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 (11 Viewers)

We got boatloads of walking bug factories pouring across the FL/GA border from the north

Tons of them at the beach, spreading it.

Crazy Fallwell thinking he can just open back up Liberty U.

Yes, this ain't stopping until we get a vaccine.
Pretty much this, some people just aren’t good at being intelligent. 

 
I was thinking that, too, but was afraid I was being too optimistic. Basically functions like a flu test machine, right?
Yes.

The technology builds on Illinois-based Abbott’s ID Now platform, the most common point-of-care test currently available in the U.S., with more than 18,000 units spread across the country. It is widely used to detect influenza, strep throat and respiratory syncytial virus, a common bug that causes cold-like symptoms.

The test starts with taking a swab from the nose or the back of the throat, then mixing it with a chemical solution that breaks open the virus and releases its RNA. The mixture is inserted into an ID Now system, a small box weighing just under 7 pounds that has the technology to identify and amplify select sequences of the coronavirus genome and ignore contamination from other viruses.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: RnR
5 to 15 minute turnaround as opposed to 7-9 days? Absolutely.
Not only that (which is huge), but the ability to self-test greatly helps ease the PPE needs for that area of this process. Also, I would hope it ups the availability of testing in general. The more data, the better.

 
Explain this to me like I’m dumb...we’re def going with the can’t get reinfected theory here?  Unlike the flu, which mutates often and you or I can get the “flu” numerous times, this procedure/process banks on the supposed lack of mutation of SARS-cov-2?

This sounds awesome, I’m just curious why so quick.
I think you got it in one. 

 
Not only that (which is huge), but the ability to self-test greatly helps ease the PPE needs for that area of this process. Also, I would hope it ups the availability of testing in general. The more data, the better.
Just like the experiments done in New York.

 
This is the model (Chris Murray, IHME) that Drs. Birx and Fauci are referring to:  https://covid19.healthdata.org/

Note that there are significant error boundaries which all good models should have.
If peak resource usage is basically 15 days away, doesn't that mean peak infection is like 5 days away?

Because that seems... optimistic.  And you can't see how they're generating the data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Explain this to me like I’m dumb...we’re def going with the can’t get reinfected theory here?  Unlike the flu, which mutates often and you or I can get the “flu” numerous times, this procedure/process banks on the supposed lack of mutation of SARS-cov-2?

This sounds awesome, I’m just curious why so quick.
From what I read, your immunity to a flu strain lasts for about a year after you recover, but you aren’t necessarily immune to other strains. I saw an interview with Dr. Fauci where he said he expects the same from this virus. So you can get reinfected, but not so soon after recovering.

 
80,000 to 200,000 deaths following the social isolation and sanitary guidelines. 

1.6 million to 2.2 million deaths if we did nothing. 

Per Dr. Fouci and the other doctor lady.  Their model verified by others. 
Honest question- is this assuming the population is using all the guidelines and a best case scenario, or is this a model based on data of how it's going in the last week.  

Per or discussions, I am just guarded about getting hopes up too much for drastically reduced numbers seeing what we see in the last couple weeks.  I hope it's the case, but it doesn't seem like we did quite enough to reduce that worst case by a factor of 10 to 20.  

 
Honest question- is this assuming the population is using all the guidelines and a best case scenario, or is this a model based on data of how it's going in the last week.  

Per or discussions, I am just guarded about getting hopes up too much for drastically reduced numbers seeing what we see in the last couple weeks.  I hope it's the case, but it doesn't seem like we did quite enough to reduce that worst case by a factor of 10 to 20.  
The link Pickles provided says this:

The projections assume the continuation of strong social distancing measures and other protective measures.
There is more to read there about how it was set up if interested. 

 
I am are sure there are tons of things that we could list that we hope would improve for if something similar ever happens again, but one of mine is above.  

I get that people still have to go to the store, but for sure the traffic there needs to be throttled down and done in a safer way.   Right away stores that were allowed to remain open needed to adhere the max of X # of the people in the building that is set forth by guidelines, and probably bare minimum a mild screening of some sort - temps?, only allowing in 1-2 family members?, places that have cards like Costco only allowing 1 visit every 10-14 days? - SOMETHING.   Just baffling that we are limiting elsewhere, but it's as busy as you are talking at all these retail stores that allowed to stay open.    As have been joked about in the thread a few times, and I get that they are trying not to close everything, but the list of "essential businesses" is pretty lax.  

