 120,000 deaths, more than any other country.
European nations are currently haggling over two potential lists of acceptable visitors based on how countries are faring with the coronavirus pandemic. Both include China, as well as developing nations like Uganda, Cuba and Vietnam.
Travelers from the United States and the rest of the world have been excluded from visiting the European Union — with few exceptions mostly for repatriations or ‘essential travel’ —- since mid-March. But a final decision on reopening the borders is expected early next week, before the bloc reopens on July 1.

Day 95 after the 10,000th case the EU had 2.16 million cases. Day 95 was yesterday in the USA and we have slightly less than 2.39 million cases. The USA is testing at a rate of 1.55 per 1,000 citizens. Germany is 0.55, Spain is 0.70, Belgium is 0.79, Italy 0.86. At the point in time where cases in the US began to separate from nearly identical with the EU was at day 74. Then US test rate was slightly about 1.0. Spain and Italy were the only Countries even close to that number. Since then testing in most EU Countries has fallen dramatically while the US testing has only been accelerating. So ya, we going to show more new cases.

Now, look at total deaths. By day 95 the US had 122,000. The EU had 180,000. The mortality rate in the US is significantly lower than the EU.

The writers of the NYT piece should be ashamed to put out such garbage as it related to how the US has handled the pandemic (compared to the EU).

If the EU chooses not to allow non-essential travel from the USA for reasons stated in the article (which I don't believe for one second) then something else is going on and the timing for that something else is in November.

EDIT: France, at their peak was testing at 0.28 per thousand. The US is testing today at 5.5X that rate.
 
Last edited:

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
You and I will continue to disagree about 'political'. If the standard is that mentioning a politician's name is political then you broke you own rule naming Newsom. Quoting the person who has ultimate control over our plan to deal with C19 is not political. That person is more concerned with appearances than lives, and slowed testing to that end. Knowing that testing was purposely slowed is important to the general discussion of the path of the pandemic.
"If it had been anyone else saying this, we would assume it was a joke, albeit one in poor taste. With Trump, who knows? "

This is political. Testing has not been slowed. On June 19 the test rate was 1.50/1,000 in the USA. Yesterday the test rate was 1.55/1,000.

A point was made sarcastically and I'm sure you know what the point was. The press scaring everybody with cases "spiking" should be considered propaganda unless the rest of the story is also told.
 
Last edited:
Day 95 after the 10,000th case the EU had 2.16 million cases. Day 95 was yesterday in the USA and we have slightly less than 2.39 million cases. The USA is testing at a rate of 1.55 per 100,000 citizens. Germany is 0.55, Spain is 0.70, Belgium is 0.79, Italy 0.86. At the point in time where cases in the US began to separate from nearly identical with the EU was at day 74. At that point the US test rate was slightly about 1.0. Spain and Italy were the only Countries even close to that number. Since then testing in most EU Countries has fallen dramatically while the US testing has only been accelerating. So ya, we going to show more new cases.

Now, look at total deaths. By day 95 the US had 122,000. The EU had 180,000. The mortality rate in the US is significantly lower than the EU.

The writers of the NYT piece should be ashamed to put out such garbage as it related to how the US has handled the pandemic (compared to the EU).

If the EU chooses not to allow non-essential travel from the USA for reasons stated in the article (which I don't believe for one second) then something else is going on and the timing for that something else is in November.
In Germany everyone with the slightest symptoms is now allowed to get a free test, as well as everyone who had contact with a positive case. They try to track down every single contact. We have mandatory face masks in most places, you have to leave your adress if you take a seat in a café to have a coffee, you have to keep 2meters distance in shops, limited numbers of visitors everywhere, we have a corona warning app, and so on.
We had cases in meat factories that have been bad (due to temperatures and the working and living conditions of the workers), but apart from that there are not many cases at the moment, which I don't think comes down to not enough testing, since the rate of positives (apart from the meat factories) are really low (about 1%, I think). I don't know how exactly the testing in the US works, but I don't think they do tracking like that.

