What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Corona Virus Serious Level - 3.6.20 (1 Viewer)

For you and where you live, on a scale of 1 (not serious) to 10 (most serious) How Serious Do You Th

  • 1. Not Serious At All. Barely a news blip that'll be gone in a few days.

    Votes: 8 4.7%
  • 2

    Votes: 7 4.1%
  • 3

    Votes: 19 11.2%
  • 4

    Votes: 22 13.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 26 15.4%
  • 6

    Votes: 19 11.2%
  • 7

    Votes: 31 18.3%
  • 8

    Votes: 27 16.0%
  • 9

    Votes: 7 4.1%
  • 10. Most Serious. Like being attacked in an all out WW3 type thing.

    Votes: 3 1.8%

  • Total voters
    169
H1N1 may have been responsible for over 100,000 deaths:

"As the end of the swine-flu pandemic was announced in 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the death toll was about 18,500, but the organization warned that the figure reflected only the minority of cases that were confirmed by lab testing.

"This modest number has caused many to wonder what all the excitement was about, and some to question whether the pandemic response was excessive," the researchers who worked on the new study said."
It was supposed to be much, much worse.  It ended up as another flu strain.  The flu is, of course, serious.  It’s just something we are used to dealing with.

Again, don’t let that stop you from freaking out.  We all deal with things differently.

 
But they're in lockdown and a different economic situation on the whole, there's no where to drive to
Hopefully.  They are a bigger auto market than the US. 

If people are going to be telecommuting and schools shut down, I don't think a trip to the local dealership to upgrade the SUV is in play.

Again, hoping it doesn't come to that, but that is one of my worries.

 
I think there's a fine line.  

We need to calm the panic so as to not kill the markets.  

We also need people to understand the seriousness of it.  
Of course.  I think a strong reaction by the appropriate organizations is warranted.  I’m just putting it in context given our strides in this area.

 
Voted 7.

I care for my 83 year old father.  As such, I worry that I would bring the virus home to him. 

He has hyperlipidemia. He has had a quadruple bypass,  5 stents,  and contracted pneumonia 6 times in the last 20 years.  The pneumonia vaccine gave him 5 years protection (2013), but he didnt renew his dosage in 2018. He received one dose in October, so he wont have the full compliment until next October.

I work about 6 hours a day M-F. Throughout the week my work takes me to 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, a foster shelter, a day report center, family court, the school district main office, and a private home. Mostly visit these places once or twice with exception of the foster shelter and private home; those are everyday weekday. 

I would absolutely hate to bring the virus home to my father.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was supposed to be much, much worse.  It ended up as another flu strain.  The flu is, of course, serious.  It’s just something we are used to dealing with.

Again, don’t let that stop you from freaking out.  We all deal with things differently.
But that is the thing.  For sake of argument lets just go with this never being really a big deal in the US as far as loss of life and other health system related issues relative to health threats we see everyday.  That it is nothing more than overreaction and "freaking out" for the next few months.   But that still makes this something I simply don't ever remember seeing anything comparable before.    I've never been told before that if I come in contact, even casually with anyone who has been recently in certain countries that I cannot go into work for two weeks.   I have never received e-mails from my health providers that if I have a respiratory illness that I must use their app instead of going into their offices, or if I must use one of their affiliated urgent care or ER rooms that I must prearrange my visit.   I don't remember major events that take years of planning just being canceled.   I thought it was a sight I'd never see again when the Orioles played to an empty stadium after the riots a few years back, but that is being talked about for a variety of sports as if it was routine.   Cancel March Madness?  Cancel the Olympics?   When in the past would such an idea not just be "crazy talk"?     Maybe in the end it proves to have been all an overreaction when it all shakes out, but it is still an event that I cannot think of a peer in my lifetime.       

