Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Big League Chew

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Terminalxylem said:

Pretty much every business-minded hospital admin would disagree. But they aren't hospitalized or taking care of patients. They don't have to pay the unnecessary ambulance bills while getting shuttled to another facility, or suffer delays in care while sicker patients are prioritized. And they sure as hell aren't boarding overnight in the hallway of the ER, exposed to every other sick patient without a modicum of privacy.

Perhaps more importantly, they aren't having to work any harder, racing to facilitate ER and inpatient throughput, juggling multiple patients and increasing the odds a mistake will be made. And they aren't exposing themselves to a highly contagious, potentially fatal infection. 

Hospitals certainly face comparable patient loads every Winter. It sucks for everyone directly involved, and quality of care almost invariably goes down. We shouldn't accept this model under normal circumstances, and we certainly shouldn't trust it can function effectively with the added resources demanded by covid patients.

To be clear, I work in a hospital and have experienced the surges you describe. Even though HI has been relatively spared, the changes I've seen in response to the pandemic are unprecedented.

It's certainly not that I don't sympathize and we're obviously aware of the same things. My highlighting the fact that this kind of surge isn't as uncommon as many think shouldn't be mistaken by anyone as an endorsement of the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Lol, they disappear because they're sick and tired of dealing with you. I was gone when the reopening began and continued. In other words, things got better and I went away. Now we have people pushing shut downs again, and voila, here I am. I'm here because some like you are again skipping past the easiest and most obvious solution - masks. You go even further and applaud shut downs. They are an awful and unnecessary option. And you are very misguided to be applauding them.

Nice try though at trying to shape the narrative, self-appointed overseer of all. 

What color is the sky in your world?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I’ll let you two argue it out but I don’t think shutdowns are unnecessary in the hotspots.  I’m not sure why you think otherwise.

ETA - and shutdowns to me means rolling back the phased openings.  There’s no reason for some of these businesses to be open in these hotspots 

I'm not that far off from you with the caveat that masks should be mandated well ahead of reverting back to a shut down because if implemented the time simply won't come to need a shut down. Newsom resorting to shut downs again is a failure on his part to mandate masks everywhere. So in that sense, I agree with you - that when things get out of control a short term shut down is probably necessary. In total though, they never should be needed if masks are mandated at the appropriate time. Shut downs are a total and utter failure in leadership at this point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, renesauz said:

Weddings are a tough one. Is it reasonable to expect indefinate postponements of a wedding?

The better answer for things like this are to keep them outdoors and smaller. Went to my uncles wedding a month ago...outdoors. Basically a small (less then 40 total people) backyard BBQ in a large yard where we could spread out some. Not ideal by any means, but certainly not a super spreader event either. SOME EVENTS need to happen...just do them with some small modifications that at least lessen the risk

Yeah, two really good friends have changed their wedding from 200 people to 40 and it's become an all outdoors event.   I'm reasonably comfortable going, which is a good thing since I'm officiating it.

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

I'm not that far off from you with the caveat that masks should be mandated well ahead of reverting back to a shut down because if implemented the time simply won't come to need a shut down. Newsom resorting to shut downs again is a failure on his part to mandate masks everywhere. So in that sense, I agree with you - that when things get out of control a short term shut down is probably necessary. In total though, they never should be needed if masks are mandated at the appropriate time. Shut downs are a total and utter failure in leadership at this point in time.

Businesses are easier to get to follow the rules over millions of people.  You are right they should mandate masks but as mentioned we have a bunch of ignorant people claiming their rights are being infringed.  And we have states like mine not mandating masks anywhere - yes, failure of leadership.

I will say that once the genie is out of the bottle a few weeks of shutdowns are needed - just a mask mandate won’t cut it unless you are willing to have higher deaths.  And I completely get that being a different topic and worthy of debate.  But we aren’t close to that yet.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I guess it really should be no surprise that it got missed by many how effective masks were in other places outside the U.S. The people who kept warning about what was coming in the places that were reopening had no motivation to to take note later that the reopens after relatively short shutdowns were successful because of masks. Yet they'll be the first to point out today what shining examples those places are. And follow it up with a thumbs up for a second round of shut downs. It's people like that holding us back, not the other way around. Who the heck is gonna be here today applauding another round of shut downs? That's not someone people should be defending or much less, listening to. I'm sorry, it just isn't. They are a huge step backward and completely unnecessary if we just follow the template that the world and time have provided us.

