What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
True on the modeling being tough.

At the risk of just throwing around numbers (which I probably should have avoided), the salient point on the updated models was that the updates seem to be more closely aligned with reality now that more data is in, which is what decent models do, they update on data. They recently had 65K at the end of June, and that certainly didn't happen. It's true that these curves seem to be longer and flatter on the back end, so a simple x2 estimate isn't what will likely happen (sorry to drag any posters down with me by the way). Hoping that we can continue to lower hospitalizations and deaths through the better knowledge of distancing measures is the best we can really do now, and the counting is what it is, which is disgustingly high. 

 
Why?  In New York the vast majority of people that are catching this and going to the hospital are staying at home.   The infection is coming from inside the house.

I'm starting to wonder if anything we're doing is making much of a difference.  The lockdowns didn't do nearly the damage to the infection rate as thought.  I'd like to see some well done studies on the efficacy of what we tried to do here.  
That doesn't mean they were staying in their house. It means they aren't working, aren't at a nursing home, prison etc. If I had to answer that, I would have to answer "at home" too but I go out almost every day.

 
Where did you see that? Going back to March, I read articles saying it was between 4-6.
This is from Worldometers. There are varying numbers out there, I have seen what you are saying as well. (I was assuming a low-end R for the sake of discussion on how we reduced it.) 

"The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.

WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]

Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].

Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]

An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.

For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0."

 
Sorry, @Grace and @moleculo, you have both been fantastic contributors throughout this thread, but I feel the need to push back strongly here as I fear that your above approach is overly simplistic and that the range of outcomes (i.e. deaths) by August remains quite wide given how little understanding we have.  That is, it's possible we see only 30k more deaths by August as many of the above bullets should help lessen the back-end impact.  Then again, all the beneficial bullets above could be completely overwhelmed by a single variable. 
Agreed, it was simplistic. That last update on the "main" model was obviously wrong weeks ago though as was pointed out here many times, so basically now just pointing out the current update is at least within the realm of possible outcomes.

I do like your take that we can lessen the back-end impact, but the curve tends to be stubborn coming down as noted above by smarter posts than mine. We do have more knowledge on how to dodge this, so it's possible we stretch it out with a decent lowering as an outcome.

 
Fascinating read about super spreader events. 
This was an interesting read.  I've often been skeptical/frustrated at the way that new quarantine rules get rolled out (e.g 6 feet in all situations; masks always on).  I understand the need for simplicity but also would like to see some pragmatism that comes from real data.  For example, if tons of people were contracting COVID from riding zebras, then I understand the need to ban zebra rides, but I'd rather see the data on COVID and zebras first before blindly following a ban.

Anyway, while the data analysis has caveats aplenty, it's better than anything else that I've seen.  Here are some of the conclusions copy/pasted (SSE = super spreader event):

When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.

It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.

The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces. This category includes call centers (many of which are still operating), places where millions of people around the world literally talk for a living. (Addendum: there are at least two examples of call-centre-based clusters, both of which were indicated to me by readers after the original version of this article appeared—one in South Korea, which overlaps with the massive Shincheonji Church of Jesus cluster; and the other in Jamaica.)

It’s similarly notable that airplanes don’t seem to be common sites for known SSEs, notwithstanding the sardine-like manner in which airlines transport us and the ample opportunity that the industry’s bureaucracy offers for contact tracing. 

No doubt that COVID is contagious, but if it is contagious as some doomers make it out to be, everyone should have had the virus by mid-January. 

 
I should have phrased my question differently:

"Who is choosing to not go to the ER, when they should, because of COVID?"


Do you agree that tons of people are way less likely to go to the ER than they would have 6 months ago?
Fair point.

For example, If I am an uninsured person in the city who leverages the hospital for all of my care, then yes.  Its more than likely this individual is not headed to the hospital.

While I have conceded your point, one could argue \in that scenario the individual may not have really needed to go to the hospital and thus there truly is no net loss.

Do you have any examples or detail to provide?

 
No doubt that COVID is contagious, but if it is contagious as some doomers make it out to be, everyone should have had the virus by mid-January. 
I'm still trying to get it nailed down whether or not mere breathing from 20 feet away will pretty much spread it around just about the same as hard coughing directly into someone's face. Is this thing "magically" airborne or not? No one seems to know with firmness -- lots of couched words, lots of "could bes" and "maybes".