I think some of this just becomes an excuse for people to get out on the weekend, not so much stocking up on essentials.  I think it also adds to the psychological component and makes it worse to try to tell people to stay at home and stay away from large groups - why is my restaurant closed and I am out of a job if 200 people can go into Costco?  Why can't I have a cookout with 15 friends if Menards parking lot is full? etc..  

Like I've said before we are a "shelter at home" state, but you would hardly know it based on traffic, our DT business, and what some of the stores look like.   It's weird.   
I think there has to be a balance.  Its the restrictions (or fear of them) that cause hoarding. It seems right now it might be better to continue on with regular shopping habits rather than loading up. 

Plexiglass screens in place at the supermarket and kids wiping down the carts. Sanitizer bottles in the checkout line. 

 
This is the model (Chris Murray, IHME) that Drs. Birx and Fauci are referring to:  https://covid19.healthdata.org/

Note that there are significant error boundaries which all good models should have.
Note that IHME hasn't updated their projections yet, but their model is underpredicting the death rate for the last few days.

March 27:  model 310-392, actual 400

March 28:  model 380-508, actual 525

I think this is what caused Birx to have a sober moment today.  She had previously discounted models, especially that of the group in the UK, but she seems to buy into this one a bit more.  If the actual rate is already on the high side of the IHME model, that does't bode well for the US death toll being under 100k.  (The high estimate of the IHME model is 162,106.)  Again, aggressive intervention could change things.

I'd like to take a look at some other models.  Apparently they are very aware of them on the White House team, but I'm guessing they are focusing on this one due to being more optimistic.

 
I'm looking at healthdata.org in detail (and also sent out a few e-mails trying to find out more about who's publishing those viz) and there's no way they aren't optimistic.

They have the MAX the number of US fatalities at 160k.  If you assume a fatality rate of .50% that means they're banking on no more than 10% of the US population becoming infected.  If we do everything right from here maybe we keep it to those levels, but every single thing I've seen says you're not going to get to totals that low without draconian/Chinese style interventions.  Which we know for a fact we are not seeing in this country.

Also worth nothing, sadly, is that last weekend we saw a two day decline from Friday's fatality numbers before a single-day doubling on Monday.  Given the lowered totals today I think it's likely that the weekend counts, and Sunday in particular, are impacted by weekend staffing and etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm looking at healthdata.org in detail (and also sent out a few e-mails trying to find out more about who's publishing those viz) and there's no way they aren't optimistic.

They have the MAX the number of US fatalities at 160k.  If you assume a fatality rate of .50% that means they're banking on no more than 10% of the US population becoming infected.  If we do everything right from here maybe we keep it to those levels, but every single thing I've seen says you're not going to get to totals that low without draconian/Chinese style interventions.  Which we know for a fact we are not seeing in this country.

Also worth nothing, sadly, is that last weekend we saw a two day decline from Friday's fatality numbers before a single-day doubling on Monday.  Given the lowered totals today I think it's likely that the weekend counts, and Sunday in particular, are impacted by weekend staffing and etc.
I’ve long wondered if weekend numbers are accurate. We may see a decrease in total new cases today, and if so, we don’t want to claim progress until we ensure that we don’t get a backlog pouring in on Monday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Note that IHME hasn't updated their projections yet, but their model is underpredicting the death rate for the last few days.

March 27:  model 310-392, actual 400

March 28:  model 380-508, actual 525

I think this is what caused Birx to have a sober moment today.  She had previously discounted models, especially that of the group in the UK, but she seems to buy into this one a bit more.  If the actual rate is already on the high side of the IHME model, that does't bode well for the US death toll being under 100k.  (The high estimate of the IHME model is 162,106.)  Again, aggressive intervention could change things.

I'd like to take a look at some other models.  Apparently they are very aware of them on the White House team, but I'm guessing they are focusing on this one due to being more optimistic.
Glad Pickles is back and active. 

 
I think there has to be a balance.  Its the restrictions (or fear of them) that cause hoarding. It seems right now it might be better to continue on with regular shopping habits rather than loading up. 

Plexiglass screens in place at the supermarket and kids wiping down the carts. Sanitizer bottles in the checkout line. 
I for sure am not saying I have all the answers, but don't think I agree with the continuing shopping habits comment.  People are used to shopping multiple times a week, and that is adding to the problem.  Little reason people cant be told to plan and go out one a week or less, and maybe have ways to try to tell if they do.  

Like I said, it just seems like shopping is a lot of peoples current way to avoid staying at home on the weekends. 