Edited by Mr Anonymous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had mask mandatory since opening back up.   I would welcome other places to follow

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug B said:

I'm going to post the "common sense" part here in a spoiler box, to elicit the house's reaction. The things Stadler is proposing should not yet be treated as conclusions, but should perhaps be (and probably are somewhere) avenues of further study.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

4. Immunology of common sense

As an immunologist I trust a biological model, namely that of the human organism, which has built a tried and tested, adaptive immune system. At the end of February, driving home from the recording of [a Swiss political TV debate show], I mentioned to Daniel Koch [former head of the Swiss federal section “Communicable Diseases” of the Federal Office of Public Health] that I suspected there was a general immunity in the population against Sars-Cov-2. He argued against my view. I later defended him anyway, when he said that children were not a driving factor in the spread of the pandemic. He suspected that children didn’t have a receptor for the virus, which is of course nonsense. Still, we had to admit that his observations were correct. But the fact that every scientist attacked him afterwards and asked for studies to prove his point, was somewhat ironic. Nobody asked for studies to prove that people in certain at-risk groups were dying. When the first statistics from China and later worldwide data showed the same trend, that is to say that almost no children under ten years old got sick, everyone should have made the argument that children clearly have to be immune. For every other disease that doesn’t afflict a certain group of people, we would come to the conclusion that that group is immune. When people are sadly dying in a retirement home, but in the same place other pensioners with the same risk factors are left entirely unharmed, we should also conclude that they were presumably immune.

But this common sense seems to have eluded many ...

 

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.

Maybe a good analogy is: EVERYBODY agrees hand-washing is important for preventing infections, both viral and bacterial. But, has there ever been a trial with blind controls which proves this? If I posited that hand-washing is actually harmful and then the masses felt the burden of proof fell upon the pro-hand-washers instead of on the hand-wash-deniers, that would be effed up. Sometimes you have to make assumptions about what is true, and what isn't, otherwise where does research begin? 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not complicated. Locations where the vast majority of people have demonstrated their willingness to wear masks shouldn't need to go from "open" to "shut down".

But the places where a significant portion of people refuse to wear masks? Sorry, you can't have nice things and you also ruined it for your neighbors who were wearing them. And those places should go from "open" to "shut down".

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I’ll let you two argue it out but I don’t think shutdowns are unnecessary in the hotspots.  I’m not sure why you think otherwise.

ETA - and shutdowns to me means rolling back the phased openings.  There’s no reason for some of these businesses to be open in these hotspots 

Shutdowns are ‘break in case of an emergency’ options. It was absolutely needed in March when we knew nothing about the virus and it was spreading uncontrollably. With what we know now there should be no reason to shutdown again but here we are. We never adapted to living with it, we had half the country skip to living without it.

Even as these outbreaks rage in the south and west, there’s other places that are living in another world thinking that it will never happen to them. Smart people who just refuse to care until it smacks them right in the face. I had low expectations but even they weren’t met.

I was right there saying we’d never shut down again. The emergency is back time to bust that glass in several states.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CR69 said:

That first article counts all cases linked to it. Does it specify how many cases were kids vs counselors vs family members of counselors? That info is almost always missing which leads me to believe the majority of numbers are young counselors getting this and spreading to each other and admin staff and family of staff and few kids getting it and even fewer passing it on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Shutdowns are ‘break in case of an emergency’ options. It was absolutely needed in March when we knew nothing about the virus and it was spreading uncontrollably. With what we know now there should be no reason to shutdown again but here we are. We never adapted to living with it, we had half the country skip to living without it.

Even as these outbreaks rage in the south and west, there’s other places that are living in another world thinking that it will never happen to them. Smart people who just refuse to care until it smacks them right in the face. I had low expectations but even they weren’t met.

I was right there saying we’d never shut down again. The emergency is back time to bust that glass in several states.