To say it's a political decision is ridiculous. It's the fact that your cases are going up and up and there is no real plan how to stop it. If that's the way the US want it, so be it. (Sweden has its way too and is treated similarly.) But to say it's political - just no.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
In Germany everyone with the slightest symptoms is now allowed to get a free test, as well as everyone who had contact with a positive case. They try to track down every single contact. We have mandatory face masks in most places, you have to leave your adress if you take a seat in a café to have a coffee, you have to keep 2meters distance in shops, limited numbers of visitors everywhere, we have a corona warning app, and so on.
We had cases in meat factories that have been bad (due to temperatures and the working and living conditions of the workers), but apart from that there are not many cases at the moment, which I don't think comes down to not enough testing, since the rate of positives (apart from the meat factories) are really low (about 1%, I think). I don't know how exactly the testing in the US works, but I don't think they do tracking like that.

To say it's a political decision is ridiculous. It's the fact that your cases are going up and up and there is no real plan how to stop it. If that's the way the US want it, so be it. (Sweden has its way too and is treated similarly.) But to say it's political - just no.
We are testing 3X as many people here compared to Germany, right now, today. Of the major EU Countries on France tests fewer than Germany.

If the US were testing 1/3 as many as we are testing now our new infection numbers would would fall dramatically. The peak of German testing was more than a month ago which was about 30% more people than they are testing today... which means there are likely far more COVID positives in Germany than what is now known. Compare German testing with the USA. Germany has reduced by 30%, US has increased by 30% over the same time frame.

So the EU's decision may be based on a number of factors but you can safely bet politics is at or near the top.


There's all sorts of things being done over here. Contact Tracing ramp up, individual States's metric targets for re-opening, leveraging technology...

https://healthweather.us/?date=2020-03-01&mode=Observed&regionId=US
 
Last edited:
So this is political and it doesn't belong here.
So it's too political to mention something that Trump said that's very relevant to how the U.S. is dealing with the pandemic, but not too political to do the same thing about Newsom? I'm not supposed to say that Trump advocated, seriously or not, reduced testing, while you can say that Newsom advocated greater testing? You're being just as political in mentioning him.

As I've pointed out before, I and others have noted what other political figures in other countries have done, without a peep from you. Why don't you just come out and admit that what you consider political is anything negative about Trump, while anything else about any other official is fine?

Sure, if you scroll way down, then estimate numbers from a graph. Most states don't have even this much, and what almost all states don't report are simple day-to-day numbers, as is the case for confirmed cases and deaths.

We are testing 3X as many people here compared to Germany, right now, today. Of the major EU Countries on France tests fewer than Germany.

If the US were testing 1/3 as many as we are testing now our new infection numbers would would fall dramatically. The peak of German testing was more than a month ago... which means there are likely far more COVID positives in Germany than what is now known.
There are far more C19 positives everywhere than the number of confirmed cases. The difference between Germany and the U.S. is that the number of active cases in Germany peaked two and a half months ago, and now active cases are < 5% of the total. In contrast, active cases in the U.S. still haven't peaked, and are > 50% of the total. This means that potential for further spread is far greater in the U.S. than it is in Germany.

To be more specific, active cases in Germany are about one in ten thousand, relative to the total population. Even if you assume the total number of infected people is about ten times that—in line with antibody studies in France, Spain, and the Netherlands, among others—still only one in a thousand Germans is potentially infectious. In the U.S., the number of active cases is about one in 250. Even if you assume that because of increased testing, the total number of infected people is only five times that, that means one in fifty Americans, on average, is potentially infectious. That’s twenty times the rate of Germany.

That's not to say that politics is not also involved, but the situation in Germany warrants less testing compared to the U.S. Testing isn't just about numbers; it's about timing. Testing in the U.S. was delayed, which means far more testing is needed now than would be the case if there had been more testing earlier. S. Korea illustrates this especially well. This is despite the fact that the U.S. had more advance warning that the virus was coming than countries in Europe, let alone SE Asia, did. America had more time to prepare.
 