 
Needs to be a statute of this guy when this is all done.  
Meh. Should he have been screaming louder about of this earlier? As the director of infectious disease institute whatever, maybe he could have been a little more vocal?

I commend him for a lot of what he's done but I never heard of the guy until February. 

 
Note that IHME hasn't updated their projections yet, but their model is underpredicting the death rate for the last few days.

March 27:  model 310-392, actual 400

March 28:  model 380-508, actual 525

I think this is what caused Birx to have a sober moment today.  She had previously discounted models, especially that of the group in the UK, but she seems to buy into this one a bit more.  If the actual rate is already on the high side of the IHME model, that does't bode well for the US death toll being under 100k.  (The high estimate of the IHME model is 162,106.)  Again, aggressive intervention could change things.

I'd like to take a look at some other models.  Apparently they are very aware of them on the White House team, but I'm guessing they are focusing on this one due to being more optimistic.
Hopefully we are worse now but the results of efforts from the last 2-3 weeks will start to show more as the calendar progresses. It's maddening that we don't have 90+ percent of people taking this seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully we are worse now but the results of efforts from the last 2-3 weeks will start to show more as the calendar progresses. It's maddening that we don't have 90+ percent of people taking this seriously.
Not sure what makes people think this isn’t the case. 

 
I'm looking at healthdata.org in detail (and also sent out a few e-mails trying to find out more about who's publishing those viz) and there's no way they aren't optimistic.

They have the MAX the number of US fatalities at 160k.  If you assume a fatality rate of .50% that means they're banking on no more than 10% of the US population becoming infected.  If we do everything right from here maybe we keep it to those levels, but every single thing I've seen says you're not going to get to totals that low without draconian/Chinese style interventions.  Which we know for a fact we are not seeing in this country.

Also worth nothing, sadly, is that last weekend we saw a two day decline from Friday's fatality numbers before a single-day doubling on Monday.  Given the lowered totals today I think it's likely that the weekend counts, and Sunday in particular, are impacted by weekend staffing and etc.
Maybe we can get the fatality rate lowered by the use of more successful anti-viral therapies. It does seem overly optimistic when stated this way though.

 
Hopefully we are worse now but the results of efforts from the last 2-3 weeks will start to show more as the calendar progresses. It's maddening that we don't have 90+ percent of people taking this seriously.
I think it’s safe to say that the effort that people have put forth will 100% have a significant impact on the spread.  But I think it’s almost impossible to know how much of an impact.

 
Just look at the pictures of people on the beaches. Go online to Facebook, Nextdoor, and other social media. Tons of people downplaying it still as just the flu.
Otis lives in NYC iirc.

I check the Times Square webcams and Central Park webcams from time to time. I think it’s safe to say that the majority of people in NYC are taking this very seriously.  But that certainly doesn’t apply to the entire country.

 
I for sure am not saying I have all the answers, but don't think I agree with the continuing shopping habits comment.  People are used to shopping multiple times a week, and that is adding to the problem.  Little reason people cant be told to plan and go out one a week or less, and maybe have ways to try to tell if they do.  

Like I said, it just seems like shopping is a lot of peoples current way to avoid staying at home on the weekends. 
People should do that themselves. As soon as restrictions start you wont be able to get any TP again. 

 
I'm looking at healthdata.org in detail (and also sent out a few e-mails trying to find out more about who's publishing those viz) and there's no way they aren't optimistic.

They have the MAX the number of US fatalities at 160k.  If you assume a fatality rate of .50% that means they're banking on no more than 10% of the US population becoming infected.  If we do everything right from here maybe we keep it to those levels, but every single thing I've seen says you're not going to get to totals that low without draconian/Chinese style interventions.  Which we know for a fact we are not seeing in this country.

Also worth nothing, sadly, is that last weekend we saw a two day decline from Friday's fatality numbers before a single-day doubling on Monday.  Given the lowered totals today I think it's likely that the weekend counts, and Sunday in particular, are impacted by weekend staffing and etc.
The CFR is more likely 1.6-1.7%. 

Would also like to understand the expected infection %. And if that’s more like 20%. 

Not sure if that can be extrapolated to the whole U.S. The virus has regional impacts.

For NYC, those rates would be looking at 29K deaths.

Suffolk county would be looking at 5K deaths.

This would be by August 1.

 
Hopefully we are worse now but the results of efforts from the last 2-3 weeks will start to show more as the calendar progresses. It's maddening that we don't have 90+ percent of people taking this seriously.
Based on what I have seen within a few miles of my house I think a number a whole lot closer to 90 percent of people are taking this seriously. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top