Along the same lines -- when did fomites pretty much go from Public Enemy #2 (behind sneezes/coughs) to "no real concern"? The CDC pretty much let fomites completely off the hook in that "Cleaning for Households of COVID-19 Patients" website they put up a month ago.

...

The "big droplets only" versus "'magic' airborne particles that never go away" thing is pretty important. Even lousy-fitting home-made cloth masks help prevent spread via big droplets, but masks like that might not do much against ever-floating breath fog.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was an interesting read.  I've often been skeptical/frustrated at the way that new quarantine rules get rolled out (e.g 6 feet in all situations; masks always on).  I understand the need for simplicity but also would like to see some pragmatism that comes from real data.  For example, if tons of people were contracting COVID from riding zebras, then I understand the need to ban zebra rides, but I'd rather see the data on COVID and zebras first before blindly following a ban.

Anyway, while the data analysis has caveats aplenty, it's better than anything else that I've seen.  Here are some of the conclusions copy/pasted (SSE = super spreader event):

When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.

It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.

The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces. This category includes call centers (many of which are still operating), places where millions of people around the world literally talk for a living. (Addendum: there are at least two examples of call-centre-based clusters, both of which were indicated to me by readers after the original version of this article appeared—one in South Korea, which overlaps with the massive Shincheonji Church of Jesus cluster; and the other in Jamaica.)

It’s similarly notable that airplanes don’t seem to be common sites for known SSEs, notwithstanding the sardine-like manner in which airlines transport us and the ample opportunity that the industry’s bureaucracy offers for contact tracing. 

No doubt that COVID is contagious, but if it is contagious as some doomers make it out to be, everyone should have had the virus by mid-January. 
At the risk of beating a dead horse, this description sounds like it lends itself to mask wearing as a good practice. Mostly because it helps prevent the mask-wearer from being able to spread it as easily to others, as it reduces airborne droplets if worn properly. Wearing a mask and speaking softly, away from people's faces notably, seems like it would at least somewhat reduce transmissions from the mask-wearer (or the infector for lack of a better term in the infector/infectee relationship). His conclusion on white-collar offices and call-centers is interesting, although it seems like they should mask up in those settings also just to reduce airborne droplets in general. Mass transit is a no-brainer.

Avoiding the sports and religion events is a tough one. That's where a lot of the "laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying" takes place.

 
At the risk of beating a dead horse, this description sounds like it lends itself to mask wearing as a good practice. Mostly because it helps prevent the mask-wearer from being able to spread it as easily to others, as it reduces airborne droplets if worn properly. Wearing a mask and speaking softly, away from people's faces notably, seems like it would at least somewhat reduce transmissions from the mask-wearer (or the infector for lack of a better term in the infector/infectee relationship). His conclusion on white-collar offices and call-centers is interesting, although it seems like they should mask up in those settings also just to reduce airborne droplets in general. Mass transit is a no-brainer.

Avoiding the sports and religion events is a tough one. That's where a lot of the "laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying" takes place.
I don't disagree with you.  I see value in wearing one at the grocery store or office, but I'm also not going to wear one doing my lawn if I'm not within 30 feet of another human being.  

 
Here's where I am with all of this.  YMMV.

Honestly, I don't care about case counts any more. UNLESS there is a corresponding number of tests to go along with it to correlate the 'pattern,' it just doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider that unless recoveries are also being reported, a lot of the numbers being reported are not ACTIVE case numbers, they're TOTAL case numbers. We have to assume right now that testing has increased almost everywhere, so of course case counts have too. What I have been watching locally is the trends of new cases (my lowest indicator, though), trends of hospitalizations over time (which as I understand it is updated daily via our state health department from hospital censuses) and trends of daily death rates. Our percentage of positives has fallen 3-5% over the last month as testing has increased, which makes sense. And we (LA) are among the leaders anywhere in testing per capita. As of today, there are 84% of people here that have tested negative, for whatever reason. That's a lot. 

