Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Big League Chew

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GroveDiesel said:

This is only true if you because of NY. NY is seeing a decline, virtually everywhere else is still seeing an increase in numbers. But since NY had the most cases by such a large margin, their decline skews the overall numbers. 

We can argue whether or not the number of cases and the amount of increase everywhere else is cause for concern, but I think it’s important to understand that it’s not really the case that other states opened things up and saw a decline in their state after that.

I don't that's true now, but haven't looked specifically in the last couple weeks.  It was definitely true as NYC came down off its peak, but my impression is that a lot of states are seeing declines now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, need2know said:

careful.  dont argue too much with him or he will report you. or maybe he will put you on ignore so he doesn't have to read anything he doesn't believe in.  he wants the country to continue being  shut down until the COVID is completely eradicated and then stay closed and quarantined for 6 months after that just to be sure.    really not worth the effort trying to convince him of anything.

Drop it. Keep this 100% on the topic and not personal stuff back and forth please. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, the moops said:

The F.D.A. issued a safety warning on April 24 for hydroxychloroquine, which it said could cause dangerous abnormalities in heart rhythm in coronavirus patients. The drug should be used only in clinical trials or hospitals where patients can be closely monitored for heart problems, the F.D.A. said

My comment was in reference to the timeline of when HCQ was being discussed here, not to whether it works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh...and to give an update....wife went a couple days ago for antibody test...tested positive for antibodies.  Remember, just a few weeks ago, her COVID test came back "inconclusive" after being in limbo for almost two weeks.  So now, I guess the next step is to get the rest of us tested for antibodies?  Not really sure what to do with this information at the moment.  For some reason, the news angered me at first.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I don't that's true now, but haven't looked specifically in the last couple weeks.  It was definitely true as NYC came down off its peak, but my impression is that a lot of states are seeing declines now.

Looking at one hot-spot state, Louisiana:

Peak active cases was reported as 24,090 on 4/23. At the time, I believe there was no less distinction in the state's counts between total cases and active cases than there is now -- IOW, recoveries weren't being counted consistently. On the very next day, recoveries started being logged. Accordingly, on 4/24 reported active cases dropped to 9,553.

Active case count yesterday in Louisiana was reported as 6,459. Recovery counts are updated weekly, so fingers crossed for next Tuesday's report on active cases.

EDIT: revisions in red above -- total case count in Louisiana was 25,739 on April 23.

Edited by Doug B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I don't that's true now, but haven't looked specifically in the last couple weeks.  It was definitely true as NYC came down off its peak, but my impression is that a lot of states are seeing declines now.

Reuters is tracking this, seem s to be updated weekly

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Looking at one hot-spot state, Louisiana:

Peak active cases was reported as 24,090 on 4/23. At the time, I believe there was no less distinction in the state's counts between total cases and active cases than there is now -- IOW, recoveries weren't being counted consistently. On the very next day, recoveries started being logged. Accordingly, on 4/24 reported active cases dropped to 9,553.

Active case count yesterday in Louisiana was reported as 6,459. Recovery counts are updated weekly, so fingers crossed for next Tuesday's report on active cases.

EDIT: revisions in red above -- total case count in Louisiana was 25,739 on April 23.

IIRC @Nathan R. Jessep posted the formula for calculating recovery, similar to other places I've seen, something like (date of positive test + x days) and (not dead and not hospitalized) < todays date 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just got back from my daughter's graduation. It was organized well. Drive into the school grounds. One station to return books,one station for her gold chord and awards. Park the car, walk onto football field, pics of her receiving diploma, they say her name she walks on stage for photos, back in car and leave. Whole process is maybe 20 mins including the wait time in your car. Teachers directing traffic. Pretty big class so they had time slots to show up depending on first letter of last name. On one hand I feel bad for the kids as that is a fairly big step in life and they are not getting the full deal. On the other hand as a guy who has sat through to many graduations that went on for hours I did not mind it. All teachers were wearing masks.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shader said:

We will see.  The first time, the numbers started from 0, but the environment was one that promoted explosive growth.  This time, the numbers start from 1.1 million (probably way more), but the environment is much less conducive to spread.

 

1 hour ago, Grahamburn said:

I'm not denying that.  I don't expect it to disappear.  I do not expect it to be nearly as bad as it was initially though. 