 
I voted 6.  There are more and more reports of confirmed cases in the Bay Area.  I'm hopeful that the actual impact is in the 2-3 range, but I think the government response to this should be treated as if it's a 10.
I voted 6 as well. Unfortunately we made plans a couple months ago to visit the Bay area and will be flying. Going to bring disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer. Also just in case I have respirator masks on hand all the time for my work and will bring. I sense this will be an issue for a couple more months as more and more cases and deaths occur. But realize it will be the elderly and infants it affects primarily with underlying conditions. I did hear once they consider obese and diabetes underlying conditions though. That covers a lot of people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted 6 as well. Unfortunately we made plans a couple months ago to visit the Bay area and will be flying. Going to bring disinfectant wipes and hand sanitizer. Also just in case I have respirator masks on handcall the time for my work and will bring. I sense this will be an issue for a couple more months as more and more cases and deaths occur. But realize it will be the elderly and infants it affects primarily with underlying conditions. I did here once they consider obese and diabetes underlying conditions though. That covers a lot of people.
I don't do any of this stuff, but if you plan to disinfect, be sure to bring it.  I've heard there has been a run on these items in stores.

 
I voted 8.

I don't know how to estimate what World War III would be like, but covid-19 seems like a lock to kill more people than World War I did. It is likely an underdog to kill as many people as World War II, but that's within its range of potential outcomes.

Just looking at expected deaths isn't the whole story, though. Killing 70 million octogenarians with preexisting conditions wouldn't be nearly as bad as killing 70 million otherwise-healthy 18-25 year-olds. And having people work from home for a while isn't nearly as bad as sending them into combat.

So it's definitely a few notches below a world war ... but IMO it's closer to that end of the spectrum than to "meh, nothing to see here."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This article make me scared. Bumps me up to a 8 or a 9. Wow
What about if we start playing NBA/NHL games in empty arenas?

Cancel political rallies, business conventions, spring break trips, et al?

Or should we wait until we have more cases before we decide to practice social distancing and wide scale self quarantines? 

Gonna be easy peasy for 80-85% of us, even higher for healthy and over 50. Should we be cavalier and tell the Boomers #suckstobeu? 

These aren’t easy Qs to answer IMO.

(full disclosure: boomer in good health)

 
What about if we start playing NBA/NHL games in empty arenas?

Cancel political rallies, business conventions, spring break trips, et al?

Or should we wait until we have more cases before we decide to practice social distancing and wide scale self quarantines? 

Gonna be easy peasy for 80-85% of us, even higher for healthy and over 50. Should we be cavalier and tell the Boomers #suckstobeu? 

These aren’t easy Qs to answer IMO.

(full disclosure: boomer in good health)
I recall reading a story about your namesake and how he was once able to resist the flu bug that ran through the Lions locker room. Everyone got sick but him. 

The theory was Layne drank so much, so often that the alcohol had built up some kind of immune system within him. 

 
as killing 70 million otherwise-healthy 18-25 year-olds
Does anyone have data on the breakdown of age and health of those who have died from this? From what I have seen, it is worse for those over 65 and those with serious underlying health conditions, especially respiratory conditions. Just not sure if it is a reasonable thing to suggest than 70M 18-25 year olds could die as a result of this... I think that would be around 6% of the world's population in that age range. Is there some rationale to believe this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone have data on the breakdown of age and health of those who have died from this? From what I have seen, it is worse for those over 65 and those with serious underlying health conditions, especially respiratory conditions. Just not sure if it is a reasonable thing to suggest than 70M 18-25 year olds could die as a result of this... I think that would be around 6% of the world's population in that age range. Is there some rationale to believe this?
I think the 18-25 yo was teh comparison he was making to WWI - where soldiers tend to be younger.  He suggests that is worse for the world than the number of age 70+ deaths.  (and he would be correct in that suggestion).

 
I honestly don't know how to answer this. For me personally, I have zero concerns. I probably won't get infected, and if I do, statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that I will experience anything more than a couple days of sickness. So from that perspective, it's a 1 or a 2.

At a macro level, though, I'm extremely concerned. The bumbling response from governments (the Trump Administration in particular, though they are hardly the only one) means that it will spread much farther than it would have with a competent response. That means people will die unnecessarily. Of secondary concern, but still a really BFD, the economic effects may be huge. I'm not talking about the daily performance of the stock market, I'm talking about supply chains being disrupted, the travel industry being absolutely wiped out, etc.  From that angle, it's probably a 6 or 7, but until I feel like the government has a handle on this, I can't rule out the possibility that it could go higher.
Couldn’t agree with this more.  Odds are the direct impact on our family of 4 is less than 50%.  Not insignificant risk but even if we get a direct blow—one of us is sick—I’m trusting the experts that odds are in our favor of being ok.  
 