If I could use both the "like" and the "cry" button in response to this I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monday numbers 

Deaths in the 21 "Outbreak States"

(CA, TX, FL, AZ, GA, NC, LA, OH, TN, SC, AL, WA, WI, MS, UT, MO, AK, NV, OK, KS, NM)

July 13: 286 deaths

Last three Mondays: (182,276,286)

 

7-day average in deaths

6/28: 278

6/29: 304

6/30: 310

7/1: 305

7/2: 316

7/3: 321

7/4: 302

7/5: 304

7/6: 317

7/7: 340

7/8: 361

7/9: 391

7/10: 421

7/11: 474

7/12: 496

7/13: 497

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I'm getting sick of seeing is the description of non-mask wearers as strictly right wingers. Admittedly,  there are those that feel their rights are being infringed upon but I've seen plenty of scenes in black and Hispanic neighborhoods not wearing masks and they could hardly be considered Trump supporters. This is a failure among all groups, not any one specifically.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Something I'm getting sick of seeing is the description of non-mask wearers as strictly right wingers. Admittedly,  there are those that feel their rights are being infringed upon but I've seen plenty of scenes in black and Hispanic neighborhoods not wearing masks and they could hardly be considered Trump supporters. This is a failure among all groups, not any one specifically.

All non mask wearers matter. 

Edited by Nick Vermeil
Sorry gb. Couldn’t help myself.
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

You two are talking past each other - he never said we'd see that scale - he just said deaths would rise and they have.  I will say shader didn't seem optimistic that we could (added) much see lower rates.  That's why I think you're talking past each other.  How about we bottom line it - we aren't doing well even if we are doing "better" than NY was.  In fact, we are doing horribly by comparison to other countries and we appear hellbent on making in worse or at least not much better.

Yeah...there's a difference between intentionally misrepresenting and talking passed GB.  NY was an absolute ####show.  They are just now starting to get things in line.  The problem at hand, right this second, is we continue to react rather than be proactive and that ultimately seems to be shader's point.  It is absolutely valid to point out that deaths lag behind hospitalizations that lag behind positive cases.  That's all he's said.  I don't think it's a stretch to suggest as the average age comes down, deaths lag further behind (which is ultimately a good thing) but that seems to be forgotten as well.  Reality is, this is a different group of people under different circumstances.  Some of us think them being under the circumstances at all is absurd because it is so easy to avoid.  That's been the case all along.  Others, not so much.  The "concern" shifts and moves around depending on whatever the talking point is that day.

Reality is, as a nation, we could be talking about pulling out of this fiasco in the next 3-4 weeks had we done some simple things as a collective.  Instead, we are going to be talking about how bad cases are getting and "arguing" how the hypothetical end justifies the means.  We'll be talking about how our states are doing worse than many countries and how that doesn't really matter because people aren't dying.  All the while the anti-maskers are whining that things aren't opening up fast enough and people remaining silent over states not following the "guidelines" who once were screaming from the rooftops that the "guidelines" were the way to go.  To what end?  I have no idea.  It's just madness at this point....just so dishonest and fruitless.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Well yeah, it does. Every winter somewhere in the U.S. in multiple locations.

 

And no they don't "create more doctors and nurses", they redirect resources. Which is how we were told we'd handle things going forward once brought under control. And it's what is being done now quite effectively looking at our deaths counts in comparison to March and April.

There's a very clear lack of understanding about this and it's proven out citing examples of viruses from the past. People hear 90-95% ICU capacity or beds filling hallways and are led to believe its unprecedented. It's not only something we see spread about every year, it's anticipated, planned for, and honestly built into the business model. But don't let a chance for some good ol' fear mongering pass you by.

There are certain hospitals in metro areas that deal with this all too frequently. Generally, they are fairly isolated cases where redirecting is relatively easy. THIS RIGHT NOW is a different scenario, one where EVERY hospital in a large metro area is in this kind of scenario simultaneously, and where smaller rural facilities which DON'T EVER see this scenario are seeing it.

 

So while, yeah...it's not rare/uncommon...the places and patterns we are seeing right now ARE

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

NYC did it. 

Not really..they offered huge money and pulled docs/nurse from all over the country. With multiple hot spots now and more burnt out health care workers it WILL get more difficult to pull in staff from other parts of the country

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll throw out the central florida economy has gone from 97% loss in revenue from their tourism to 95% after being 50%+ open for over a month now.  The difference?  People are now on the hook for payrolls, both small and large businesses.  We've seen an increase of about 12% in the closing of businesses in the last 6 weeks alone.  Prior to that we'd lost about 5-7% of those businesses.  It's sort of like a brown out around here...if you care about your house, you'd be smart to shut the power off and run on a generator rather than try to run on the drip being provided.  People are having to make some tough decisions.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

And I'll throw out the central florida economy has gone from 97% loss in revenue from their tourism to 95% after being 50%+ open for over a month now. 