How bad it will be is ultimately a function of time and specific (i.e. local and continuously changing) transmissibility.  The Rt could be well below what it was and it could still be very bad...eventually. I like how Angele Merkle described the situation per a Guardian article.

"If the reproduction number of one were to go up to 1.1, Merkel explained, the German health system could be overwhelmed by October. If it were to go up to 1.2, hospitals could reach a crisis point in July, and if it went up to 1.3 the crisis point would come in June."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Oh...and to give an update....wife went a couple days ago for antibody test...tested positive for antibodies.  Remember, just a few weeks ago, her COVID test came back "inconclusive" after being in limbo for almost two weeks.  So now, I guess the next step is to get the rest of us tested for antibodies?  Not really sure what to do with this information at the moment.  For some reason, the news angered me at first.

A positive antibody test is a good thing! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Oh...and to give an update....wife went a couple days ago for antibody test...tested positive for antibodies.  Remember, just a few weeks ago, her COVID test came back "inconclusive" after being in limbo for almost two weeks.  So now, I guess the next step is to get the rest of us tested for antibodies?  Not really sure what to do with this information at the moment.  For some reason, the news angered me at first.

Congrats.  Great news.  No more mask wearing for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Morton Muffley said:

 

How bad it will be is ultimately a function of time and specific (i.e. local and continuously changing) transmissibility.  The Rt could be well below what it was and it could still be very bad...eventually. I like how Angele Merkle described the situation per a Guardian article.

"If the reproduction number of one were to go up to 1.1, Merkel explained, the German health system could be overwhelmed by October. If it were to go up to 1.2, hospitals could reach a crisis point in July, and if it went up to 1.3 the crisis point would come in June."

 

I have been paying attention to the Rt.  It takes into account the mitigation, correct?  Without mitigation the estimates for Rt have been ~ between 2-3.  Can't we keep certain mitigation measures in place (as all states are while re-opening) to keep the Rt around 1, which is where it has been for most states throughout the pandemic, until there's a safe vaccine available? 

Meanwhile do everything we can to isolate the vulnerable to reduce the deaths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Grahamburn said:

Meanwhile do everything we can to isolate the vulnerable to reduce the deaths. 

Who do you consider vulnerable and what do you propose should be done?

ETA @Pipes What do you consider funny about my post?

Edited by msommer
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, msommer said:

Reuters is tracking this, seem s to be updated weekly

More down than up, but also more places still not much off their peaks than I expected too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting tweet / link to paper

Quote

david friedberg @friedberg

amazing paper. 40-60% of population that have NOT had SARS-CoV-2 already have activated T Cells to the virus! likely due to cross-reactivity w/ other "common cold coronaviruses". may explain large % having easy time clearing virus and/or mild/no symptoms. https://t.co/OuwWLrBySp?amp=1

 

I did not read the paper and don't plan to, looks very technically dense.  But I've read other speculation that some common colds / other coronoviruses people have had could give a degree of immunity or easier recovery, and that this could explain some of the differences in severity between young and old, or certain geographic regions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, themeanmachine said:

Interesting tweet / link to paper

 

I did not read the paper and don't plan to, looks very technically dense.  But I've read other speculation that some common colds / other coronoviruses people have had could give a degree of immunity or easier recovery, and that this could explain some of the differences in severity between young and old, or certain geographic regions.

Is there a way to tell if it has been peer reviewed?

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

Who do you consider vulnerable and what do you propose should be done?

@Mr Anonymous has pointed out previously what wasn't done in nursing homes at the beginning of the initial wave citing nearly 100,000 layoffs.  Florida shifting resources to those types of facilities, in addition to other long term care facilities focused on the elderly, went a long way in beating their early predictions. 

Don't we all know who is vulnerable in a mortality sense due to COVID-19?  Those people should be self isolating.  Transparency from state and federal government would go a long way toward helping them.  Informing them of their options.  I have a 65 year old secretary with cancer who was planning on returning to work.  I had to inform her she was eligible for extended unemployment due to her condition.  I just needed a note from her doctor.  A lot of the people who are dying from this likely don't fully understand their level of risk.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, themeanmachine said:

Interesting tweet / link to paper

 

I did not read the paper and don't plan to, looks very technically dense.  But I've read other speculation that some common colds / other coronoviruses people have had could give a degree of immunity or easier recovery, and that this could explain some of the differences in severity between young and old, or certain geographic regions.

I also heard this could be why some prison populations are doing well against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Congrats.  Great news.  No more mask wearing for you.