My big concern is on how this affects the community.  How will the hospitals manage the burden?  How will other sick people be impacted?  How many deaths are we looking at?  How will the economy suffer?  
 

And then consider quality of life impacts. How long will schools close?  How will I adjust my health care practice?  Do we have enough $ on hand to be solvent after weeks to months of disruptions   Not to mention, is all our travel toast this spring/summer?

I’d say odds are very high the collateral damage will be substantial.  So I’m an 8. 

 
I'm guessing 70 million came form 1% of the world population?   Yeah that ain't happening, we are smarter than that. 

 
Does anyone have data on the breakdown of age and health of those who have died from this? From what I have seen, it is worse for those over 65 and those with serious underlying health conditions, especially respiratory conditions. Just not sure if it is a reasonable thing to suggest than 70M 18-25 year olds could die as a result of this... I think that would be around 6% of the world's population in that age range. Is there some rationale to believe this?
From what I've seen it's mostly the old and those with compromised immune systems from other underlying health issues.

Kids have been surprisingly resiliant against this.  I believe ZERO children have died from this and the article basically stated that the young are effectively battling this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m at a 2 as well. If my March Madness trip to St. Louis gets the axe in 12 days I will move to an elevated level immediately. 
Conference tournaments and NCAA tournaments seem like really easy places to maximize the spread of the virus.  People coming from all over a region - or even further - to a single spot, and then heading back home. 

What could go wrong?

:oldunsure:

 
Really?

Total WWI deaths are estimated at 20 million

That seems out of the range of realistic probabilities of this episode.
There are real estimates that up to 70% of the world's population will get this. With even a lower mortality rate than has been talked about,  millions of people would ten.

 
Alex Leary@learyreports

· 9m

@realDonaldTrump at Mar-a-Lago tonight: “I’m not concerned at all,” the president said when asked about Coronavirus getting closer to White House.

“We’ll hold tremendous rallies,” he said — rallies will continue.

Via pooler @Emilylgoodin

:shrug:

 
I think the 18-25 yo was teh comparison he was making to WWI - where soldiers tend to be younger.  He suggests that is worse for the world than the number of age 70+ deaths.  (and he would be correct in that suggestion).
Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying. Can you rephrase?

 
Sorry, I don't follow what you are saying. Can you rephrase?
Probably best for @Maurile Tremblay

But - he was estimating the number of deaths to be roughly equivalent to WWI

The difference is that in WWI most of the deaths were in the 18-25 age bracket.  With the Covid19 pandemic, most of the deaths would be in the 70+ age bracket.

MT surmised that it was worse, for the world as a whole, to lost that many young people - who lost decades of productivity, than the same number of deaths of older people.  (He is not saying either is "good")

Having concluded that the deaths of the younger generation was worse - he downgraded the overall serious level of the Covid19 pandemic below that of WWI

I agree with the premise that younger deaths are more harmful (I disagreed on the number of deaths reaching WWI levels)

 
Does anyone have data on the breakdown of age and health of those who have died from this? From what I have seen, it is worse for those over 65 and those with serious underlying health conditions, especially respiratory conditions. Just not sure if it is a reasonable thing to suggest than 70M 18-25 year olds could die as a result of this... I think that would be around 6% of the world's population in that age range. Is there some rationale to believe this?
World War II killed 70-85 million people, many of whom were 18-25.

Deaths from covid-19 won't be as terrible (even if it kills 70 million, which is within the range of possible outcomes) because it will kill mostly frail, elderly people. Tragic, but not as tragic.

 
Really?

Total WWI deaths are estimated at 20 million

That seems out of the range of realistic probabilities of this episode.
It killed 6-7 million combatants, which is what I had in mind.

But if covid-19 infects 70% of the world population and kills 1% of those infected (both within ranges I've seen estimated), that's more than 50 million casualties.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
World War II killed 70-85 million people, many of whom were 18-25.

