200 is nothing. My niece is getting married the 25th in Ohio and there are 425 invited. The hall says it's fine since it is private. There is no way we can get out of going since this is my wife's only sisters kid.I guess that discussion never took place on either of my son's teams.
What state allowed 200 person indoor wedding? Yikes.
no worries....it's getting pretty nasty down here at "partially open" is my only point.Ok, I'm( or was) confused. I think I jumped into a series of quotes without proper context. I follow the above. Yeah I get that.
"Coronavirus hates this one simple trick!"My niece is getting married the 25th in Ohio and there are 425 invited. The hall says it's fine since it is private.
In general, yes, but many of the European countries that are doing well locked down longer and more strictly. I think it’s more the message coming out of lockdown. With most states not following the guidelines or just completely ignoring them, it just fed the people’s belief that it was no big deal or we were done with it.I think it makes sense. The longer and more strict lockdowns become, the more stir crazy and looser with restrictions people become after lockdowns are lifted.
Sad to say the death numbers are only starting to rise. 5k won't be the peak for a week.+65,488 cases yesterday per Worldometer. +465 deaths.
That is 435,700 cases in the last 7 days. Yes, we can argue testing all you want but that number of positive cases is...
We flattened the cases and deaths the last several weeks but given the numbers we are seeing, I don't think we can expect it to stay flat, although I don't think we can expect it to surge to earlier numbers either. We had 5,268 deaths last week. We had a peak of it appears to be 15k in a week (roughly - didn't calculate this one). Let's just be optimistic and say 5k a week. That means we will most likely reach 200k dead in 8 weeks. What are we doing right now that makes us think we won't possibly reach 250k or more before the end of the year?
- more than the total number that every other country has save 3 (Russia, Brazil, India)
- an average of 62,242 per day
- 373 expected deaths per day (in several weeks) if we are generous and say a .6% death rate. It rises to 2,800 deaths per day if we see our current rate of around 4.5% (FTR, it will most likely be much close to .6 than 4.5)
- That's 2,600 weekly deaths on the low end and 19k on the high end
Preeminent guy in his field to be sure ... but he's kind of all over the place and somewhat non-scientific despite his background. I do think he is earnestly trying to understand, but it's that COVID-19 is just THAT confounding that it's hard to pin it down to a small number "known for sure" principles and constraints.This might be more appropriate for politics forum. If so, sorry.
There is a nobel prize winner that is very much anti-lockdown.
Started with this video
https://youtu.be/yn5BGHuK1zo
He's been very active on twitter tracking all sorts of items.
https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013?lang=en
I think what he is perhaps incorrect about, and that I'm coming around (against?) on is that his claim of "burnout" is more or less IMO the threshold at which societies start to take the situation seriously. He is adamant that the detectable case level vs. testable case level is very high and is being picked up by a lot of right wing sources. But I think the alternative explanation is more likely in that at some point people will do the right thing.
This is either genius or applies some serious curve fitting. And also might not be appropriate here.
He's putting out his own models, I am sure they are much more optimistic than IHME, although I've not even looked at them.
not worth your time trying to figure it out eitherI dont understand. Are kids on the team expected to stay in a bubble? My son is on 2 teams. I can't possibly figure out where everyone goes in between games.
It's a fine distinction Stadler is making, perhaps. Looking again at what he wrote below ... he seems to be saying that a quickly-shut-down infection isn't of clinical significance:PCR tests for portions of genetic material, not intact, replicative virions. So yes, it sometimes detects people who aren't infective; but they had to be infected recently to have viral remains present in their body in the first place.If he's on the right track, Swiss immunologist Dr. Beda Stadler (quoted a bunch in this thread earlier this morning) would say that while some portion of the daycare/camp kids do test positive, it's only because their bodies still contain "shards" of defeated viruses -- quote: "The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left". In short, Stadler is saying (controversially, as of this writing) that a positive PCR test does not mean that a person is actually infected. He puts most virus-exposed little kids (if not almost all little kids) into this category -- they get exposed, their immune systems run roughshod over the virus, and the viral remnants cause positive tests without a true infection.