Well, this would only be true if myself and my kids had antibodies too, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Oh...and to give an update....wife went a couple days ago for antibody test...tested positive for antibodies.  Remember, just a few weeks ago, her COVID test came back "inconclusive" after being in limbo for almost two weeks.  So now, I guess the next step is to get the rest of us tested for antibodies?  Not really sure what to do with this information at the moment.  For some reason, the news angered me at first.

I recall you posting about the inconclusive test.  That is pretty nuts and again shows how hard it is to get a handle on the actual numbers.  Hope your wife doesn't have any long lasting impacts from it and that it's all just good news having it in the rear view mirror.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Louisiana had another one of those crazy spikes in reported cases today.  They had a lab that had been doing testing but was unable to report digitally to the state (what, are they running Windows 95?), so they reported all their tests today, dating back to March 25. More than 600 cases from that one lab alone.  That's the third time this has happened this month.  Ignore those crazy one-day jumps in our numbers. This is very frustrating for those of us trying to track things.  Hospitalizations and ventilator usage continue to fall steadily.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grahamburn said:

@Mr Anonymous has pointed out previously what wasn't done in nursing homes at the beginning of the initial wave citing nearly 100,000 layoffs.  Florida shifting resources to those types of facilities, in addition to other long term care facilities focused on the elderly, went a long way in beating their early predictions. 

Don't we all know who is vulnerable in a mortality sense due to COVID-19?  Those people should be self isolating.  Transparency from state and federal government would go a long way toward helping them.  Informing them of their options.  I have a 65 year old secretary with cancer who was planning on returning to work.  I had to inform her she was eligible for extended unemployment due to her condition.  I just needed a note from her doctor.  A lot of the people who are dying from this likely don't fully understand their level of risk.

I don't really read mr anonymous' posts anymore but I just googled and found that in 2019 there were 1.6m people employed in nursing homes. Not sure I can answer if 100k is a high number or not or whether these people were clerks or nurses.

We found out yday that 10m or so 65 yr old+ people participate in the workforce or want to (and that this trend is increasing). One would assume it is at least partly about the pay.
What specifically should be done at state and federal level for them (even if they do not have pre existing conditions like your secretary)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, themeanmachine said:

Interesting tweet / link to paper

 

I did not read the paper and don't plan to, looks very technically dense.  But I've read other speculation that some common colds / other coronoviruses people have had could give a degree of immunity or easier recovery, and that this could explain some of the differences in severity between young and old, or certain geographic regions.

This would be fantastic news and go a long way to understanding what's happening with this virus and how to mitigate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, msommer said:

Who do you consider vulnerable and what do you propose should be done?

ETA @Pipes What do you consider funny about my post?

Seriously?  We know who's most vulnerable and have for a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, msommer said:

Is there a way to tell if it has been peer reviewed?

The article itself has "Pre-proof" in bold at the top of the cover page, and a "Journal Pre-proof" watermark on the text pages. Also, the authors note on the cover page that the study has not yet undergone review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, msommer said:

I don't really read mr anonymous' posts anymore but I just googled and found that in 2019 there were 1.6m people employed in nursing homes. Not sure I can answer if 100k is a high number or not or whether these people were clerks or nurses.

We found out yday that 10m or so 65 yr old+ people participate in the workforce or want to (and that this trend is increasing). One would assume it is at least partly about the pay.
What specifically should be done at state and federal level for them (even if they do not have pre existing conditions like your secretary)?

That's too bad.  He's made some pretty good points. 

Considering the amount of federal and state stimulus being thrown around it stands to reason they could be incentivized to stay home in a monetary way.  Have their employers keep them on their payroll and covered under employer sponsored insurance plans while matching those costs dollar for dollar as a tax break for the employer. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pipes said:
36 minutes ago, msommer said:

Who do you consider vulnerable and what do you propose should be done?

ETA @Pipes What do you consider funny about my post?

Seriously?  We know who's most vulnerable and have for a long time. 

What usually goes unconsidered are (a) just how many are vulnerable as a percentage of the general population, and (b) the great difficulty of isolating that large a cohort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shader said:

Somehow the ignore feature showed me this post.  I don't recall ever reporting anyone.  I have made frequent use of the ignore feature, though it only works half the time.  Your next statements about what I want are all completely false, which is probably why I had you on ignore to begin with.

The ignore feature works when you click in to a new page.  It usually does not work when you refresh a page to see new replies.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pipes said:

Seriously?  We know who's most vulnerable and have for a long time. 

We do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
28 minutes ago, themeanmachine said:

Interesting tweet / link to paper

I did not read the paper and don't plan to, looks very technically dense.  But I've read other speculation that some common colds / other coronoviruses people have had could give a degree of immunity or easier recovery, and that this could explain some of the differences in severity between young and old, or certain geographic regions.

I also heard this could be why some prison populations are doing well against it. 

Homeless folks, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grahamburn said:

That's too bad.  He's made some pretty good points. 

Considering the amount of federal and state stimulus being thrown around it stands to reason they could be incentivized to stay home in a monetary way.  Have their employers keep them on their payroll and covered under employer sponsored insurance plans while matching those costs dollar for dollar as a tax break for the employer. 

Would you monitor (if so, how) their compliance with the self isolation rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

We do?

80% of the COVID-19 deaths in the United States are age 65 and older. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:
2 hours ago, shader said:

Somehow the ignore feature showed me this post.  I don't recall ever reporting anyone.  I have made frequent use of the ignore feature, though it only works half the time.  Your next statements about what I want are all completely false, which is probably why I had you on ignore to begin with.

The ignore feature works when you click in to a new page.  It usually does not work when you refresh a page to see new replies.

The most frequent glitches for me is when I reply at the same time as an ignored poster :ugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Grahamburn said:

80% of the COVID-19 deaths in the United States are age 65 and older. 

Does that mean no one else is vulnerable? What about long term lung damage? Co morbidities?

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grahamburn said:

80% of the COVID-19 deaths in the United States are age 65 and older. 

Is your avatar pic a seal with Seal's head shopped onto it? LOL, awesome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

Would you monitor (if so, how) their compliance with the self isolation rules?

Of course not.  They aren't being monitored now.  I'm strictly focused on ways the general population can safely get back to work while protecting those people most vulnerable at the same time.  If they aren't interested in being protected they can't be helped. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, worrierking said:

Louisiana had another one of those crazy spikes in reported cases today.  They had a lab that had been doing testing but was unable to report digitally to the state (what, are they running Windows 95?), so they reported all their tests today, dating back to March 25. More than 600 cases from that one lab alone.  That's the third time this has happened this month.  Ignore those crazy one-day jumps in our numbers. This is very frustrating for those of us trying to track things.  Hospitalizations and ventilator usage continue to fall steadily.

Yeah ... at the moment, I think we are generally OK. Louisiana doesn't really have dense urban areas, little reliance on public transportation, and plenty of outdoor recreation. We have a few things working for us, especially as large public gatherings (chiefly our popular spring festivals) have been avoided.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

Does that mean no one else is vulnerable? What about long term lung damage? Co morbidities?

I agree.  Life would be so much easier if it were completely objective 100% of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grahamburn said:

I agree.  Life would be so much easier if it were completely objective 100% of the time. 

It's a lot easier to write the sentence " those vulnerable should self isolate" than actually implement a coherent policy to that effect, not least across 50 states

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

It's a lot easier to write the sentence " those vulnerable should self isolate" than actually implement a coherent policy to that effect, not least across 50 states

I gave a specific policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, msommer said:
38 minutes ago, Grahamburn said:

@Mr Anonymous has pointed out previously what wasn't done in nursing homes at the beginning of the initial wave citing nearly 100,000 layoffs.  Florida shifting resources to those types of facilities, in addition to other long term care facilities focused on the elderly, went a long way in beating their early predictions. 

Don't we all know who is vulnerable in a mortality sense due to COVID-19?  Those people should be self isolating.  Transparency from state and federal government would go a long way toward helping them.  Informing them of their options.  I have a 65 year old secretary with cancer who was planning on returning to work.  I had to inform her she was eligible for extended unemployment due to her condition.  I just needed a note from her doctor.  A lot of the people who are dying from this likely don't fully understand their level of risk.

I don't really read mr anonymous' posts anymore but I just googled and found that in 2019 there were 1.6m people employed in nursing homes. Not sure I can answer if 100k is a high number or not or whether these people were clerks or nurses.

We found out yday that 10m or so 65 yr old+ people participate in the workforce or want to (and that this trend is increasing). One would assume it is at least partly about the pay.
What specifically should be done at state and federal level for them (even if they do not have pre existing conditions like your secretary)?

I also don't think there was ever a link to the 100,000 nursing home layoffs. Maybe I missed it though. In my serches I can't find any numbers that say 100K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Grahamburn said:

@Mr Anonymous has pointed out previously what wasn't done in nursing homes at the beginning of the initial wave citing nearly 100,000 layoffs.  Florida shifting resources to those types of facilities, in addition to other long term care facilities focused on the elderly, went a long way in beating their early predictions. 

Don't we all know who is vulnerable in a mortality sense due to COVID-19?  Those people should be self isolating.  Transparency from state and federal government would go a long way toward helping them.  Informing them of their options.  I have a 65 year old secretary with cancer who was planning on returning to work.  I had to inform her she was eligible for extended unemployment due to her condition.  I just needed a note from her doctor.  A lot of the people who are dying from this likely don't fully understand their level of risk.

Yes, older ones are most vulnerable.  We all agree on that.  Asking older ones to self isolate sounds great....to a young person.  But for how long are we asking them to self-isolate?  Until there is a vaccine?  Typically what I've seen is that when someone wants the old to self-isolate, what they really want is for the rest of us to NOT self-isolate.

We can't just throw out "isolate the old people" as a strategy, because it's not a strategy.  We know they need to isolate, they've been doing that for the last few months.  What about everyone else?  What is the strategy for those, say, under 60?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

Not my argument but my take was that JPLVR was talking about the wider media, not specific posters in here.

The WHO was talking about contact tracing back then.  Not surprising the media wasn't, they've sucked the whole time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Over 65" is an oversimplification of the at-risk group.   The highest percentage of mortality is in people that have underlying conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.   As people get older, they tend to develop one or more of these conditions.   But it is also a factor in why more black and latino people are dying in the US.   

Nearly half of the adult US population has hypertension.   You going to make them self-isolate too?

"Let's make old people self isolate while the rest of the population spreads virus" is a selfish, short-sighted and dangerous approach that will ensure that we're stuck in this cycle for years.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, -fish- said:

"Over 65" is an oversimplification of the at-risk group.   The highest percentage of mortality is in people that have underlying conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc.   As people get older, they tend to develop one or more of these conditions.   But it is also a factor in why more black and latino people are dying in the US.   

Nearly half of the adult US population has hypertension.   You going to make them self-isolate too?

"Let's make old people self isolate while the rest of the population spreads virus" is a selfish, short-sighted and dangerous approach that will ensure that we're stuck in this cycle for years.  

It seems like many people think that they've really discovered something with their "isolate the old" strategy.  

The reality is that it's not a strategy at all.  EVERYBODY thinks we need to isolate the old.  So the strategy usually isn't about isolating the old, it's about NOT isolating the young.  

Which, as you said, is quite short-sighted, and will end up being more dangerous to the older ones in the long run anyway.

Edited by shader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shader said:

Yes, older ones are most vulnerable.  We all agree on that.  Asking older ones to self isolate sounds great....to a young person.  But for how long are we asking them to self-isolate?  Until there is a vaccine?  Typically what I've seen is that when someone wants the old to self-isolate, what they really want is for the rest of us to NOT self-isolate.

We can't just throw out "isolate the old people" as a strategy, because it's not a strategy.  We know they need to isolate, they've been doing that for the last few months.  What about everyone else?  What is the strategy for those, say, under 60?

 

Your strategy is what then?  Not everyone is as lucky as others to have a job where they can stay safely in their home. 

80% of the death is from people age 65 and older.  Allow them and people with diagnosed underlying health conditions that have been shown to react poorly with this virus to continue sheltering in place by incentivizing their employers to keep them on payrolls by giving the employer tax breaks.  Until when?  The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is in effect until 12/31/20.  Addend that Act and add these people to it.   

States continue to open via their phases with precautions.  You'll still have cases, but you neutralize the death toll. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, msommer said:

I'm saying that I haven't seen data that points to a significant impact by weather yet

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-warm-weather-summer-infections.html?referringSource=articleShare

Basically in line with what I've seen in general... weather will slow the rate of spread, especially in super hot places like Phoenix, etc, but won't be enough by itself to get R0 down to 1.0 due to the novelty of the virus.

Combined with mitigation efforts?  Seems like it would make things easier to get this under control through late Sept/early Oct where I am (mid-Atlantic).  I'd bet money most or all of the US will "shut down" again in the fall though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.