Based strictly on my own semi-professional data analysis and tracking of our states' numbers, we are on the decline. Well past the peak. From everything I can find, we are well below hospital capacity (which was the whole point of lockdowns). Yet I hear our state officials talking still about the number of cases. And, tbh, I don't understand why. 

I may need to go to the state capitol and present my sliding-scale theory. 

 
Here's where I am with all of this.  YMMV.

Honestly, I don't care about case counts any more. UNLESS there is a corresponding number of tests to go along with it to correlate the 'pattern,' it just doesn't mean a whole lot. Especially when you consider that unless recoveries are also being reported, a lot of the numbers being reported are not ACTIVE case numbers, they're TOTAL case numbers. We have to assume right now that testing has increased almost everywhere, so of course case counts have too. What I have been watching locally is the trends of new cases (my lowest indicator, though), trends of hospitalizations over time (which as I understand it is updated daily via our state health department from hospital censuses) and trends of daily death rates. Our percentage of positives has fallen 3-5% over the last month as testing has increased, which makes sense. And we (LA) are among the leaders anywhere in testing per capita. As of today, there are 84% of people here that have tested negative, for whatever reason. That's a lot. 

Based strictly on my own semi-professional data analysis and tracking of our states' numbers, we are on the decline. Well past the peak. From everything I can find, we are well below hospital capacity (which was the whole point of lockdowns). Yet I hear our state officials talking still about the number of cases. And, tbh, I don't understand why. 

I may need to go to the state capitol and present my sliding-scale theory. 
worldometer reports active cases

 
worldometer reports active cases
Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example,  we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example,  we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO. 
Corrected

 
Yes, but only for states that are reporting recoveries is that accurate. Last I checked, for the others: Active Cases = Total Cases - Deaths. Which of course, is way overcounting actual active cases. I understand why, because it's hard to define 'recovered' exactly, but still, we are 2-3 months in and "recovered" at this point is a significant number. Just using us (LA) for an example,  we just started reporting recoveries here 2 weeks ago. The number of ACTIVE cases was less than half of the TOTAL number of cases. That's significant, IMO. 
agreed.  do we know which states are reporting recovered cases?

 
Cuomo said 66% of people surveyed that tested positive in hospitals caught CV "at home". Meaning they did not catch it traveling for work or at a nursing home. Not sure if that means they caught it at grocery store, by not social distancing, or from a family member who did have to travel for work. 

 
Cuomo said 66% of people surveyed that tested positive in hospitals caught CV "at home". Meaning they did not catch it traveling for work or at a nursing home. Not sure if that means they caught it at grocery store, by not social distancing, or from a family member who did have to travel for work. 
This makes sense if you think about it.  It's a stat like "85% of all car accidents happen within a mile of your house".  In this situation, with most people at home all the time, it makes sense they'd likely get it at home from someone they are with all the time.  That's why it's important for those that DO go out to really focus on the 6 foot rule and stay away from everyone else.  It takes me twice as long as normal at the grocery store, but I don't even go down an isle with another person in it.

 
Cuomo said 66% of people surveyed that tested positive in hospitals caught CV "at home". Meaning they did not catch it traveling for work or at a nursing home. Not sure if that means they caught it at grocery store, by not social distancing, or from a family member who did have to travel for work. 
Also, Chicago is also seeing this disproportionately affecting black and Hispanic folk. 

 
This is a lengthy post from a former colleague but I think it's worth your time to read. Hope this helps give a little perspective and even some hope moving forward:

On March 31st I wrote some of my requirements for when I would consider that we have moved past the initial wave of badness. I didn’t make any predictions at the time, just a list. I thought I would go back and check myself and see where we currently stand. I added a star in front of the things that have occurred:

Numbers:

1. *Decreased hospitalization rates. Of course, that depends on geography and “hotspots”. However, if we think about it on a national level, when we see 2-3 days in a row with declining hospitalization numbers; that would be huge.

This has happened.

2. *A change in the ratio of positive tests to actual tests performed. I can’t find that published anywhere, but since we continually ramp up testing numbers we will continue to see more cases. I’m searching for the ratio widening as a sign we have hit a plateau of positives.

Already happened.