Last edited:

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Why don't you just come out and admit that what you consider political is anything negative about Trump, while anything else about any other official is fine?
I'm not a Newsom guy and didn't make a negative quip about him. Do you see the difference?

The difference between Germany and the U.S. is that the number of active cases in Germany peaked two and a half months ago,
Yep at about .7 per thousand.

What do you suppose the active cases to total would look like if Germany was testing 3X as many people for the last several weeks? Greater than 5% of the total?

Our high water mark for new cases was on April 24. Our test rate on April 24 was almost exactly what the Germans were doing at .58/1000. Our new cases/day have remained remarkably constant (there has been a tick up since June 18) on average since WHILE our testing has increases 2.6X.

The positive test rate has hovered between 4 - 5% for some time now. If we can get to 1,000,000 tests per day, then you will set a new "peak."

If the US had done what Germany did then it could honestly be said 'we peaked in late April.' So maybe the argument to reduce testing isn't completely without merit.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
This is why it would be foolhardy. Brazil, US, Russia, India, and Mexico should be isolated because of the case numbers.

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/IvoHDaalder/status/1275438302129033217

Lol. Of all the EU Countries only Denmark is testing at a greater rate per 1,000. Other than Denmark, Italy is next closest at a bit less than half.

It's the number of tests being conducted here is what's driving that graph.
 
I'm not a Newsom guy and didn't make a negative quip about him. Do you see the difference?
The difference is that you don't regard it as politics if you don't say something negative. Which is just my point: it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, it's still politics. If I praised Trump to the skies, you wouldn't object at all, but if you were really concerned about keeping politics out of the thread, you should.

What do you suppose the active cases to total would look like if Germany was testing 3X as many people for the last several weeks? Greater than 5% of the total?
There isn't a linear relationship between number of tests and number of positives, because it isn't purely random whether someone who didn't get tested at a lower rate will now get tested at a higher rate. People have different reasons for not getting tested. To take one obvious example, some people are asymptomatic. They aren't going to get tested no matter how high the testing rate, unless there's an urgent effort to test everyone. That is the case in some select groups (nursing homes, prisons, homeless shelters, now pro athletes), but that isn't the case for the population as a whole.

If we assume asymptomatics are half of the infected population, that means increased testing--at best--will only find increased positives among half the population. So, e.g., if 5% of the population is infected, and testing at one rate picks up 10% of these, or 0.5% of the population, it doesn't follow that doubling the testing rate will pick up 20%, or 1.0%. At best, it will pick up double of the symptomatics, or 5% more, so 0.75% total. That is assuming that symptomatics all. are equally likely to get tested if tests increase, which is unlikely to be the case. People with relatively mild symptoms who , for various reasons, sound and unsound, don't see themselves as a threat to others, are going to resist getting tested. There is bound to be a large reservoir of infected people who will never get tested unless it becomes mandatory.

We can see that in the numbers. You say that the positivity rate has been. stable at 4-5%, but that's only recently. It used to be much higher, as much as 20%. It's dropped over a longer period of time, partly because the spread of the virus has been reduced--no question about that--but also partly because of the factors I just mentioned. There are diminishing returns at play.

If the US had done what Germany did then it could honestly be said 'we peaked in late April.' So maybe the argument to reduce testing isn't completely without merit.
It's totally without merit. If the argument had merit, why wouldn't they stop testing all Administration officials every day? The only benefit reducing testing provides is reduced costs. There is no other possible argument for it; the more information we have, the better off we are. Iceland has tested a greater proportion of its people than just about any other country in the world, and they have virtually eradicated the virus, though as they open up to foreigners, that may change.

You can only paper over the reality so long. The U.S. could underestimate the rate of infection, but it couldn't hide hospitalizations and deaths. Our death rate is more than three times higher than Germany's. There are several Euro countries with death rates higher than ours, and a few other countries that have under-reported, like Brazil and Iran, may be higher, but our rate is still one of the worst in the world.