The idea is enticing, but the dots aren't yet connected.
EDIT: I had meant to reply to some of your posts last night, but it's a PITA to do it properly on a phone. Just coming around to last night's comments now.If there are pathogenic viruses in our environment, then all humans — whether immune or not — are attacked by this virus. If someone is immune, the battle with the virus begins. First we try to prevent the virus from binding to our own cells with the help of antibodies. This normally works only partially, not all are blocked and some viruses will attach to the appropriate cells. That doesn’t need to lead to symptoms, but it’s also not a disease.
Umm. No ####### way I would be going to this200 is nothing. My niece is getting married the 25th in Ohio and there are 425 invited. The hall says it's fine since it is private. There is no way we can get out of going since this is my wife's only sisters kid.
We might. OR we might not. Nobody knows.+65,488 cases yesterday per Worldometer. +465 deaths.
That is 435,700 cases in the last 7 days. Yes, we can argue testing all you want but that number of positive cases is...
We flattened the cases and deaths the last several weeks but given the numbers we are seeing, I don't think we can expect it to stay flat, although I don't think we can expect it to surge to earlier numbers either. We had 5,268 deaths last week. We had a peak of it appears to be 15k in a week (roughly - didn't calculate this one). Let's just be optimistic and say 5k a week. That means we will most likely reach 200k dead in 8 weeks. What are we doing right now that makes us think we won't possibly reach 250k or more before the end of the year?
- more than the total number that every other country has save 3 (Russia, Brazil, India)
- an average of 62,242 per day
- 373 expected deaths per day (in several weeks) if we are generous and say a .6% death rate. It rises to 2,800 deaths per day if we see our current rate of around 4.5% (FTR, it will most likely be much close to .6 than 4.5)
- That's 2,600 weekly deaths on the low end and 19k on the high end
Somehow this seems to have been overlooked. Especially when posts below it are referencing such a high positive rate in Florida.@Fox35Amy: ERRORS FOUND: Florida's positivity rate is skewed. #FOX35 went through #COVID19 test reports & found many clinics reporting 100% positivity. @orlandohealth admits their number is wrong, saying it shows 98% positive, but it's actually 9.4%. @fox35orlando https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orlando-health-confirms-state-covid-19-report-has-errors
Technically the part in red was my own thought on the matter.Preeminent guy in his field to be sure ... but he's kind of all over the place and somewhat non-scientific despite his background. I do think he is earnestly trying to understand, but it's that COVID-19 is just THAT confounding that it's hard to pin it down to a small number "known for sure" principles and constraints.
The part in red, however ... I do think in the long run, he'll be right about that. I've already seen it in lots of small ways with face-covering compliance locally over the last two weekends. A lot of small changes in a lot of places will eventually equal "people doing the right thing".
Yeah...this has been a concern all along and what that crazy lady brought up as a possibility some time back. The theory was they'd be "inflating" numbers in the chaos, so that as things got really bad, they could start reporting closer to real results making it appear as if things were going down. I thought people were full of it when suggesting that, but I guess maybe not? I think the only question now is "who?" is responsible. Are these sites doing this or the people loading the systems? They have a weekly segment on my local CBS affiliate about this...will have to pay closer attention to that segment this week.Somehow this seems to have been overlooked. Especially when posts below it are referencing such a high positive rate in Florida.@Fox35Amy: ERRORS FOUND: Florida's positivity rate is skewed. #FOX35 went through #COVID19 test reports & found many clinics reporting 100% positivity. @orlandohealth admits their number is wrong, saying it shows 98% positive, but it's actually 9.4%. @fox35orlando https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orlando-health-confirms-state-covid-19-report-has-errors
Appears like their numbers are wring.
I stumbled across him last week I think. Very interesting, although much like some of the strong proponents of lockdown, I find his stridency a little off-putting.This might be more appropriate for politics forum. If so, sorry.
There is a nobel prize winner that is very much anti-lockdown.