3. Real time mortality numbers <0.5%.

We are not there yet; but we are now seeing real data that is finding the mortality rates <2%. This also speaks to the previous warnings about using the Case Fatality Rate in the middle of the outbreak. We must force ourselves to remember that warning.

4. The geography becomes predictable so that we will know how the wave travels.

Nope.

I do feel the need to comment on this report about the “travel” of the virus. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-05/mutant-coronavirus-has-emerged-more-contagious-than-original) A couple of points: 1. This does not in any way imply that the virus is more dangerous, only that it potentially changed how contagious it is. 2. This is basically data already known from previous Oxford gene mapping. 3. I’m seriously done looking at anything that is put out in non-peer reviewed sources; even if it comes from incredibly respectable scientists. The post about monoclonal antibodies was published in one of the few journals considered the gold standard of peer review, Nature. I fully trust the peer review process to weed out conjecture vs. science.

Therapies

1. *A well-done scientific report on an antiviral medication currently in use that is “re-purposed” for COVID and shows positive results in mortality or ventilation rates.

Absolutely. It seems like every day there might be another coming online (https://www.bioworld.com/articles/434562-cyclacel-pharming-repurpose-drugs-to-fight-severe-respiratory-symptoms-of-covid-19)

2. *A discovery that a humanized monoclonal antibody currently on the market actually works against COVID making a trial immediately possible.

That came out just yesterday. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y) This is a HUGE deal. I personally think it is actually a bigger deal than either remdesivir or even a vaccine.

3. A well-done report that a medication “combination” really works to reduce viral load regardless of symptoms.

Not there yet.

4. *An initial vaccine trial shows promise.

I’m not sure I would say promise just yet, but stuff is seriously happening. An interesting combination of repurposed approaches and vaccines comes in the BCG world. (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31025-4/fulltext) For those not failure with the BCG vaccine, it has historically been used as a vaccine for tuberculosis; but not in the US. There appears to be some evidence that previous exposure to the vaccine impacts the way you react to COVID. It is an incredibly interesting approach to immune modulation.

5. *The antibody infusion trials currently underway report initial positive findings.

Small series. We haven’t seen the bulk of the data, but what we have seen is encouraging.

Supplies

1. *We report our first “glut” of product such as PPE or ventilators.

Done.

Biology

1. Someone reports that they have figured out the infectivity/viral load issue so that we can answer the “asymptomatic carrier” question and know if you are positive and contagious or not.

Not happening yet. However, this whole asymptomatic carrier has fallen off the headlines of late. I think everyone just assumes everyone is infected.

2. Someone reports a well-formulated pathway as to why exactly the lung disease is so much worse with this coronavirus.

Much evidence has emerged about the inflammatory response, but still no firm answers.

3. *Reports surface about real risk profiles that give details, not just “older with co-morbities”, but a real risk assessment profile that also can figure out who is going to progress to hospitalization when they are at day 2 of symptoms.

Issues such as diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, obesity, and poor general health has emerged.

Testing

1. In home testing becomes available for anyone to purchase.

They released one in the UK and there are several out there, but none has really passed the FDA.

2. *The 15 min turn around test becomes the standard at every hospital, office practice, or testing site.

Getting there. Just about.

3. *We roll out widespread antibody testing to not only figure out who has already been infected and recovered, but also those who can donate serum and antibodies to cure others.

Done.

4. Someone develops an ability to spray a surface and “see” if there is virus and any surface.

Not yet.

5. Somebody develops a great model and app that can literally track in real time where potential hotspots are developing so that we can jump all over them and squash any outbreak larger than 3 people.

Multiple tech solutions are already gaining speed on this, especially Kinsa Health.

Social

1. *We have enough testing in place that we can start to allow key industries to roll back to work in an extremely thoughtful, monitored, and methodical manner. This will occur in some cities but not others, some streets but not others.

Happening.

2. *Restaurants will allow diners to sit, but only in limited numbers at first, and the same way as above.

Yep.

3. Schools will be allowed to have limited class size in person, based on testing.

Discussions are now beginning.

4. Airline travel picks up, domestically at first, then internationally. Testing will occur (not screening) prior to boarding and prior to leaving the gate area.

Not yet.

5. Bars reopen..

Nope

6. Finally, concerts and sporting events occur again.

Not even close.

