What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (3 Viewers)

I find it interesting to see some of the alternative viewpoints when it comes to looking at the statistics. But one thing that is hard to overlook is that our positive case numbers continue to increase. We know that Covid has some unknown mortality rate, so you would also expect the number of deaths to increase. Other countries have had a steady decline in the number of positive cases. 
Again, this is going to depend on your goals.  If case counts rising drives policy, then that's one thing.  If mortality rate drives policy that's another. Thus the cognitive disconnect between so many on the sides of this thing.

 
"First we didnt' have enough beds.  Then it was ventilators.  Now tests?  I'm growing tired of this.  Protect the elderly.  Let everyone else get back to work.  Problem solved."

-Chuck Woolery
(note that post above is three months old)

Chuck Woolery’s Twitter Account Disappears After His Son Apparently Comes Down With Coronavirus (Yahoo, 7/15/2020)

Woolery's tweets from Monday 7/13, however, have been preserved.

Late Monday, Woolery apparently shared a less combative message on Twitter saying, “To further clarify and add perspective, Covid-19 is real and it is here. My son tested positive for the virus, and I feel for of those suffering and especially for those who have lost loved ones.

Snopes.com has verified Woolery’s Monday tweet, an archived version of which is available here.

 
Awful, but totally expected.  At this point I get angrier at the lack of shutdowns and tangible steps to combat the virus.  The deaths are of course awful, but in my mind they are already factored in, as sad as that is.

When you have a virus raging out of control in a state with very little being done to stop it, you know that continued tragedy is coming.

 
Someone recently asked if the age of death was dropping.  Here are the current percentages of deaths by age, according to CDC:

85 and older = 33.059%
75 thru 84 = 26.419%
65 thru 74 = 20.818%
55 thru 64 = 12.106%
45 thru 54 = 4.961%
35 thru 44 = 1.788%
25 thru 34 = 0.695%
15 thru 24 = 0.129%
0 thru 14 = 0.026%

I've been tracking this for a few months now, and the numbers have remained very consistent.  Here are the numbers from a month ago:

85 and older = 33.286%
75 thru 84 = 26.607%
65 thru 74 = 20.768%
55 thru 64 = 11.941%
45 thru 54 = 4.850%
35 thru 44 = 1.722%
25 thru 34 = 0.678%
15 thru 24 = 0.122%
0 thru 14 = 0.026%
I am assuming both sets of data are cumulative, and not isolated to a certain period?  Either way, assuming both sets are cumulative, then the average age of death is definitely skewing younger over the last month (every age group 54 and younger has increased in percentage of deaths (other than the 0-14 age group), those 55 and older have all decreased)- would be interesting to see the breakdown of deaths by month to see the trend by age group

 
Arizona and I believe Florida had a similar provision when they opened up. AZ opened it up and most of the cities and counties put one in place immediately. What the heck is the benefit of this other than control?
DeSantis hasn't gone as far as saying "they can't do that...." at least to my knowledge.  He's been pretty much a jellyfish on this.  His leadership has fizzled quickly.  He's taking a page from the Trump playbook and punting the decisions down to local municipalities leaving us in an ongoing game of "whack-a-mole".  Yet, we continue to have crickets from the :hophead:  with regard to following the "guidelines"...would be helpful if they spoke up again, this time for not closing down fast enough.  If people aren't going to do it on their own, and by all accounts they aren't, then they need to be forced to.

 
Again, this is going to depend on your goals.  If case counts rising drives policy, then that's one thing.  If mortality rate drives policy that's another. Thus the cognitive disconnect between so many on the sides of this thing.
I also wanted to point out that the alternative statisticians I have seen on the internet also seem to be anti-mask and anti-government. Some people are claiming that Kyle Lamb believed that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Just because some people on twitter can produce some different kind of data manipulation doesn't make them right. I tend to stick with more simple things, like if cases are increasing, deaths should likely follow at some point. Will the death rate be the same? I don't know. 