I'm not that bright, can you explain this? Are you saying that revenue is back to 95% of what it was, or that instead of being down 97% it's now only down 95%? Sorry for being a dummy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biff84 said:

Shutdowns are ‘break in case of an emergency’ options. It was absolutely needed in March when we knew nothing about the virus and it was spreading uncontrollably. With what we know now there should be no reason to shutdown again but here we are. We never adapted to living with it, we had half the country skip to living without it.

Even as these outbreaks rage in the south and west, there’s other places that are living in another world thinking that it will never happen to them. Smart people who just refuse to care until it smacks them right in the face. I had low expectations but even they weren’t met.

I was right there saying we’d never shut down again. The emergency is back time to bust that glass in several states.

That middle paragraph is what makes this so disappointing. It's a sad, sad commentary on how divided we are as a country.

 

26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Yeah...there's a difference between intentionally misrepresenting and talking passed GB.  NY was an absolute ####show.  They are just now starting to get things in line.  The problem at hand, right this second, is we continue to react rather than be proactive and that ultimately seems to be shader's point.  It is absolutely valid to point out that deaths lag behind hospitalizations that lag behind positive cases.  That's all he's said.  I don't think it's a stretch to suggest as the average age comes down, deaths lag further behind (which is ultimately a good thing) but that seems to be forgotten as well.  Reality is, this is a different group of people under different circumstances.  Some of us think them being under the circumstances at all is absurd because it is so easy to avoid.  That's been the case all along.  Others, not so much.  The "concern" shifts and moves around depending on whatever the talking point is that day.

Reality is, as a nation, we could be talking about pulling out of this fiasco in the next 3-4 weeks had we done some simple things as a collective.  Instead, we are going to be talking about how bad cases are getting and "arguing" how the hypothetical end justifies the means.  We'll be talking about how our states are doing worse than many countries and how that doesn't really matter because people aren't dying.  All the while the anti-maskers are whining that things aren't opening up fast enough and people remaining silent over states not following the "guidelines" who once were screaming from the rooftops that the "guidelines" were the way to go.  To what end?  I have no idea.  It's just madness at this point....just so dishonest and fruitless.  

Indeed. Absurd is the perfect word choice. 

Share this post


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

That first article counts all cases linked to it. Does it specify how many cases were kids vs counselors vs family members of counselors? That info is almost always missing which leads me to believe the majority of numbers are young counselors getting this and spreading to each other and admin staff and family of staff and few kids getting it and even fewer passing it on. 

 

I think your preconceived biases lead you to believe what you do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, renesauz said:

There are certain hospitals in metro areas that deal with this all too frequently. Generally, they are fairly isolated cases where redirecting is relatively easy. THIS RIGHT NOW is a different scenario, one where EVERY hospital in a large metro area is in this kind of scenario simultaneously, and where smaller rural facilities which DON'T EVER see this scenario are seeing it.

 

So while, yeah...it's not rare/uncommon...the places and patterns we are seeing right now ARE

Correct. I didn't realize how easily COVID could ruin the healthcare system until I applied it to my hospital.

We're a 300+ bed hospital and BEFORE COVID it was a daily struggle to free up beds in the ICUs and the step-down units. We would have patients waiting in the ED for 18+ hours at times and this a a large hospital in a metro area. So adding ANY TYPE of extra volume would be a stress to our hospital. 

I imagine many hospitals have similar balancing acts everyday. 

Just praying that the masks usage decreases the flu this season or else we'll be screwed.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

Maybe a good analogy is: EVERYBODY agrees hand-washing is important for preventing infections, both viral and bacterial. But, has there ever been a trial with blind controls which proves this? If I posited that hand-washing is actually harmful and then the masses felt the burden of proof fell upon the pro-hand-washers instead of on the hand-wash-deniers, that would be effed up. Sometimes you have to make assumptions about what is true, and what isn't, otherwise where does research begin? 

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.

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.

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.

Although infection control literature is methodologically difficult, there is plenty of data to support handwashing to reduce both bacterial and viral spread. Here's one study:

Quote

Improvements in hand hygiene resulted in reductions in gastrointestinal illness of 31% (95% confidence intervals [CI]=19%, 42%) and reductions in respiratory illness of 21% (95% CI=5%, 34%). The most beneficial intervention was hand-hygiene education with use of nonantibacterial soap.

Here's another that Matuski would approve

Quote

Meta-analyses suggest that regular hand hygiene provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.52–0.73; I2 = 0%), and facemask use provided a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.16–1.71; I2 = 48%) against 2009 pandemic influenza infection. These interventions may therefore be effective at limiting transmission during future pandemics.