Started with this video
https://youtu.be/yn5BGHuK1zo
He's been very active on twitter tracking all sorts of items.
https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013?lang=en
I think what he is perhaps incorrect about, and that I'm coming around (against?) on is that his claim of "burnout" is more or less IMO the threshold at which societies start to take the situation seriously. He is adamant that the detectable case level vs. testable case level is very high and is being picked up by a lot of right wing sources. But I think the alternative explanation is more likely in that at some point people will do the right thing.
This is either genius or applies some serious curve fitting. And also might not be appropriate here.
He's putting out his own models, I am sure they are much more optimistic than IHME, although I've not even looked at them.
If you'd like, you can go to the Florida site that reports daily numbers. The clinics that are reporting 100% make up a VERY low percentage of the total tests. I doubt they are changing the numbers in any significant way.Somehow this seems to have been overlooked. Especially when posts below it are referencing such a high positive rate in Florida.
Appears like their numbers are wring.
Where are they getting the heart and lung data?"It's only 1% mortality rate we are shutting down for?!?!?!"
Short answer is "no". This goes to a couple comments I made earlier in this thread. We are so short sighted it's embarrassing.
This isn't a back to school story. This was three women sharing close quarters every day. No kids. Just three women.A beloved longtime Arizona elementary school teacher died of coronavirus after sharing a summer classroom with two other teachers who also fell ill with the disease, and now those close to her are warning of the risks of sending teachers and children back to school too quickly.
What?????Byrd echoed that his mother and the two other teachers were extra-careful in the classroom. "They were doing whatever they could to stay safe. They were wearing masks, gloves, using hand sanitizer constantly" partially because his mom was 63 and suffered from asthma, lupus and diabetes.
They took extra precautions because Jena is a cancer survivor and has a compromised immune system. They followed the CDC guidelines and more.
If CDC guidelines really say that it is ok for three teachers, one of which is severely ill already, to work in the same room every day and still go to work when sick, then I will eat my shoes.Lopez Byrd got sick in early June but was told she had a sinus infection, which was not odd for her, Lopez Byrd's son, Luke, told NBC News. She kept working, but she also kept feeling worse and was finally encouraged by her daughter to go to the hospital.
Burnout at 15-20 % is possible because it's enough to move the R0 below 1.0, especially with all the other mitigation strategies in place (distancing, masks, closures). Without mitigation, 15-20 % is unlikely enough to keep R0 below 1.0.Why "burnout" would happen at 15-20% rather than 80% would have to be explained by people more knowledgeable than me.
There's a guy on the Florida coronavirus reddit board that claims that Florida tries to count all the negative tests from "recovering" people in order to keep the positive rate low. Whether true or not, it seems Florida is getting beat up over their numbers. Which is odd, because I find their daily report enlightening. It's MUCH better than what we get in TN. The situation in Florida is going downhill, and their own numbers prove that, whether they are fudging numbers or not.The Commish said:Yeah...this has been a concern all along and what that crazy lady brought up as a possibility some time back. The theory was they'd be "inflating" numbers in the chaos, so that as things got really bad, they could start reporting closer to real results making it appear as if things were going down. I thought people were full of it when suggesting that, but I guess maybe not? I think the only question now is "who?" is responsible. Are these sites doing this or the people loading the systems? They have a weekly segment on my local CBS affiliate about this...will have to pay closer attention to that segment this week.
The parts in red ... Stadler, I think, is extrapolating from the corroborated observations that children collectively aren't sickened by COVID-19, and the idea that this observation in and of itself points to something meaningful about the nature of the virus.Terminalxylem said:He is arguing the virus is different, in suggesting children aren't significant vectors of spread. He's also arguing children have a priori immunity that somehow eluded their elders. Both statements are hard to accept at face value, as they fly in the face of clinical experience with just about every viral respiratory infection. So yes, the burden of proof falls on someone making those types of statements, especially when the consequence of incorrect assumptions is facilitating viral spread.Battersbox said:Yes, the hidden comments you bolded are very compelling. I get that trials with controls etc, are the gold standard of science. But the irony in where the starting points are for studying this is interesting. The idea that the burden of proof falls to those arguing that just maybe this virus isn't so different from other viruses instead of with those claiming without sufficient evidence that this is something completely unlike anything we've ever seen before has always been odd to me ...