 
Does anyone know of a website that tracks what different states are doing in terms of mask laws/lockdowns/stay at home orders, etc?

I could find out with extensive google research, but I'm sure someone else is doing that.

We have breakouts happening all over the country with many different ways of handling them, none of which seem to mirror what we did previously with stay at home orders.

There's an opportunity to really learn about what works, so if anyone knows of a site that is tracking this, I'd be appreciative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We already have local school systems reversing course and going all virtual to start.  I wish it didn't come to this but as Grace mentions above - when you don't do the right things and let the cases get high enough you have no choice but to lock things down (or accept the illnesses and deaths that come with it).
Right...people want to keep whining about shutting down because in an ideal world it isn't necessary.  We don't live in an ideal world.  That should now be obvious.  If they aren't going to listen on their own, make them.  That's leadership.  It might get you booted out of office, but you get to move on in life knowing you did the right thing for society even if the knuckle draggers don't recognize/realize it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also wanted to point out that the alternative statisticians I have seen on the internet also seem to be anti-mask and anti-government. Some people are claiming that Kyle Lamb believed that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Just because some people on twitter can produce some different kind of data manipulation doesn't make them right. I tend to stick with more simple things, like if cases are increasing, deaths should likely follow at some point. Will the death rate be the same? I don't know. 
100% how I see it.  Deaths are definitely going to increase, this is a no-brainer.  Will it be at the exact same rate as before?  Who the heck knows, I sure hope not.  

 
You know, so far as I'm aware ... the states that have statewide mask mandates ... those mandates don't have the force of law. Not very many places (if any) have criminalized lack of face covering in public.

And yet ... a strong majority of people still comply with them. It's OK if not every last person starts wearing face coverings. When state leadership publicly states an expectation -- a mandate -- most citizens understand that it's time to take the matter more seriously, change assumptions, and change behavior. Again, it's OK if there are some holdouts -- the types that would require handcuffs and a night in jail to change their ways. When a mere spoken-out-loud mandate from sanctioned authority can spur the public to willingly get face-covering compliance up past 95%, it's worth a governor going on TV to say the words.

 
I tend to stick with more simple things, like if cases are increasing, deaths should likely follow at some point. 
This is where I'm at. Public policy should concentrate on lowering cases (esp as percentages of tests completed above a threshold). Where cases go, all else follows.

Get cases super-low? Great -- then hospitalizations, long-term sufferers, deaths, etc. ... all that drops to a low level, as well. Concentrate on "cases" and the rest takes care of itself.

 
I also wanted to point out that the alternative statisticians I have seen on the internet also seem to be anti-mask and anti-government. Some people are claiming that Kyle Lamb believed that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Just because some people on twitter can produce some different kind of data manipulation doesn't make them right. I tend to stick with more simple things, like if cases are increasing, deaths should likely follow at some point. Will the death rate be the same? I don't know. 
I mean the argument is that death rate isn't going down.  One of the things people have tried to point out is there is a lag in death reporting.  Now, if you care to you should be able to figure out what the shape of that lag looks like.  No matter how you cut it up the death rate has been moving downwards for a while, and looks to be up very slightly this week from the prior week no matter what.  

 
And anyone talking in terms of "rates" at this point and comparing now with some other time is ONLY doing it for political reasons to fit a preestablished narrative they want to be true.  Just about everyone should understand our initial "rates" are most likely way off as we were (still are) ill equipped to do adequate testing.  History will look back at this and recognize the "death rate" early was exaggerated because we were playing catch up and nasty games of "don't know what we don't know".  Now?  Those excuses are gone.  The answer is plainly starring us right in the face and people are ignoring that while whining about how "death rates" aren't as high now as they were then while using the same numbers to suggest a "weakening" of the virus itself.  It's maddening and unproductive.  

 
I tend to stick with more simple things, like if cases are increasing, deaths should likely follow at some point. 
This is where I'm at. Public policy should concentrate on lowering cases (esp as percentages of tests completed above a threshold). Where cases go, all else follows.