7. Last milestone, we have 100% vaccine compliance for the next decade

We shall see.

I am reposting this list, 5 full weeks after the original post, as a reminder. It serves to remind me that there was a time when we truly didn’t know if this was ever going to end. We can easily choose to look our current struggles with reopening through the lens of fear and discord being sold by the media. It drives outrage and panic; that is what sells. Or, we can choose look back on where we stood 5 weeks ago and realize that 12/25 of the things on this list have already happened. (Since the next decade of vaccine compliance isn’t really going to be know for awhile, let’s say 12/24) That means we are halfway there. In fact, I would contend that I could have counted more positive movement in my analysis.

Just like we were trying to stay hopeful and motivated 5 weeks ago, in the midst of what appeared to be a never-ending hell; we also need to be reminded of how far we have come. Things are better. The curve has flattened. I know that some people will immediately state “yes, but we can’t give up now” or “once we let people out, we are all going to die again.” As I have said in the past, being diligent and paying attention are not the same things as being panicked and anxious. Of course we must be careful; but to only be reminded that there is more work to do without briefly stopping to be happy for the efforts we have made and the things we have accomplished doesn’t serve anyone except those that are intent on keeping the seeds of panic and fear well nourished. We are winning this battle. We will emerge from this safely. Look how far we have come. Take a moment, take a breath, turn off the news, and be thankful for what we have accomplished.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There’s a big gray area between the two at any ED. If you have to go, sure people are still going to go to the ED. But EDs see a lot of people who don’t have health insurance, the homeless, people obtuse to what an ED is really for. Our ED typically had a 100+ people at any given time on a normal evening. Now, 30......maybe. Atleast half there for covid type symptoms. 
It’s interesting to contemplate how many people are avoiding ERs who actually need emergent care, versus inappropriate use of healthcare resources. I’d wager the majority never needed an ED visit in the first place.

 
This is from Worldometers. There are varying numbers out there, I have seen what you are saying as well. (I was assuming a low-end R for the sake of discussion on how we reduced it.) 

"The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.

WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]

Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].

Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]

An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.

For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0."
AS @Mr. Ham said, very helpful.

Covid worldometers has some ugly numbers today: Over 94,000 new cases and almost 6,800 deaths.  Russia once again over 10,500 new cases; Brazil with about 11,400 new cases and 645 deaths.  Rather significant increases in several African countries.  Ouch.  

 
tri-man 47 said:
AS @Mr. Ham said, very helpful.

Covid worldometers has some ugly numbers today: Over 94,000 new cases and almost 6,800 deaths.  Russia once again over 10,500 new cases; Brazil with about 11,400 new cases and 645 deaths.  Rather significant increases in several African countries.  Ouch.  
Brazil is in serious trouble.  Ditto for Russia.  A few weeks back a friend shared a website called TomTomTraffic.  You can use it to look at traffic volume by metro area across the globe.  Moscow’s traffic was at normal levels.  Brazil was maybe 10-20% below normal levels.  Keep in mind, this was less than a month ago.   I told Mrs APK at the time “these two countries are in big trouble......just wait....”.   As usual, she rolled her eyes (more out of boredom than anything else).

If you look at the Brazil case numbers, they’ve tested like 1/12th of what the US has tested (per capita).   Their daily death totals are ramping up.  Sad to see.

 
Sand said:
Why?  In New York the vast majority of people that are catching this and going to the hospital are staying at home.   The infection is coming from inside the house.

I'm starting to wonder if anything we're doing is making much of a difference.  The lockdowns didn't do nearly the damage to the infection rate as thought.  I'd like to see some well done studies on the efficacy of what we tried to do here.  
I'm in NY and I watched Cuomo today and I have a real problem with the way this was presented. I am no math major but I do know spin and marketing. Whenever someone cites percentages they are trying to highlight the differences between stats and hide the actual numbers. People look at percentages and only see the difference. 

66%, yes huge difference then the next number of 18%. But what is that really? According to the article it’s is based on 3 days totaling 1300 cases statewide...close to 20 Million people. That 66% equals 850 cases, spread out over 113 hospitals equals just over 7 cases per hospital....but thats over 3 days, so really these hospitals are seeing just over 2 CASES PER DAY of this new "stay home" group.