Just out of curiosity, how do you propose study participants be blinded to whether their hands are washed? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I think your preconceived biases lead you to believe what you do.  

Yep. Could be other reasons why the media doesnt mention those things. What do your preconceived biases tell you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FBG26 said:

I'm not that bright, can you explain this? Are you saying that revenue is back to 95% of what it was, or that instead of being down 97% it's now only down 95%? Sorry for being a dummy. 

Pretty sure he's saying the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FBG26 said:

I'm not that bright, can you explain this? Are you saying that revenue is back to 95% of what it was, or that instead of being down 97% it's now only down 95%? Sorry for being a dummy. 

He's saying his payroll takes up half his revenue on a good day so capping at 50% means he's just making payroll and taking home nothing.  

Share this post


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

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

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Charlie Harper said:

Correct. I didn't realize how easily COVID could ruin the healthcare system until I applied it to my hospital.

We're a 300+ bed hospital and BEFORE COVID it was a daily struggle to free up beds in the ICUs and the step-down units. We would have patients waiting in the ED for 18+ hours at times and this a a large hospital in a metro area. So adding ANY TYPE of extra volume would be a stress to our hospital. 

I imagine many hospitals have similar balancing acts everyday. 

Just praying that the masks usage decreases the flu this season or else we'll be screwed.

Yep. It's one of the bazillion things wrong with our healthcare system. The number of primary care providers and hospital beds per 100,000K population are among the lowest of OECD countries.

Somehow we spend way more than everywhere else, but have less to show for it than our industrialized peers.

 

Edited by Terminalxylem
Incorrect ICU bed count
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 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. 

Do you think the parents of those children weren't exposed to those same coronaviruses?

Make no mistake, I think that explanation is somewhat plausible, but it shouldn't be our default assumption when determining policy like reopening schools.

ETA Are you suggesting children aren't significant vectors for most respiratory infections? Because that was also part of the face-flying to which I referred.

Edited by Terminalxylem

Share this post


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

Weddings are a tough one. Is it reasonable to expect indefinate postponements of a wedding?

The better answer for things like this are to keep them outdoors and smaller. Went to my uncles wedding a month ago...outdoors. Basically a small (less then 40 total people) backyard BBQ in a large yard where we could spread out some. Not ideal by any means, but certainly not a super spreader event either. SOME EVENTS need to happen...just do them with some small modifications that at least lessen the risk

Of course they can be postponed. If you can't wait, you can always get the marriage license and hold a wedding party later. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Many things, I have no doubt.  But if I took an accounting of them, I’d be pretty comfortable knowing that none of them led me to support someone like Trump.  

Which may be damning with faint praise, if I’m being honest.  

 Hillary was no prize.  Awful, really.  Neither is Biden.  But I would sleep at night knowing that both of them are like finding a golden ticket compared to the current malignancy that is destroying America.  

There is a vacuum of leadership at the federal level in America at a time when federal leadership is more necessary than at anytime since 9/11.  

And all Donald cares about is himself. And getting re-elected.   He’ll rip the country in half to do it.  

Lol, wut? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Although infection control literature is methodologically difficult, there is plenty of data to support handwashing to reduce both bacterial and viral spread. Here's one study:

Here's another that Matuski would approve

Just out of curiosity, how do you propose study participants be blinded to whether their hands are washed? 

If i am reading that first link correctly that means our cdc and the surgeon general amd god knows how many other people went all in on wash your hands wash your hands wash your hands with soap and water based on one study in pakistan???

This estimate was based on a single study by Luby et al. because there were no other intervention studies that assessed the effect of nonantibacterial soap on respiratory illnesses.45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

If i am reading that first link correctly that means our cdc and the surgeon general amd god knows how many other people went all in on wash your hands wash your hands wash your hands with soap and water based on one study in pakistan???

This estimate was based on a single study by Luby et al. because there were no other intervention studies that assessed the effect of nonantibacterial soap on respiratory illnesses.45

That's just one study (of two I posted). There are many others, if you care to look. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

If we were testing in the volume we are now, isn't it fair to assume that the cases would have been there in March and April just the same, if not worse?

It may be fair to assume, but it is incorrect. We have regionalized data for 180 hospitals and I can tell you with certainty that this is a true first spike for many areas.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

That's just one study (of two I posted). There are many others, if you care to look. 