Get cases super-low? Great -- then hospitalizations, long-term sufferers, deaths, etc. ... all that drops to a low level, as well. Concentrate on "cases" and the rest takes care of itself.
Right....any "new cases" are potential deaths or long term damage that takes years off the life.  If we have 10,000 new cases that is bad....period.  It's not "bad, but at least not as bas as...."  It's just bad.

 
And anyone talking in terms of "rates" at this point and comparing now with some other time is ONLY doing it for political reasons to fit a preestablished narrative they want to be true.  Just about everyone should understand our initial "rates" are most likely way off as we were (still are) ill equipped to do adequate testing.  History will look back at this and recognize the "death rate" early was exaggerated because we were playing catch up and nasty games of "don't know what we don't know".  Now?  Those excuses are gone.  The answer is plainly starring us right in the face and people are ignoring that while whining about how "death rates" aren't as high now as they were then while using the same numbers to suggest a "weakening" of the virus itself.  It's maddening and unproductive.  
The virus doesn't have to weaken, we can also get stronger.  

 
I tend to stick with more simple things, like if cases are increasing, deaths should likely follow at some point. 
This is where I'm at. Public policy should concentrate on lowering cases (esp as percentages of tests completed above a threshold). Where cases go, all else follows.

Get cases super-low? Great -- then hospitalizations, long-term sufferers, deaths, etc. ... all that drops to a low level, as well. Concentrate on "cases" and the rest takes care of itself.
Right....any "new cases" are potential deaths or long term damage that takes years off the life.  If we have 10,000 new cases that is bad....period.  It's not "bad, but at least not as bas as...."  It's just bad.
One new case can become ...

- a new death
- a new person suffering long-term effects
- one or more new infections
- a virtually full recovery without transmission

It kind of like what old-school football coaches used to say about forward passes -- "When a person gets COVID-19, four things can happen ... and three of them are bad." Not iron-clad mathematically by any means, but pithy.

 
Good. Now close bars and clubs in Suffolk County. 

It isn't the people's fault. It's a fact that these establishments are a significant problem with transmission, as seen across the states that opened them.

Do you want bars and clubs, or do you want schools? It's not a complete binary choice as presented, but it's a practical issue/problem to consider.

 
Same thing that's wrong with the rest of the country. People think reopening means back to normal. 
I would probably clarify this to mean the risks of certain activities have not been properly fanned out.

Indoor restaurants are one of if not the most risky activity but we treat restaurants as if they are sainted. 

Policy needs to have a risk/reward manifest about it.  Unmasked enchiladas need to be on the bad end of that scale.  masked in person school needs to be in another part.

 
This is worth reviewing.  It shows with each CDC update where the deaths landed.  It's something that has been difficult to pull out.

https://twitter.com/kylamb8/status/1283410356212240385

Of concern here is that the death rate for the week of July 11 over-proportionally landed in the weeks of 4/25 and 5/2.  This by and large is what I imagine the white house wants to prevent going forward.  Or, if you take a different perspective, landing those deaths so far back and so hard could be a conspiracy to make things appear better.

The week of 7/11 is tracking towards an increase in the cumulative mortality rate.  This would again be something that has not happened since April.  And the magnitude of it looks to be tiny.  
That is a great chart - lots of info in there.  I wish I had access to the raw data used to generate it to goof around - you could try to project what 6/27, 7/4, and 7/11 weeks would end up at if they had the same "lag" breakdown as the earlier weeks.  It actually seems pretty positive overall, although it would be ideal to have it broken down into regions, since it is unclear if drops in deaths from the northeast and midwest are masking a southeast and southwest rise.

 
I haven't seen any actual results about risky behavior from from contact tracing. Here's are some second hand comments from the Miami Office of the health department: 

"Director of Health Department's Miami office, Yesenia D. Villalta, says contact tracing shows exposure coming from home, healthcare, daycare, and law enforcement functions (including jails). We haven't seen these reports, but get occasional (very quick) verbal reports like this."

https://mobile.twitter.com/doug_hanks/status/1283784431300419588?cxt=HHwWgMC-3ej89dAjAAAA

What about restaurants, indoor, outdoor, beach, beauty salons, etc?

 
I haven't seen any actual results about risky behavior from from contact tracing. Here's are some second hand comments from the Miami Office of the health department: 

"Director of Health Department's Miami office, Yesenia D. Villalta, says contact tracing shows exposure coming from home, healthcare, daycare, and law enforcement functions (including jails). We haven't seen these reports, but get occasional (very quick) verbal reports like this."

https://mobile.twitter.com/doug_hanks/status/1283784431300419588?cxt=HHwWgMC-3ej89dAjAAAA

What about restaurants, indoor, outdoor, beach, beauty salons, etc?
Without any more context I have no idea if this makes sense is but at first glance, this strikes me as similar to the stat that most car accidents happen within 5 miles of home.  It's not that driving close to home is more dangerous than driving further away from home, it's just that most driving happens close to home.  So like, the idea that most exposure is coming from places where people are spending most of their time (e.g. home, daycare, jails, etc) is entirely unsurprising and doesn't seem to me to be a comment on the relative riskiness of those places.  

 
The virus doesn't have to weaken, we can also get stronger.  
Interesting topic, one that gets glossed over a lot. Strengthening our immune systems. I take care of myself, not like a competition level athlete but I can run and bike without restrictions. I do that so I can eat like a pig. Since this thing has started I've taken a harder look at my supplements & vitamin intake to try assist with my immune system. Similar to the simplicity of wearing a mask, taking some vitamin C & D isn't that hard to do to.

 
Interesting topic, one that gets glossed over a lot. Strengthening our immune systems. I take care of myself, not like a competition level athlete but I can run and bike without restrictions. I do that so I can eat like a pig. Since this thing has started I've taken a harder look at my supplements & vitamin intake to try assist with my immune system. Similar to the simplicity of wearing a mask, taking some vitamin C & D isn't that hard to do to.
I see this topic get trivialized for the most part by experts. That adhering to community mitigation strategies is more important (masks and staying apart). Which it is, no doubt. But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.

Not diet oriented either, that's another turn the discussion inevitability takes. 

 
But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.
Not a doctor or anything but I was under the impression that no such thing really exists, and any kind of vitamins/supplements you take to "boost your immune system" don't actually do anything.  Would love to find out I'm wrong about that, of course.  

 
I see this topic get trivialized for the most part by experts. That adhering to community mitigation strategies is more important (masks and staying apart). Which it is, no doubt. But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.

Not diet oriented either, that's another turn the discussion inevitability takes. 


Not a doctor or anything but I was under the impression that no such thing really exists, and any kind of vitamins/supplements you take to "boost your immune system" don't actually do anything.  Would love to find out I'm wrong about that, of course.  
"I'm looking for magic pills here!!" 

If there's a difference between low levels of Vitamin C vs. "adequate" levels, for example, it would be good to know. 

 
I see this topic get trivialized for the most part by experts. That adhering to community mitigation strategies is more important (masks and staying apart). Which it is, no doubt. But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.

Not diet oriented either, that's another turn the discussion inevitability takes. 
Zinc, Zinc Ionophores, Vitamin D are the ones that are commonly thought of as useful for this for general immune health and seem backed by enough studies (even causal) to suggest they should be first line.

If the discussion is congealing on blood stuff then COQ10 is probably going to be in the mix at some point though I don't know if anyone has really done a RCT of the stuff.

 
Governors like Kemp seem less willing to re-institute lockdowns than they are to mandate masks. You're likely in for a real mess and  I'm sorry to see that for you. Hopefully this wave of businesses mandating masks grows to the point that it doesn't matter what individual state governments fail to do.
How long until we get our first lawsuit?

 
I see this topic get trivialized for the most part by experts. That adhering to community mitigation strategies is more important (masks and staying apart). Which it is, no doubt. But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.

Not diet oriented either, that's another turn the discussion inevitability takes. 
I think people look at it like pseudo science and don't take it seriously because it's very specific to the individual so what works for one doesn't always work for the next. Easy to shoot holes. I listened to this podcast and it made sense to me. Dr. Rhonda Patrick on Rogan.

https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/jre-1474

 
I see this topic get trivialized for the most part by experts. That adhering to community mitigation strategies is more important (masks and staying apart). Which it is, no doubt. But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.

Not diet oriented either, that's another turn the discussion inevitability takes. 
Supplements are almost entirely a scam. Unless you have real significant dietary deficiencies you don't really need anything. For immune system related stuff it is a somewhat distorted half truth, where it is true if you are vitamin deficient you could have a weaker immune response, there is no evidence that excess vitamins help anything, which is what supplements are. 

 
Supplements are almost entirely a scam. Unless you have real significant dietary deficiencies you don't really need anything. For immune system related stuff it is a somewhat distorted half truth, where it is true if you are vitamin deficient you could have a weaker immune response, there is no evidence that excess vitamins help anything, which is what supplements are. 
A huge amount of people are deficient in Vitamin D.  Especially older and black individuals.

 
I see this topic get trivialized for the most part by experts. That adhering to community mitigation strategies is more important (masks and staying apart). Which it is, no doubt. But I'd like to see an actual discussion on supplements that could be beneficial to someone looking to improve their immune system without it getting derailed.

Not diet oriented either, that's another turn the discussion inevitability takes. 
My father (mid 70s) has been talking about taking the MMR vaccine, and that it can help control inflammation, which could be considered an immune system improvement.

 
Connecticut either adhering to COVID rules or faking their numbers...

- According to https://rt.live/ one of only two states in the green 3 straight months
- Under 1% positivity since 14 June, while remaining a top testing state (currently #7 per capita)
- According to https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/ one of only five states currently in the green
- Hospitalizations down by half since 23 June, and a mere 3% of max on 22 April
- Single digit death counts 20 straight days, under 6 per day over last month

As I've said, I think we will continue to rock until schools attempt to reopen.

 
Everyone pronounced doom and gloom for Sweden but their deaths have been trending down for awhile now. Why?
On a per capita basis, their deaths have dropped from horrifically bad (i.e. top 5 in the world bad) to mediocre.  Indeed, they only just (ten days ago) began outperforming the US in deaths per capita.  Not sure, how they've done it but it certainly wasn't a success.  Though it also wasn't the unmitigated disaster some feared.  I suspect the truth lies, as it always does, in the middle and that they didn't "do nothing" as some might have suggested.  They definitely didn't clamp down as much as their neighbors, and their performance shows that.  Whether they maintained the economic advantages to make that worthwhile I am unsure of.  But, as with all experiences, understanding what Sweden did, what worked, what didn't is worth examining.

 
"In WW2, Londoners were asked to black out their homes at night so the enemy bombers wouldn’t see the lights & know where to target. No Londoner said,”It’s my right to have lights on”. because others would say,”your light on endangers us". Substitute “light” for “mask”. Get it???"

 
"I'm looking for magic pills here!!" 

If there's a difference between low levels of Vitamin C vs. "adequate" levels, for example, it would be good to know. 
I remember seeing this going around:

Hey! Did you all know that the FDA recently approved a treatment that reduces the chance of community spread of COVID-19 by 5X?

Its trade name is called Wearamaskassh0le. Side effects include mild inconvenience, possible victim complex, fear of people thinking you are a sheeple, being ostracized by your anti-vax plandemic bros, and the power to stop your own asymptomatic transmission as this country stubbornly dives right on into that second wave.

Check with your doctor, or really anyone, to see if Wearamaskassh0le is right for you. Now available without a prescription!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top