Deaths from covid-19 won't be as terrible (even if it kills 70 million, which is within the range of possible outcomes) because it will kill mostly frail, elderly people. Tragic, but not as tragic.
No it isnt. 😂  China seems to be recovering, 1/7th of the world population with deaths only in the 3000s.  You would have to infect a third of the world with the exagerated 3.4% mortality rate or every single person on the planet at the real rate that is closer to 1%.  We could take zero action and no precautions and 70 mill would still be impossible.  

 
No it isnt. 😂  China seems to be recovering, 1/7th of the world population with deaths only in the 3000s.  You would have to infect a third of the world with the exagerated 3.4% mortality rate or every single person on the planet at the real rate that is closer to 1%.  We could take zero action and no precautions and 70 mill would still be impossible.  
What are the upper ranges of the estimates you've seen for expected infection rate and expected fatality rate?

Ideally, I'd like to see infection rate broken down into expected exposure rate and likely infection rate of those exposed. I haven't seen that anywhere.

But I've seen an estimate (that knowledgeable people are taking seriously) predicting that 40%-70% of the world population could become infected. I've also seen estimates that the fatality rate could be as high as 2%. Taking the upper end of both puts us over 100 million casualties.

It's very unlikely that we'll land in the upper range of both estimates. That would be extremely bad luck. But which upper end do you think we can completely rule out, and on what basis?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why was this posted in both the PSF and FFA forums?

Should we vote differently if we are viewing this from a political angle?

 
An example of one way that covid-19 is likely to create serious problems.

Thread: By Liz Specht, UCSD PhD, JHU ChemBE.

I think most people aren’t aware of the risk of systemic healthcare failure due to #COVID19 because they simply haven’t run the numbers yet. Let’s talk math. 1/n 

Let’s conservatively assume that there are 2,000 current cases in the US today, March 6th. This is about 8x the number of confirmed (lab-diagnosed) cases. We know there is substantial under-Dx due to lack of test kits; I’ll address implications later of under-/over-estimate. 2/n 

We can expect that we’ll continue to see a doubling of cases every 6 days (this is a typical doubling time across several epidemiological studies). Here I mean *actual* cases. Confirmed cases may appear to rise faster in the short term due to new test kit rollouts. 3/n 

We’re looking at about 1M US cases by the end of April, 2M by ~May 5, 4M by ~May 11, and so on. Exponentials are hard to grasp, but this is how they go. 4/n 

As the healthcare system begins to saturate under this case load, it will become increasingly hard to detect, track, and contain new transmission chains. In absence of extreme interventions, this likely won’t slow significantly until hitting >>1% of susceptible population. 5/n 

What does a case load of this size mean for healthcare system? We’ll examine just two factors — hospital beds and masks — among many, many other things that will be impacted. 6/n 

The US has about 2.8 hospital beds per 1000 people. With a population of 330M, this is ~1M beds. At any given time, 65% of those beds are already occupied. That leaves about 330k beds available nationwide (perhaps a bit fewer this time of year with regular flu season, etc). 7/n 

Let’s trust Italy’s numbers and assume that about 10% of cases are serious enough to require hospitalization. (Keep in mind that for many patients, hospitalization lasts for *weeks* — in other words, turnover will be *very* slow as beds fill with COVID19 patients). 8/n 

By this estimate, by about May 8th, all open hospital beds in the US will be filled. (This says nothing, of course, about whether these beds are suitable for isolation of patients with a highly infectious virus.) 9/n 

If we’re wrong by a factor of two regarding the fraction of severe cases, that only changes the timeline of bed saturation by 6 days in either direction. If 20% of cases require hospitalization, we run out of beds by ~May 2nd. 10/n 

If only 5% of cases require it, we can make it until ~May 14th. 2.5% gets us to May 20th. This, of course, assumes that there is no uptick in demand for beds from *other* (non-COVID19) causes, which seems like a dubious assumption. 11/n 

As healthcare system becomes increasingly burdened, Rx shortages, etc, people w/ chronic conditions that are normally well-managed may find themselves slipping into severe states of medical distress requiring intensive care & hospitalization. But let’s ignore that for now. 12/n 

Alright, so that’s beds. Now masks. Feds say we have a national stockpile of 12M N95 masks and 30M surgical masks (which are not ideal, but better than nothing). 13/n 

There are about 18M healthcare workers in the US. Let’s assume only 6M HCW are working on any given day. (This is likely an underestimate as most people work most days of the week, but again, I’m playing conservative at every turn.) 14/n 

As COVID19 cases saturate virtually every state and county, which seems likely to happen any day now, it will soon be irresponsible for all HCWs to not wear a mask. These HCWs would burn through N95 stockpile in 2 days if each HCW only got ONE mask per day. 15/n 

One per day would be neither sanitary nor pragmatic, though this is indeed what we saw in Wuhan, with HCWs collapsing on their shift from dehydration because they were trying to avoid changing their PPE suits as they cannot be reused. 16/n 

How quickly could we ramp up production of new masks? Not very fast at all. The vast majority are manufactured overseas, almost all in China. Even when manufactured here in US, the raw materials are predominantly from overseas... again, predominantly from China. 17/n 

Keep in mind that all countries globally will be going through the exact same crises and shortages simultaneously. We can’t force trade in our favor. 18/n 

Now consider how these 2 factors – bed and mask shortages – compound each other’s severity. Full hospitals + few masks + HCWs running around between beds without proper PPE = very bad mix. 19/n 

HCWs are already getting infected even w/ access to full PPE. In the face of PPE limitations this severe, it’s only a matter of time. HCWs will start dropping from the workforce for weeks at a time, leading to a shortage of HCWs that then further compounds both issues above. 20/n 

We could go on and on about thousands of factors – # of ventilators, or even simple things like saline drip bags. You see where this is going. 21/n 

Importantly, I cannot stress this enough: even if I’m wrong – even VERY wrong – about core assumptions like % of severe cases or current case #, it only changes the timeline by days or weeks. This is how exponential growth in an immunologically naïve population works. 22/n 

Undeserved panic does no one any good. But neither does ill-informed complacency. It’s wrong to assuage the public by saying “only 2% will die.” People aren’t adequately grasping the national and global systemic burden wrought by this swift-moving of a disease. 23/n 

I’m an engineer. This is what my mind does all day: I run back-of-the-envelope calculations to try to estimate order-of-magnitude impacts. I’ve been on high alarm about this disease since ~Jan 19 after reading clinical indicators in the first papers emerging from Wuhan. 24/n 

Nothing in the last 6 weeks has dampened my alarm in the slightest. To the contrary, we’re seeing abject refusal of many countries to adequately respond or prepare. Of course some of these estimates will be wrong, even substantially wrong. 25/n 

But I have no reason to think they’ll be orders-of-magnitude wrong. Even if your personal risk of death is very, very low, don’t mock decisions like canceling events or closing workplaces as undue “panic”. 26/n 

These measures are the bare minimum we should be doing to try to shift the peak – to slow the rise in cases so that healthcare systems are less overwhelmed. Each day that we can delay an extra case is a big win for the HC system. 27/n 

And yes, you really should prepare to buckle down for a bit. All services and supply chains will be impacted. Why risk the stress of being ill-prepared? 28/n 

Worst case, I’m massively wrong and you now have a huge bag of rice and black beans to burn through over the next few months and enough Robitussin to trip out. 29/n 

One more thought: you’ve probably seen multiple respected epidemiologists have estimated that 20-70% of world will be infected within the next year. If you use 6-day doubling rate I mentioned above, we land at ~2-6 billion infected by sometime in July of this year. 30/n 

Obviously I think the doubling time will start to slow once a sizeable fraction of the population has been infected, simply because of herd immunity and a smaller susceptible population. 31/n 

But take the scenarios above (full beds, no PPE, etc, at just 1% of the US population infected) and stretch them out over just a couple extra months. 32/n 

That timeline roughly fits with consensus end-game numbers from these highly esteemed epidemiologists. Again, we’re talking about discrepancies of mere days or weeks one direction or another, but not disagreements in the overall magnitude of the challenge. 33/n 

This is not some hypothetical, fear-mongering, worst-case scenario. This is reality, as far as anyone can tell with the current available data. 34/n 

That’s all for now. Standard disclaimers apply: I’m a PhD biologist but *not* an epidemiologist. Thoughts my own. Yadda yadda. Stay safe out there. /end 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why was this posted in both the PSF and FFA forums?

Should we vote differently if we are viewing this from a political angle?
Link

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say the coronavirus poses an imminent threat to the United States, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week.

 
It's kind of weird that I agree with nearly all of the concerns that people have raised in this thread, and I've personally taken steps to prepare for a disruption in daily life (topping off the pantry), but my vote is still below average, at a 4.  I think my "concern thermostat" is set a little lower than everybody else's.

 
Update: the guy who estimated that 40%-70% of the world population is likely to be infected has since revised his estimate downward, and now thinks the plausible range is 20%-60%.
Also note that he doesn't say 20-60% of the world population. He says of the world's adult population. I'm not sure where he draws the line for 'adult' but ~26% of the world's population is 15 or younger. So if we rule them out, 20-60% of adults equates to about 15%-45% of the world population.

 
It's kind of weird that I agree with nearly all of the concerns that people have raised in this thread, and I've personally taken steps to prepare for a disruption in daily life (topping off the pantry), but my vote is still below average, at a 4.  I think my "concern thermostat" is set a little lower than everybody else's.
Same here.

 
5 seems about right for me if talking about the virus itself.  I’m not personally concerned but I definitely have a general concern for the higher risk population (and my family that’s in that range). But from a business position my concern is 7/8. The economic risk is fairly high I believe and the business I’m in revolves around large group gatherings so that’s likely going to be heavily effected.  

 
Isn’t the expectation that spread will decline with the seasonal climate changes of late spring and summer? It’s hard for me to envision these huge numbers considering we’re already in March. Maybe next year?

 
Isn’t the expectation that spread will decline with the seasonal climate changes of late spring and summer? It’s hard for me to envision these huge numbers considering we’re already in March. Maybe next year?
It could decline in the summer (in Northern hemisphere) but that's not guaranteed. That would help the spread for sure. Expectation would then for it to pick up again next fall/ winter. But hopefully we'd be close to a vaccine by then. Effectiveness of vaccine also a big x factor.

 
It could decline in the summer (in Northern hemisphere) but that's not guaranteed. That would help the spread for sure. Expectation would then for it to pick up again next fall/ winter. But hopefully we'd be close to a vaccine by then. Effectiveness of vaccine also a big x factor.
Fauci and everyone else is pleading for folks to please slam the brakes on vaccine expectations. Nothing available within 12-18 mo.  We need to plan for other mitigation measures until fall 2021. 

 
Isn’t the expectation that spread will decline with the seasonal climate changes of late spring and summer? It’s hard for me to envision these huge numbers considering we’re already in March. Maybe next year?
That is a false hope too.  H1N1 for example was completely unphased by warmer summer weather conditions. This is not the common flu (or as Trump says Coronaflu).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
3blue1brown is one of my favorite channels on YouTube. It’s a math channel that explains mathematical concepts extremely well — so that they’re not boring, and so that viewers can get an intuitive grasp of concepts that may otherwise seem difficult.

I highly recommend that you browse through the previous videos there and watch anything that catches your fancy.

The most recent video is about exponential growth (really logistic growth) in the context of infectious epidemics, and the coronavirus in particular.

https://youtu.be/Kas0tIxDvrg

It’s a visual mathematical explanation of just how freaking huge a difference it can make if people wash their hands and avoid travel and large crowds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Voted 7.  The company I work for has already started feeling economic impacts as we are a large global CPG.  I’ve personally had to work on contingency plans and tomorrow we will hold a dry run at our office where no one is allowed on campus and has to work remotely.

Combine all of that with all of the people who have already died and it’s a big deal and seems like it will only get worse in the next 2 months.

 
“As the healthcare system begins to saturate under this case load, it will become increasingly hard to detect, track, and contain new transmission chains. In absence of extreme interventions, this likely won’t slow significantly until hitting >>1% of susceptible population. 5/n ”

That is from Maurile’s post.  At what point do they just stop trying to track cases?  They don’t bother to do that with the flu and once the spread gets to a certain point it really won’t matter.  Seems to me tracking and quarantine is acting like four corners in basketball with the goal here being to allow us time to build more tests and to eventually get a vaccine.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top