 

Well the other one you posted didn't have any that focused on just hand washing with regular soap. Well actually that's not correct. It might have had one, but hand washing was poorly defined. 

Quote

Our results suggest that increases in what adult laymen perceive as being adequate hand-washing may not significantly reduce the risk of ARIs. 

Its kind of funny how I actually posted the following after reading the link you posted. 

Quote

If i am reading that first link correctly that means our cdc and the surgeon general amd god knows how many other people went all in on wash your hands wash your hands wash your hands with soap and water based on one study in pakistan??? 

I decided to go ahead and look at the CDC page on hand washing. 

CDC:Show Me the Science - Why Wash Your Hands?

Quote

Reduces respiratory illnesses, like colds, in the general population by 16-21% 

Interesting. 21%? Hmmmm..... Why does that number sound so familiar? Yep.

They literally cited the same study you did as their most recent info for why hand washing prevents respiratory illness. So it seems they really did give all of the early hand washing advice based on one study in Pakistan. 

It isn't so much that the study was based in Pakistan that was the problem. It is the fact that in Pakistan the two leading causes of the respiratory illnesses they studied and concluded washing your hands with regular soap prevented are not even from viruses. 

Share this post


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

Well the other one you posted didn't have any that focused on just hand washing with regular soap. Well actually that's not correct. It might have had one, but hand washing was poorly defined. 

Its kind of funny how I actually posted the following after reading the link you posted. 

I decided to go ahead and look at the CDC page on hand washing. 

CDC:Show Me the Science - Why Wash Your Hands?

Interesting. 21%? Hmmmm..... Why does that number sound so familiar? Yep.

They literally cited the same study you did as their most recent info for why hand washing prevents respiratory illness. So it seems they really did give all of the early hand washing advice based on one study in Pakistan. 

It isn't so much that the study was based in Pakistan that was the problem. It is the fact that in Pakistan the two leading causes of the respiratory illnesses they studied and concluded washing your hands with regular soap prevented are not even from viruses. 

What is really interesting is your standard of proof for something you want to believe (kids don’t spread SARS-CoV-2) vs. something you don’t (handwashing reduces risk of respiratory infection). 
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Just out of curiosity, how do you propose study participants be blinded to whether their hands are washed? 

I don't suggest that happen at all. My point was it's not necessary. Some things we should take at face value. 

Let me ask you: what is your theory on why this virus spares the young while flu viruses do not?

Share this post


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

What is really interesting is your standard of proof for something you want to believe (kids don’t spread SARS-CoV-2) vs. something you don’t (handwashing reduces risk of respiratory infection). 
 

 

It is only interesting to you because you are trying to discuss this in bad faith. The bold is an absolute. That isn't what we are discussing, obviously. The actual genuine discussion is whether kids are spreaders to a point that justifies closing schools.

There is plenty of data out there that says they aren't. Started with Van Kerkhove and 24 other doctors in China studying 2100 kids. It continued with a paper in the lancet. It continued with Sweden's schools. Switzerland, Taiwan, Belgium,  norway, denmark, france,. The University of vermont study. The case study of the child that was symptomatic and had 170 people that he came in contact with and didnt pass it on. 

So yeah, I definitely weigh all of that evidence heavier than I do a study about bacterial pneumonia and pushing hand washing as the number one way to prevent covid 19. 

And this is coming from somebody that has admitted in this very thread quite often to being a hand hygiene freak, since I am aware that plenty of things do spread via that route. 

 

Share this post


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

I don't suggest that happen at all. My point was it's not necessary. Some things we should take at face value. 

Let me ask you: what is your theory on why this virus spares the young while flu viruses do not?

Partial immunity from exposure to other coronaviruses is plausible. It would be interesting to see if teachers and parents of school age children contract SARS-CoV-2 less often than the general population, as ostensibly they have increased rates of non-covid coronaviral infections too. Less expression of the ACE-2 receptor in kids has also been proposed, but I don’t know if that is biologically accurate. Or maybe their immature immune systems are less able to generate the inflammatory milieu necessary for a cytokine storm? Perhaps their immature coagulation cascade doesn’t form clots as effectively as adults either. Bottom line: Nobody knows, but there are many possible explanations, and not all of them require intrinsic immunity.
 