Then factor in that more the HALF of these 1300 came from NYC alone! So that even reduces the number of daily cases on the outlying hospitals..some to even ZERO cases.

But have they really been staying at home? Considering symptoms show up 10-14 days after contamination, this was before any mask mandates and people were out shopping and doing things...but its still only 2 cases per hospital.

Also, why are homeless a stat all of a sudden? They were never counted before. Ironically finally after all these weeks, Cuomo finally has been asked to answer for them in the subways. Well its prob a little too late b/c I'm sure many of the homeless have already contracted it and unfortunately many of them have passed because of limited access to medicine. But now its only 2% so they must never have been an issue, right? Apparently thats what these numbers are telling us. 

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm in NY and I watched Cuomo today and I have a real problem with the way this was presented. I am no math major but I do know spin and marketing. Whenever someone cites percentages they are trying to highlight the differences between stats and hide the actual numbers. People look at percentages and only see the difference. 

66%, yes huge difference then the next number of 18%. But what is that really? According to the article it’s is based on 3 days totaling 1300 cases statewide...close to 20 Million people. That 66% equals 850 cases, spread out over 113 hospitals equals just over 7 cases per hospital....but thats over 3 days, so really these hospitals are seeing just over 2 CASES PER DAY of this new "stay home" group.

Then factor in that more the HALF of these 1300 came from NYC alone! So that even reduces the number of daily cases on the outlying hospitals..some to even ZERO cases.

But have they really been staying at home? Considering symptoms show up 10-14 days after contamination, this was before any mask mandates and people were out shopping and doing things...but its still only 2 cases per hospital.

Also, why are homeless a stat all of a sudden? They were never counted before. Ironically finally after all these weeks, Cuomo finally has been asked to answer for them in the subways. Well its prob a little too late b/c I'm sure many of the homeless have already contracted it and unfortunately many of them have passed because of limited access to medicine. But now its only 2% so they must never have been an issue, right? Apparently thats what these numbers are telling us. 

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us begin to get out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.
Yep. As I said yesterday, its all manipulation. 

Also, not to get into conspiracy theories or anything but now all of a sudden Cuomo is working with Bill Gates Gates possibly changing how education is done forever in NY going forward?

How ####### convenient 

 
Yep. As I said yesterday, its all manipulation. 

Also, not to get into conspiracy theories or anything but now all of a sudden Cuomo is working with Bill Gates Gates possibly changing how education is done forever in NY going forward?

How ####### convenient 
dont get me started on that. Both my wife and I are educators. That was rammed though without any BOE or Teachers Union input. 

Edit: apologies, I don't mean to make this political.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm in NY and I watched Cuomo today and I have a real problem with the way this was presented. I am no math major but I do know spin and marketing. Whenever someone cites percentages they are trying to highlight the differences between stats and hide the actual numbers. People look at percentages and only see the difference. 

66%, yes huge difference then the next number of 18%. But what is that really? According to the article it’s is based on 3 days totaling 1300 cases statewide...close to 20 Million people. That 66% equals 850 cases, spread out over 113 hospitals equals just over 7 cases per hospital....but thats over 3 days, so really these hospitals are seeing just over 2 CASES PER DAY of this new "stay home" group.

Then factor in that more the HALF of these 1300 came from NYC alone! So that even reduces the number of daily cases on the outlying hospitals..some to even ZERO cases.

But have they really been staying at home? Considering symptoms show up 10-14 days after contamination, this was before any mask mandates and people were out shopping and doing things...but its still only 2 cases per hospital.

Also, why are homeless a stat all of a sudden? They were never counted before. Ironically finally after all these weeks, Cuomo finally has been asked to answer for them in the subways. Well its prob a little too late b/c I'm sure many of the homeless have already contracted it and unfortunately many of them have passed because of limited access to medicine. But now its only 2% so they must never have been an issue, right? Apparently thats what these numbers are telling us. 

IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us begin to get out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.
Also how about this new inflammatory disease that has affected 64 children in NY. Where did this come from? No other states or countries saw this? Is it related to Covid or is it Kawasaki? It's quite convenient how this just popped up out of the blue now too.