I'm currently in a third world country that doesn't have anywhere close to the resources the U.S. has, and the case rate and death rate are < 5% that of the U.S. Even making very generous allowances for under-reporting, those differences are stark.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Novak critical of the restrictions that the US Open wanted institute to prevent transmission? I guess he wanted to run a tourney with his own rules and look how that turned out. Pure hubris.
He was partying with friends as well as playing tennis. Hugging other people and not observing any social distancing rules. Some way to christen a new tennis tournament. Anti vaxxers operate in a parallel universe, a few outspoken ones in the USA have actually died from Covid-19 but it doesn't seem to sway opinions unbelievably.
 
I will agree with Chris G. about one thing. The U.S. is no worse than much of W. Europe in regards to deaths, which is a better indicator than confirmed cases. Worse than Germany, and worse than most of Scandinavia, but no worse than the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Why are these Western democracies faring so badly compared to much of the rest of the world?

I think one factor, which we've discussed here before, is that Westerners are more. resistant to obeying central commands that restrict their freedoms. In the U.S., as we've all seen, there's been a huge movement against lockdowns. Where I'm at, people don't have any choice. What the government says, goes. Because of my age, I'm literally not allowed outside my home AT ALL (presumably, there would be an exception to go to a hospital), and people under 21 are similarly restricted. Everyone else can go out, but only three times a week, the days specified on a pass we all get.

But a second factor has to do with transmission of the virus. As I've pointed out here before, there is a very strong correlation between population density and case rate in the U.S. The highest rates of cases and deaths have generally occurred in the cities and states with the highest population densities. You would think a third world country would be subject to this same effect. Manila reportedly has the highest PD of any city in the world. It does have a fairly high death rate, about 450/million, but that isn't as high as the rate in many less dense American cities, e.g., not only NYC, but Newark, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, New Orleans, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Long Beach, Riverside...

Why not? The sheer density of population only matters to the extent that people interact with each other. In the West, people have large numbers of interactions with others, at work, on public transportation, in malls, restaurants, and stores, and so on. These kinds of interactions certainly occur in Manila, but to a lesser degree. The great majority of people are somewhat isolated in poor areas of the city (that make American slums and ghettoes look like a millionaire's row), and can't afford to mix with others on a regular basis. They may ride public transportation (jeepneys, which carry far fewer people than busses and subways, and are open to the air, so any viral aerosol tends to be dispersed quickly--and they're all shut down now, anyway), go to the mall (but not often, and not being able to buy anything, they don't stay there long), and eat out (at cheap eateries that are mostly outside).

And once you get outside of Manila, the isolation increases. A large majority of the population lives in rural provinces, in villages or more remote areas. The density of these areas is much less, and probably even more important, there is relatively little contact between their inhabitants and the outside world. So you don't see so much seeding that occurs in the West, where people frequently travel from one country or one state to a rural area, thereby spreading the virus. This is far less likely to happen in a third world country.
 
Last edited:
I guess then I should be grateful to be in NC where our $ of positive has remained the same with more testing. If that is correct for California, then they are actually doing better than what is being portrayed with just numbers. Plus Cali has the population of country so there's that as well.
Cali still has a lot of cases (6,000+ today), but their increase test to increase case rate is better than many.
 
Reactions: Koronin
Day 95 after the 10,000th case the EU had 2.16 million cases. Day 95 was yesterday in the USA and we have slightly less than 2.39 million cases. The USA is testing at a rate of 1.55 per 1,000 citizens. Germany is 0.55, Spain is 0.70, Belgium is 0.79, Italy 0.86. At the point in time where cases in the US began to separate from nearly identical with the EU was at day 74. Then US test rate was slightly about 1.0. Spain and Italy were the only Countries even close to that number. Since then testing in most EU Countries has fallen dramatically while the US testing has only been accelerating. So ya, we going to show more new cases.

Now, look at total deaths. By day 95 the US had 122,000. The EU had 180,000. The mortality rate in the US is significantly lower than the EU.

The writers of the NYT piece should be ashamed to put out such garbage as it related to how the US has handled the pandemic (compared to the EU).