But we do know young people can get infected and are historically good vectors in the spread of other infectious diseases. Schools were shut down pretty early in the pandemic, so it’s hard to draw conclusions about their role in viral transmission. With all those factors in mind, I’m not optimistic in person schools are a great idea until we have a better handle on why kids have been spared, along with reeling in uncontrolled community spread in hotspots across the country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Partial immunity from exposure to other coronaviruses is plausible. It would be interesting to see if teachers and parents of school age children contract SARS-CoV-2 less often than the general population, as ostensibly they have increased rates of non-covid coronaviral infections too. Less expression of the ACE-2 receptor in kids has also been proposed, but I don’t know if that is biologically accurate. Or maybe their immature immune systems are less able to generate the inflammatory milieu necessary for a cytokine storm? Perhaps their immature coagulation cascade doesn’t form clots as effectively as adults either. Bottom line: Nobody knows, but there are many possible explanations, and not all of them require intrinsic immunity.
 

But we do know young people can get infected and are historically good vectors in the spread of other infectious diseases. Schools were shut down pretty early in the pandemic, so it’s hard to draw conclusions about their role in viral transmission. With all those factors in mind, I’m not optimistic in person schools are a great idea until we have a better handle on why kids have been spared, along with reeling in uncontrolled community spread in hotspots across the country.

In regard to the bolded--wouldn't that also apply to flu viruses also? 

Thank you for your reply. 

Share this post


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

It is only interesting to you because you are trying to discuss this in bad faith. The bold is an absolute. That isn't what we are discussing, obviously. The actual genuine discussion is whether kids are spreaders to a point that justifies closing schools.

There is plenty of data out there that says they aren't. Started with Van Kerkhove and 24 other doctors in China studying 2100 kids. It continued with a paper in the lancet. It continued with Sweden's schools. Switzerland, Taiwan, Belgium,  norway, denmark, france,. The University of vermont study. The case study of the child that was symptomatic and had 170 people that he came in contact with and didnt pass it on. 

So yeah, I definitely weigh all of that evidence heavier than I do a study about bacterial pneumonia and pushing hand washing as the number one way to prevent covid 19. 

And this is coming from somebody that has admitted in this very thread quite often to being a hand hygiene freak, since I am aware that plenty of things do spread via that route. 

 

 All those places have much better control of community spread of SARS-CoV-2. Until the US gets with the program, we are asking for trouble reopening schools IMO.

Also, both my links and yours refer to more than just bacterial pneumonia. Look at the forest plots (I can’t link them), then reference the primary studies with favorable odds ratios if you want to expand your hand-washing knowledge beyond the Pakistani experience.

Share this post


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

In regard to the bolded--wouldn't that also apply to flu viruses also? 

Thank you for your reply. 

No, as cytokine storm and micro vascular thrombosis aren’t typically part of influenza pathogenesis.

Edited by Terminalxylem

Share this post


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

No, as cytokine storm and micro vascular thrombosis aren’t part of influenza pathogenesis.

I was referring to cytokine storms. Interesting, I didn't know that didn't apply with influenza infections.

Share this post


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

I was referring to cytokine storms. Interesting, I didn't know that didn't apply with influenza infections.

Understood, but I wanted to point out other key differences when comparing flu to covid.

ETA To be fair, cytokine storm can be seen with other infections, and has been described in avian influenza (and maybe pandemic flu too). But it certainly isn’t as prominent with run-of-the-mill flu.

Edited by Terminalxylem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nick Vermeil said:

All non mask wearers matter. 

Anti-Maxxers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nick Vermeil said:

All non mask wearers matter. 

But not more than other people which is what they seem to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zoonation said:

Many things, I have no doubt.  But if I took an accounting of them, I’d be pretty comfortable knowing that none of them led me to support someone like Trump.  

Which may be damning with faint praise, if I’m being honest.  

 Hillary was no prize.  Awful, really.  Neither is Biden.  But I would sleep at night knowing that both of them are like finding a golden ticket compared to the current malignancy that is destroying America.  

There is a vacuum of leadership at the federal level in America at a time when federal leadership is more necessary than at anytime since 9/11.  

And all Donald cares about is himself. And getting re-elected.   He’ll rip the country in half to do it.  

Please take this to the Political Forum. Thanks. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FBG26 said:

I'm not that bright, can you explain this? Are you saying that revenue is back to 95% of what it was, or that instead of being down 97% it's now only down 95%? Sorry for being a dummy. 

Down 95% from the same time last year. We really heavily on tourism taxes at hotels and restaurants

  • Thanks 1

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.