Lastly, while Stadler has an opinion and isn't afraid to argue for it, I find it refreshing he (she?) states clearly that everybody has been wrong some of the time. That's certainly true.
No one is saying the virus is completely different from infections we've seen before; its naming should tell you it's the sequel to the other SARS. And it would be great if immunologic cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses attenuated the threat. But again, to assume this is the case shouldn't be the default position, as you risk a lot more people getting infected if you're wrong. Moreover, two closely related coronaviruses, SARS and MERS-CoV, are more deadly than SARS-CoV-2, so it probably is wise to err on the side of caution.
I don't think Stadler rules this out at all -- I think he's just saying that this (partial?) immunity that kids seem to have doesn't last too far into adulthood.Terminalxylem said:Do you think the parents of those children weren't exposed to those same coronaviruses?parasaurolophus said:It doesnt really fly in the face of anything. Plenty of doctors have been saying since the data about kids first started rolling in that their increased exposure to other coronaviruses could help explain why they are less affected by this one.
And it isnt like some of these same conversations didnt also happen re:SARS and MERS years ago.
Make no mistake, I think that explanation is somewhat plausible, but it shouldn't be our default assumption when determining policy like reopening schools.
People might want that corroborated on other news sites. I looked into that on Google News, and saw only Fox affiliates in Florida reporting it so far. If there's something to it ...other media will pick it up.Payne said:Somehow this seems to have been overlooked. Especially when posts below it are referencing such a high positive rate in Florida.JaxBill said:@Fox35Amy: ERRORS FOUND: Florida's positivity rate is skewed. #FOX35 went through #COVID19 test reports & found many clinics reporting 100% positivity. @orlandohealth admits their number is wrong, saying it shows 98% positive, but it's actually 9.4%. @fox35orlando https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/orlando-health-confirms-state-covid-19-report-has-errors
Appears like their numbers are wring.
i know that this is a terrible answer, but.. is that a travel team with a tournament this weekend, a rec team, something in between? I say this as it should not matter, BUT if it is a travel team where parents have shelled out some coin, I can just see the disagreement ensuing based upon the $ paid, a refund being offered, how good the player is/important to the team and where was the wedding - a hot spot or nah? No way to track where all of the kids go between practices and games either so this could easily opening up a big can of worms!!belljr said:So a kid on my daughter's softball team went to a wedding this past weekend.
We are legitimately considering asking her to skip team activities until next week.
Too much?
The reason NJ were in pa cause everything was closed hereDr_Zaius said:I stumbled across him last week I think. Very interesting, although much like some of the strong proponents of lockdown, I find his stridency a little off-putting.
I'll admit I find the "burnout" theory very intriguing. PA has been pretty darn strict by anybody's standards - closed schools and locked down before NY, very early mask order with high compliance. And yet, I've been watching cases and deaths in PA, NJ, and NY and while PA is doing well NY and NJ have dropped at a much faster rate. I find the prevailing narrative that those states just took it much more seriously than PA to be suspect. At the risk of straying into anecdotes, the first weekend PA locked down I went for a run and pretty much the only cars I saw on the road had NY and NJ plates (we get a lot of people from both in Eastern PA). A few weeks later I was at a local park and a guy from the Jersey shore (!) on a bike was asking if there was an Applebee's around?!? To me, the idea that NY and NJ are dropping so fast precisely because so much of their population has already been exposed has a lot of plausibility. The fact that as far as I can tell places spiking now are pretty much exclusively places that have been hit relatively lightly thus far is also suggestive. Why "burnout" would happen at 15-20% rather than 80% would have to be explained by people more knowledgeable than me.
inside? This seems like a disaster waiting to happen, regardless of where in Ohio.bcat01 said:200 is nothing. My niece is getting married the 25th in Ohio and there are 425 invited. The hall says it's fine since it is private. There is no way we can get out of going since this is my wife's only sisters kid.
Beat me to my edit as I am stuffing my face with lunch. The post is an illustration of our shortsightedness thinking of deaths only. As far as I'm concerned, you can take the quantities out of the post and the point remains. I have not verified a single number on that post...the numbers isn't the point I am trying to make. It's the potential long term affects this is going to have cutting short many lives of those who get it. That's still a huge unknown and likely be for a while. It's my hope that things like this will show how short sighted people are when they say "but they aren't dying, so let's keep going".matuski said:Where are they getting the heart and lung data?
Nearly everyone (18/19) hospitalized has permanent heart damage? Seems some large assumptions being made here.
He brings up a great point about New Zealand and Australia. They have almost no exposure so far. Not sure how you can "fix" that, but there is at least some logic to them being in this for a much longer haul now.culdeus said:This might be more appropriate for politics forum. If so, sorry.
There is a nobel prize winner that is very much anti-lockdown.
Started with this video
https://youtu.be/yn5BGHuK1zo
He's been very active on twitter tracking all sorts of items.
https://twitter.com/mlevitt_np2013?lang=en
I think what he is perhaps incorrect about, and that I'm coming around (against?) on is that his claim of "burnout" is more or less IMO the threshold at which societies start to take the situation seriously. He is adamant that the detectable case level vs. testable case level is very high and is being picked up by a lot of right wing sources. But I think the alternative explanation is more likely in that at some point people will do the right thing.
This is either genius or applies some serious curve fitting. And also might not be appropriate here.
He's putting out his own models, I am sure they are much more optimistic than IHME, although I've not even looked at them.
I get and agree with your main point.Beat me to my edit as I am stuffing my face with lunch. The post is an illustration of our shortsightedness thinking of deaths only. As far as I'm concerned, you can take the quantities out of the post and the point remains. I have not verified a single number on that post...the numbers isn't the point I am trying to make. It's the potential long term affects this is going to have cutting short many lives of those who get it. That's still a huge unknown and likely be for a while. It's my hope that things like this will show how short sighted people are when they say "but they aren't dying, so let's keep going".
ETA: You can see the studies they pulled some of the numbers from if you scroll down a little bit, but again, the numbers weren't really my focus...it's the larger concept and an attempt to push back against the nonsense that it's ok if people are getting it since not as many are dying now. I think that's nonsense personally. To the specific question you pose here it's saying that for every person who dies from this disease, another 18 will have heart damage...maybe I am misreading? The wording is wonky IMO.
But everything was closed here too except for basically groceries and takeout food. Liquor stores were even closed. They put up caution tape around the local playgrounds and took the basketball hoops off of backboards. Was NJ stricter than that even?The reason NJ were in pa cause everything was closed here
Don't know....as I said, you can see the studies for this stuff if you scroll down a bit. I will say the one on heart damage appears to be from March. I don't see another one that's revisited these numbers. They are probably different now than they were then. Could have easily been a correlation vs causation issue if no further studies have followed up.I get and agree with your main point.
I have a hard time believing the extrapolated numbers are anywhere near accurate. 1% death rate means a 19% heart damage rate, 18% lung damage, etc? Nah.
Yep.. the first paragraph is acknowledging two giant assumptions, then mashing a bunch of random studies into the assumptions.Don't know....as I said, you can see the studies for this stuff if you scroll down a bit.
Inside. Our area has low cases and everyone thinks it is all blown out of proportion. My sister-in-law is in denial and doesn't want to hear about what could happen. She just says "the hall is letting us have it". My niece has problems with depression and we think she is border line bi-polar so if we don't go who knows what would happen.inside? This seems like a disaster waiting to happen, regardless of where in Ohio.
To be clear....I don't feel the need to bolster my position. It stands on it's merits all by itself IMO. The link is just another way of stating it. There are PLENTY hear and elsewhere who are completely ignoring this aspect and are on the "hey, we aren't dying as much, time to open things up" train. It's flat out wrong. Maybe seeing it stated a different way will help...no idea.Yep.. the first paragraph is acknowledging two giant assumptions, then mashing a bunch of random studies into the assumptions.
So your point stands, and I agree.... but that link is ridiculous and does nothing to bolster your position imo.
To be clear, your point stands on its merit.To be clear....I don't feel the need to bolster my position. It stands on it's merits all by itself IMO. The link is just another way of stating it. There are PLENTY hear and elsewhere who are completely ignoring this aspect and are on the "hey, we aren't dying as much, time to open things up" train. It's flat out wrong. Maybe seeing it stated a different way will help...no idea.
In case you weren't sure Rebekah Jones isn't exactly an honest source. She completely manufactured the narrative that a mother took her daughter to a "covid party" and caused her death when in reality the daughter was an active leader in her church's youth ministry and attended a church function that was never intended to be a "covid party." When pressed Jones doubled down by trying to imply that a "release party" at a church was just another term for a covid party. You know because you are releasing the virus.To be clear....I don't feel the need to bolster my position. It stands on it's merits all by itself IMO. The link is just another way of stating it. There are PLENTY hear and elsewhere who are completely ignoring this aspect and are on the "hey, we aren't dying as much, time to open things up" train. It's flat out wrong. Maybe seeing it stated a different way will help...no idea.
Funny thing...sent the link to my wife and her reply:To be clear, your point stands on its merit.
That link does not.
She's working with a group on cardiovascular impacts from this thing It's been absolutely wonderful to see her excited about research again.These people need to stop helping. The underlying studies are legit, but the way that post butchers the results is embarrassing
Thanks for sharing. These are certainly worth taking note of. We really don't need anymore info to take this seriously, as it's bad enough "as is".To be clear....I don't feel the need to bolster my position. It stands on it's merits all by itself IMO. The link is just another way of stating it. There are PLENTY hear and elsewhere who are completely ignoring this aspect and are on the "hey, we aren't dying as much, time to open things up" train. It's flat out wrong. Maybe seeing it stated a different way will help...no idea.
This is the actual study for the cardiac questions you had:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2763524?resultClick=1
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
I'd like to point to this post as a good talking point.Beat me to my edit as I am stuffing my face with lunch. The post is an illustration of our shortsightedness thinking of deaths only. As far as I'm concerned, you can take the quantities out of the post and the point remains. I have not verified a single number on that post...the numbers isn't the point I am trying to make. It's the potential long term affects this is going to have cutting short many lives of those who get it. That's still a huge unknown and likely be for a while. It's my hope that things like this will show how short sighted people are when they say "but they aren't dying, so let's keep going".
ETA: You can see the studies they pulled some of the numbers from if you scroll down a little bit, but again, the numbers weren't really my focus...it's the larger concept and an attempt to push back against the nonsense that it's ok if people are getting it since not as many are dying now. I think that's nonsense personally. To the specific question you pose here it's saying that for every person who dies from this disease, another 18 will have heart damage...maybe I am misreading? The wording is wonky IMO.
Would love to hear any info you get on this, even though I'm sure you won't be able to share...Funny thing...sent the link to my wife and her reply:
She's working with a group on cardiovascular impacts from this thing It's been absolutely wonderful to see her excited about research again.
That's the crazy person from FSU right? Not sure what that has to do with the post quoted or the conversation I was having with matuskiIn case you weren't sure Rebekah Jones isn't exactly an honest source. She completely manufactured the narrative that a mother took her daughter to a "covid party" and caused her death when in reality the daughter was an active leader in her church's youth ministry and attended a church function that was never intended to be a "covid party." When pressed Jones doubled down by trying to imply that a "release party" at a church was just another term for a covid party. You know because you are releasing the virus.
Oh , what's that? Churches have release parties all the time? Even in 2019? Even in 2018????
Errrr.... well they didnt practice social distancing which is the same as attending a covid party!!!
. I have no idea why people were there but yes for 3 weeks you basically were homeBut everything was closed here too except for basically groceries and takeout food. Liquor stores were even closed. They put up caution tape around the local playgrounds and took the basketball hoops off of backboards. Was NJ stricter than that even?