If the EU chooses not to allow non-essential travel from the USA for reasons stated in the article (which I don't believe for one second) then something else is going on and the timing for that something else is in November.
Sure, testing began late in Europe because in January and February, when there was already substantial spread, no-one really was very suspicious. It's only by March that testing started to increase, and by then it was limited by basic materials in many countries (for example in Belgium). So we did miss a lot of cases. But the article isn't about what happened 3-5 months ago, it is about the situation at the moment. There is relatively less testing here, because there is a huge difference in people that are infected. Belgium currently reports about 90 cases per day, on about 8000-10.000 tests/day. That means about 1% of tests is positive. Everyone can get tested. Currently, there is just not a lot of demand for tests, and I'm quite sure we aren't missing very many infected. Other numbers point to the same (e.g. hospitalized people per day is currenly 18, while at the peak it was above 500.

The point is this: "Countries on the E.U. draft lists have been selected as safe based on a combination of epidemiological criteria. The benchmark is the E.U. average number of new infections — over the past 14 days — per 100,000 people, which is currently 16 for the bloc. The comparable number for the United States is 107, while Brazil’s is 190 and Russia’s is 80, according to a Times database."

Others here have also added relevant information. Bottom line: more testing, yes, but the differences in the curves and the spread are clear. Other numbers (hospitilisations per day, mortality per day) point to the same.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Which is just my point: it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, it's still politics
Try and comment neither positive or negative wrt politicos. That’s my point.

It's totally without merit. If the argument had merit, why wouldn't they stop testing all Administration officials every day? The only benefit reducing testing provides is reduced costs. There is no other possible argument for it; the more information we have, the better off we are.
It’s called sarcasm. You are absolutely correct. So why are most of the EU Countries tailing off their testing?

As far as the death rate in the US.. at least part of the difference is the financial incentive to report C19 as cause of death in US hospitals. Strip hospital ability to generate revenue from anything other than C19 cases, pay the 20% more on the Medicare scale for the C19 deaths and not too surprisingly, administrators faced with closing the hospital or run up the C19 deaths end up doing what they have to in order to survive. And that reality can be directly attributed to the absolute garbage modeling early on.
 
Chris Gadsden, seriously, why do you come here? You don't seem to be interested in cycling, all you do is post this stuff here, which is nonsensical, but it's hard to judge where believe ends and trolling starts.
I have my political believes as well, and sometimes they are tied so close to everything else, it is very difficult to keep them locked away. I try to, sometimes I fail. But you don't try. You are constantly shoving them onto the stage, sometimes hiding them under translucent pieces of fabric.
I can't remember a post of you in the cycling section. I really don't get why people do this. If you mainly want to spread or discuss your political views, why would you do that here?
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
287
1,230
Sure, testing began late in Europe because in January and February, when there was already substantial spread, no-one really was very suspicious. It's only by March that testing started to increase, and by then it was limited by basic materials in many countries (for example in Belgium). So we did miss a lot of cases. But the article isn't about what happened 3-5 months ago, it is about the situation at the moment. There is relatively less testing here, because there is a huge difference in people that are infected. Belgium currently reports about 90 cases per day, on about 8000-10.000 tests/day. That means about 1% of tests is positive. Everyone can get tested. Currently, there is just not a lot of demand for tests, and I'm quite sure we aren't missing very many infected. Other numbers point to the same (e.g. hospitalized people per day is currenly 18, while at the peak it was above 500.

The point is this: "Countries on the E.U. draft lists have been selected as safe based on a combination of epidemiological criteria. The benchmark is the E.U. average number of new infections — over the past 14 days — per 100,000 people, which is currently 16 for the bloc. The comparable number for the United States is 107, while Brazil’s is 190 and Russia’s is 80, according to a Times database."

Others here have also added relevant information. Bottom line: more testing, yes, but the differences in the curves and the spread are clear. Other numbers (hospitilisations per day, mortality per day) point to the same.
The bottom line is if the EU were testing more the number of new cases per 100k would be higher. Conversely, if the US was testing at the rate of the average EU Country, our new cases would be far lower.

But the EU will do what it is going to do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY