What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (3 Viewers)

DrJ said:
I would think it would not matter how far your were infected from.    Once it hits your cells and starts to replicate it's a matter of your cells killing it before it kills you.
Click to expand...
Line 1 has Mike Tyson giving uppercuts
Line 2 has Floyd Mayweather giving uppercuts

If you must stand in one of the lines, do you care which?

 
Mr. Ham said:
What I’m about to say was documented here in real time. I’m not genius, but if you understand math this was inevitable.

January 30, I flew from Austin to Atlanta and then to Palm Beach. I didn’t wear a mask, but brought disinfectant wipes, used hand sanitizer, and didn’t eat while at airports. Was highly conscious. Had an interesting moment with a guy while I was doing a surgeon’s wash at a sink in Atlanta, and he was doing the same. We acknowledged that we were aware the virus may be lurking. The signs were apparent then.

Then March 6, there was an event at my kid’s school where they showed off projects. Parents had to enter through a single vestibule, shoulder to shoulder. As I was catching up with the mother of a kid in my son’s class, who is a nurse, she was dry coughing and doing a terrible token job covering it.

No one other than us seemed to be acknowledging the virus. Wife and I both refused hand shakes and hugs. Others were still acting as normal.

That was it for me. It was a Friday and we pulled my 9 year old from school after school that day, which was a week before Spring Break.

Wife’s friends were surprised we were being so proactive. It made a few question whether they should take it more seriously. Up until Friday March 13, my wife’s sister’s family was planning to go to Vegas the week of the 16th.

Two things happened on the 11th-12th.

11th: I had sidelined 401ks into bonds months ago, and decided when the Dow hit about 23k to put half back in stocks. 

That night the NBA shuttered in dramatic fashion, Tom Hanks announced he had it, and suddenly it dawned on seemly everyone at once that it was serious.

12th: Markets tanked. Over next 2-3 days, I lost about 15% of what I put back in. (As it neared bottom, I put more in to the point of being about 3% overall before sidelining it all into bonds again last Monday.)

Besides documenting for posterity, these two stories back-to-back show that this was a slow boil. It was a certainly and needed different levels of emotional connection to spark acknowledgement that it was coming.

Strange also how reason and emotion intertwine.
 
Click to expand...
This is the kind of timeline I've been discussing with someone. You were on top of this and worried about it in January, but pulling your kid out of school on March 10th was considered strange by peers. I was buying extra supplies in February myself, which my friends also thought was a little much. People just weren't that concerned with it until Italy's situation worsened.

 
DrJ said:
I would think it would not matter how far your were infected from.    Once it hits your cells and starts to replicate it's a matter of your cells killing it before it kills you.
Click to expand...
If you had a single virus land in your upper nasal area compared to a large group which one has an opportunity to replicate faster and get ahead of your immune system? 

Just pretend you are looking at an exponential growth chart from twitter from like 6 weeks ago...

 
jplvr said:
This is the kind of timeline I've been discussing with someone. You were on top of this and worried about it in January, but pulling your kid out of school on March 10th was considered strange by peers. I was buying extra supplies in February myself, which my friends also thought was a little much. People just weren't that concerned with it until Italy's situation worsened.
Click to expand...
Yeah we went to a mall on March 7th.    It was crazy packed.    I saw one person wearing a mask.   

 
TheWinz said:
DrJ said:
I would think it would not matter how far your were infected from.    Once it hits your cells and starts to replicate it's a matter of your cells killing it before it kills you.
Click to expand...
Line 1 has Mike Tyson giving uppercuts
Line 2 has Floyd Mayweather giving uppercuts

If you must stand in one of the lines, do you care which?
Click to expand...
Spock had it right a few posts up -- viral load matters in the existence/severity of the illness, and it's typically harder to get a large viral load from farther away.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
-fish- said:
Politician Spock said:
The amount of hospital beds available for the 8.4 million NYC residents is relatively the same for any subset of 8.4 million residents in the US. To suggest that a town of 10K population is safer from the virus than people in New York City ignores that the town has one hospital and isn't capable of providing intensive care. The more an area is capable of handling ICU patients, the more potential there is in that area to spread quicker. There is no where anywhere that the virus will have a hard time spreading AND the area has the hospitalization needed to handle the ICU cases. As the potential of the virus to spread goes down, so does the area's hospitalization capabilities. Obviously there is not causation there, but there is definite correlation there. 
Click to expand...
You don't think there are any hospitals in low-population areas?
Click to expand...
When this first hit NYC I was looking at ICU beds per 100,000 and there was quite a bit of range. My city was sitting in the bottiom 1% at less than 20. There were cities with over 200 ICU beds per 100,000.

 
nirad3 said:
Wow, this thread is turning into a ping-pong match akin to most political threads.  Used to be filled with great information, but it's morphed into something that's barely even worth following.  Bummer.
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, this is kinda how the thread started.  It's just that the "just a flu, bro" crowd have returned AND have now been joined by the "closer to the flu than the fear mongers suggested" and the "well, even if it is worse than the flu, it's not bad enough to shut the economy down" crowds.  

And fwiw, I actually appreciate Mr A and others who sincerely think differently - even when I disagree with some (definitely not all, maybe not even most) of his/their conclusions it causes me to re-think my own.  And indeed, I think we can ALL agree that some governors have been too slow to close, too early to re-open, and too stupid to take seriously (am looking at you Georgia), while others have been too draconian, heavy-handed, and universal (am looking at you Michigan).  So yeah, in a country of 50 governors, on 50 different curves, leading 50 states each with dozens of unique characteristics (population density, public transportation usage, poverty rate, healthcare & testing access, etc.) we are going to have some extreme outliers.  Heck, they've got the same thing going on in the EU.  

And fwiw, this thread STILL has great info, just today there were links to:

  • Article about NY antibody test results
  • In-depth Epsilon article about ALL the blame that there is to go around
  • NYT article on early outbreak
  • NY data on excess deaths
  • Article about Sweden's approach
  • Article about how Austria reduced cases by 90% by requiring facemasks
  • Link to video with Las Vegas Mayor offering her constituents up as guinea pigs in a social science experiment


And those are just off the top of my head.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morton Muffley said:
And fwiw, this thread STILL has great info, just today there were links to:

  • Article about NY antibody test results
  • In-depth Epsilon article about ALL the blame that there is to go around
  • NYT article on early outbreak
  • NY data on excess deaths
  • Article about Sweden's approach
  • Article about how Austria reduced cases by 90% by requiring facemasks
  • Link to video with Las Vegas Mayor offering her constituents up as guinea pigs in a social science experiment


And those are just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
At the risk of it being a repost - 36% test positive for Coronavirus at Boston homeless shelter with none showing symptoms.  ;)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/boston-homeless-coronavirus-outbreak/index.html

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Can't go so far as to say he's wrong when his exact words were "IT'S CLOSER to the flu than many thought". When the timeline starts being lengthened (as it's starting to) then this actually does start to mirror the length of the flu season. It's still much more of a problem than the flu due to it's contagiousness but we've known that for quite awhile now. But as more is learned it truly does begin to share more and more with the flu including a narrowing gap between their respective mortality rates.
Click to expand...
Is there a benefit of being "right" here though?  "closer" to flu than "many" thought?  Ok....Let's go a bit further.  I'd say MOST (over 50%) were/are waiting for this to play out before they make a judgment one way or the other allowing the science to guide them as they go.  After that "closer how?" is the next logical question.  I don't know...the comment seems purposefully vague and nondescript.  I don't know many who were all that concerned with the length of the "season"....we still don't know if there's a season or not.  We still don't know what mortality will be.  There's a lot we still don't know.  We aren't going to have a good foundation of data on mortality until we can #1. Determine if there is a season, #2. Properly diagnose deaths from the virus.  This may very well be something we deal with all year long.  We'll know more about that through the summer and fall I'd suspect.  Now they know what to look for, it makes it easier to find.  I can't even tell you what the number of infections are or the number of death are because they really don't contribute to a legit mortality/infection rate.  For all we know, we started paying attention 25% of the way through it's "season", maybe 50% of the way through?  Who knows?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie Harper said:
2-3 weeks prior to the lockdown a lot of the tech companies started having people work from home. That's what likely saved the Bay Area.
Click to expand...
But the majority of people don't work in tech, and not everyone that does stopped working that early. I feel like the 10x discrepancy between NYC deaths and SF deaths per capita is not fully covered by that change, but maybe I am wrong. It just seems like there is still some missing puzzle piece, or the early exposure numbers need more analysis.

 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
I didn't come in here every day, so forgive if this has all been discussed.

I can't recall the site, but the genome mapping project one that had mapped the virus's location according to lab samples... Did that get updated to show that the virus was present in the US prior to late January? Or was it otherwise debunked in general? 
Click to expand...
ran across the link again https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

None of their data shows anything in the US prior to one sample in Arizona (from someone who had been to China) in mid-January and the next earliest I could find was in California in late January.  

So my question is, and forgive, I can't remember if it was a study or an article or what, that got people to arguing again about when the virus was here, wouldn't the lab data have already proven that if it was the case? And if not, why not? I'll hang up and listen. 

 
The Commish said:
Is there a benefit of being "right" here though?  "closer" to flue than "many" thought?  Ok....Let's go a bit further.  I'd say MOST were/are waiting for this to play out before they make a judgment one way or the other allowing the science to guide them as they go.  After that "closer how?" is the next logical question.  I don't know...the comment seems purposefully vague and nondescript.  I don't know many who were all that concerned with the length of the "season"....we still don't know if there's a season or not.  We still don't know what mortality will be.  There's a lot we still don't know.  We aren't going to have a good foundation of data on mortality until we can #1. Determine if there is a season, #2. Properly diagnose deaths from the virus.  This may very well be something we deal with all year long.  We'll know more about that through the summer and fall I'd suspect.  Now they know what to look for, it makes it easier to find.  I can't even tell you what the number of infections are or the number of death are because they really don't contribute to a legit mortality/infection rate.  For all we know, we started paying attention 25% of the way through it's "season", maybe 50% of the way through?  Who knows?
Click to expand...
Can it be simply that the emerging news paints a better picture? I mean the more we test, the more people we find who had it unknowingly which lessens the danger in two ways. It lessens the mortality rate and it builds the number of people with antibodies to hopefully lessen the risk of spread going forward. And if the timeline keeps lengthening that paints a more optimistic picture as well. It means some places may have already had their biggest surge and put it behind them. And it also contextualizes the sheer size of this battle over a much greater period of time. Doesn't mean it's suddenly something we can ignore. But it makes the hill to climb a little less daunting.

 
shader said:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/494324-27m-new-yorkers-have-had-coronavirus-preliminary-data-shows

This is the article I got it from.  I think we are at the point where we need to see the study before we can analyze it further.  
Click to expand...
This is where some people get frustrated by you. You took a positive comment from that article:

"Cuomo stressed that more data will need to be collected and the infection rate could be higher because it didn't include people who aren't leaving their homes."

And somehow spun it into a negative one

"I just read the following. No idea if that may or may not change things slightly.

“Cuomo noted that the survey was preliminary and limited by other factors. He said the testing targeted people who were out in society shopping, meaning that they may be more likely to be infected than people isolating at home.”

You are clearly misleading everyone with the exact opposite what he said. 

@[scooter]

This is why I came in with the justaflu post because stuff like the above frustrates me to no end and @shader keeps doing it and anyone who calls him out on it gets blasted. 

However i admit I am part of the problem so I'll apologize and stop. 

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Can it be simply that the emerging news paints a better picture? I mean the more we test, the more people we find who had it unknowingly which lessens the danger in two ways. It lessens the mortality rate and it builds the number of people with antibodies to hopefully lessen the risk of spread going forward. And if the timeline keeps lengthening that paints a more optimistic picture as well. It means some places may have already had their biggest surge and put it behind them. And it also contextualizes the sheer size of this battle over a much greater period of time. Doesn't mean it's suddenly something we can ignore. But it makes the hill to climb a little less daunting.
Click to expand...
Painting clearer pictures is great. This thread can use a lot of that.

But comparing it to the flu, doesn't paint a clearer picture at all.  If nothing else, it reminds of us what kind of poor thinking caused us to react too late to this virus in the beginning. 

 
eoMMan said:
DrJ said:
Interesting - I've literally never had one.
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to know how many people have had the flu and were never tested for it.  I bet the number is quite high.
Click to expand...
I saw a cite that there are an estimated 1 billion-plus influenza infections worldwide each year, and that ~90% of them are asymptomatic. It was on a site linked in this thread back in mid-February ... WHO or CDC or NIH, or maybe some other country's health department.

I looked again for that site about a month ago, but came up empty. Will look again.

 
Politician Spock said:
Painting clearer pictures is great. This thread can use a lot of that.

But comparing it to the flu, doesn't paint a clearer picture at all.  If nothing else, it reminds of us what kind of poor thinking caused us to react too late to this virus in the beginning. 
Click to expand...
Comparing the dangers is useful in determining whether our response was appropriate.   Some of us feel that our reaction was an likely an over reaction.   

 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
ran across the link again https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

None of their data shows anything in the US prior to one sample in Arizona (from someone who had been to China) in mid-January and the next earliest I could find was in California in late January.  

So my question is, and forgive, I can't remember if it was a study or an article or what, that got people to arguing again about when the virus was here, wouldn't the lab data have already proven that if it was the case? And if not, why not? I'll hang up and listen. 
Click to expand...
California announced that they had earlier (CDC confirmed) deaths than they previously were counting. They changed two deaths which came weeks earlier than the previously assigned first CV19 fatality to Covid deaths and said it was due to being mistaken for the flu at the time. They now feel there's good reason to have coroners reexamine deaths all the way back to December. Data like that in your link stands a good chance to be subject to some significant updating going forward. Here's the link...

https://apnews.com/c508cfec44ba9b4b8b23e83a443aa0d7

 
Politician Spock said:
Painting clearer pictures is great. This thread can use a lot of that.

But comparing it to the flu, doesn't paint a clearer picture at all.  If nothing else, it reminds of us what kind of poor thinking caused us to react too late to this virus in the beginning. 
Click to expand...
Again doctors, experts, scientists, government officials keep comparing it to the flu so I don't know how we can escape it. We have to credit people with the ability to know this is far more contagious and thus far more dangerous and I believe that's the case with people here.

 
Like for context - I left the thread for a long time but back when the shutdowns were first starting I was suggesting a lot of the same things we're finding now.    That this thing had been spreading for a long time, there were likely millions that had been infected even at that time, and our statistics were massively skewed based on who they were targeting with those tests. 

While it is more dangerous than the flu, the magnitude has never been clearly established, our reactions were based on extremely limited data that's proving to be wrong, and was a massive mistake we will pay for for years.   Long after Covid isn't a concern for people anymore.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
Politician Spock said:
Well, I'll be happy to help you with that.

It wasn't. 
Click to expand...
Except that you can't really prove that.     It's reasonable to believe we could have achieve the exact same results we have now by just telling old people to stay put and limiting access to them and letting everyone else go on with their lives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jobarules said:
This is where some people get frustrated by you. You took a positive comment from that article:

"Cuomo stressed that more data will need to be collected and the infection rate could be higher because it didn't include people who aren't leaving their homes."

And somehow spun it into a negative one

"I just read the following. No idea if that may or may not change things slightly.

“.”

You are clearly misleading everyone with the exact opposite what he said. 

@[scooter]

This is why I came in with the justaflu post because stuff like the above frustrates me to no end and @shader keeps doing it and anyone who calls him out on it gets blasted. 

However i admit I am part of the problem so I'll apologize and stop. 
Click to expand...
I have no idea who you are, but I never "spin", nor do I ever mislead people intentionally.

But I did screw up and link the wrong article.

https://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2020/apr/23/new-york-test-of-3000-people-finds-14-with-coronavirus-antibodies/1010314/

That's the one I meant to link, my apologies, I had two articles up on browser tabs and I linked the wrong one.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
California announced that they had earlier (CDC confirmed) deaths than they previously were counting. They changed two deaths which came weeks earlier than the previously assigned first CV19 fatality to Covid deaths and said it was due to being mistaken for the flu at the time. They now feel there's good reason to have coroners reexamine deaths all the way back to December. Data like that in your link stands a good chance to be subject to some significant updating going forward. Here's the link...

https://apnews.com/c508cfec44ba9b4b8b23e83a443aa0d7
Click to expand...
I wish we had more details on the CDC confirmed deaths, did they test 1000 people and 2 were positive, or just those 2? Could it be false positives or another incidental Coronavirus false positive? As discussed here previously, I am having a hard time reconciling urban CA having it that early but not being majorly impacted right now. If people were spreading it in January, I would have expected SF to have a similar death rate to what NYC does now, just 4 weeks ago. Some puzzle piece to this is missing, I just have no idea what. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
ran across the link again https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

None of their data shows anything in the US prior to one sample in Arizona (from someone who had been to China) in mid-January and the next earliest I could find was in California in late January.  

So my question is, and forgive, I can't remember if it was a study or an article or what, that got people to arguing again about when the virus was here, wouldn't the lab data have already proven that if it was the case? And if not, why not? I'll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...
Strain isolation depends solely on what virus samples they can get their hands on in a given moment. I don't believe they can isolate a strain, note one or more mutations, and then make any kind of determination about how long that particular strain had been in a given location.

 
DrJ said:
Except that you can't really prove that.     It's reasonable to believe we could have achieve the exact same results we have now by just telling old people to stay put and limiting access to them and letting everyone else go on with their lives.
Click to expand...
I have proven it.  Your unwillingness to accept proof is not the same as not really proving it. 

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
DrJ said:
Except that you can't really prove that.     It's reasonable to believe we could have achieve the exact same results we have now by just telling old people to stay put and limiting access to them and letting everyone else go on with their lives.
Click to expand...
You’re right because only old people have gotten it. Get outta here with this nonsense.

 
huthut said:
I wish we had more details on the CDC confirmed deaths, did they test 1000 people and 2 were positive, or just those 2? Could it be false positives or another incidental Coronavirus false positive? As discussed here previously, I am having a hard time reconciling urban CA having it that early but not being majorly impacted right now. If people were spreading it in January, I would have expected SF to have a similar death rate to NYC does now, just 4 weeks ago. Some puzzle piece to this is missing, I just have no idea what. 
Click to expand...
That's an excellent question and it is probably the biggest mystery out there right now. Different strain? Weather? Different mass transit? Similar numbers but lost in the wash with the flu?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Witz said:
You’re right because only old people have gotten it. Get outta here with this nonsense.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of deaths have come from old people and those with pre existing conditions.     Everyone else has very close to 0 risk of dying from this.     Not quite 0, but pretty darned close.

My 16 year old daughter is going to work in a grocery store.    Which means she'll be fairly likely to get it IMO - this crap has been going around Illinois a long time and the couple times I have left my house in the last month and a half it was fairly clear that there's a whole lot of people out doing non essential things.    And until recently the measures essential places were using were also clearly insufficient.    Like now the grocery store is making people only go one direction down an aisle to keep them apart, but until this it was literally impossible to get even essential items and observe social distancing entirely.    And still I'd put her risk of dying at almost 0.    Mine will be a little higher since I'm in my 40's.    But it'll still be fairly close to 0.      In my estimate, the odds that I've already had this are dramatically higher than those odds.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
I have no idea who you are, but I never "spin", nor do I ever mislead people intentionally.

But I did screw up and link the wrong article.

https://wtvbam.com/news/articles/2020/apr/23/new-york-test-of-3000-people-finds-14-with-coronavirus-antibodies/1010314/

That's the one I meant to link, my apologies, I had two articles up on browser tabs and I linked the wrong one.
Click to expand...
I'd avoid this link and the statement I made.  It appears they may have confused Cuomo's words.  

I swear that's not the original place I got that quote, but I can't find it anymore.  Strike it from the record.

 
Doug B said:
eoMMan said:
DrJ said:
Interesting - I've literally never had one.
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to know how many people have had the flu and were never tested for it.  I bet the number is quite high.
Click to expand...
I saw a cite that there are an estimated 1 billion-plus influenza infections worldwide each year, and that ~90% of them are asymptomatic. It was on a site linked in this thread back in mid-February ... WHO or CDC or NIH, or maybe some other country's health department.

I looked again for that site about a month ago, but came up empty. Will look again.
Click to expand...
I don't think this NIH page is the exact same site on which I saw the flu-infection numbers, but it will work (my note in blue): 

Influenza is a highly contagious respiratory illness that is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. Approximately 9% of the world’s population is affected annually, with up to 1 billion infections, 3 to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000 to 500,000 deaths each year.1–3

In the U.S. alone, nearly 20% of the population is affected (in the range of 60-65 million infections - db). On average, 25 to 50 million documented influenza cases, 225,000 hospitalizations, and ultimately more than 20,000 deaths occur every year.
Click to expand...
The NIH article linked above cites dozens of information sources, the first one of which is a 2010 NEJM article co-authored by none other than Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Coronavirus prevention
Replies
4
Views
345
JaxBill
JaxBill
nirad3
COVID-19 / CoronaVirus - terms/phrases
Replies
35
Views
654
Galileo
Galileo
Joe Bryant
Scared to ask but don't have anywhere else - Clay Travis Article?
2
Replies
71
Views
3K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top