 
Also how about this new inflammatory disease that has affected 64 children in NY. Where did this come from? No other states or countries saw this? Is it related to Covid or is it Kawasaki? It's quite convenient how this just popped up out of the blue now too.
ironically, my sister passed from this when we were very young, back in the late 70's. My parents know all too well what that disease is all about and are furious that it is being tied to CV-19 as a new 'mystery' strain. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also how about this new inflammatory disease that has affected 64 children in NY. Where did this come from? No other states or countries saw this? Is it related to Covid or is it Kawasaki? It's quite convenient how this just popped up out of the blue now too.
64? Thought it was 16? Only four of which were covid 19 cases. 

Also any idea on demographics? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO we are being sold a plate of "Scary Virus Monster" right now. And they are using old hat marketing tricks to do it. The math does not add up. I am in no way trivializing this virus and what it caused, I know 3 people in my circles who have passed. But I am beginning to see through some of NY leadership's narrative.   I believe they are not ready to begin letting us out and they are looking for ways to keep us inside.
It seems to me, that the general stance of a lot of the state governments is to err on the side of overcaution.  Which, makes sense from their own self interest.  One, they have sold the lockdowns as the best means of minimizing the pain, and they are going to be very loathe to do anything that goes against that narrative.  Two, if you keep things locked up 10 weeks when maybe only 4-6 (just as a hypothetical example) were strictly necessary, you have an easy rebuttal to complaints : "it would've been worse if we opened up earlier", and no one can disprove you.  If on the other hand you open up somewhere around the median opinion, any deaths afterward will be put squarely on your shoulders by the people who thought the lockdown should be longer.  There's no good political comeback to "your decision caused people to die", regardless of whether you made the right call or not.

So, having come to the conclusion that it is in their interest to keep the lockdown going until just about everyone is on board with it being lifted, they now have to sell that decision to everyone who is inclined to want things to open up sooner.  I think that is why you will see a lot of emphasis on the negative in the short term.  Which, usual caveats, I'm not saying the situation is good or we shouldn't be taking this seriously, etc.  Just saying that when things begin winding down, a narrative of trying to paint a dire picture was entirely predictable.  I expect that this will continue right up until the point where the lockdowns are lifted, and then their self-interest will align with emphasizing the positive, so that is what will then occur.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exceptional post, thank you. 

Can you break this down for the layman? I skimmed the link, but what is a monoclonal antibody?

2. *A discovery that a humanized monoclonal antibody currently on the market actually works against COVID making a trial immediately possible.

That came out just yesterday. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y) This is a HUGE deal. I personally think it is actually a bigger deal than either remdesivir or even a vaccine.
A monoclonal antibody just means that they have a single antibody being produced, often by a single clone (cell) of a hybridoma (when you fuse a cell that makes the antibody you want with a cancer cell that is kind of like a factory and just keeps spitting out a ton of the antibody). You can have polyclonal antibodies as well, which just means you don't have a pure pool of hybridomas or whatever, so you are getting different antibodies being produced by difference cells within the group, some may be effective, some may be less effective or junk. Generally lots of supplies and tools are polyclonal because it is easier and cheaper, but drugs are almost always monoclonal (with some exceptions) because you want it to be 100% of the active ingredient.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks HutHut and Not smart for getting this thread back on track with info, insights, and spirit of togetherness.  As opposed to whatever Covid Qanon crap I was forced to read through to end the last page. 

 
Ok, this Plandemic YouTube video has found its way into my Facebook feed.  :tinfoilhat:  Even by some, I thought, normal people. Anyone else? I did a search for that word and got nothing so apologies if it’s been covered. I’m not linking it.

 
JAA said:
Fair point.

For example, If I am an uninsured person in the city who leverages the hospital for all of my care, then yes.  Its more than likely this individual is not headed to the hospital.

While I have conceded your point, one could argue \in that scenario the individual may not have really needed to go to the hospital and thus there truly is no net loss.

Do you have any examples or detail to provide?
I'm an ER doc and I've had literally dozens of patients with non-covid problems delay coming in until they were much worse -specifically telling me they waited because they were scared - ruptured appy, heart attacks, asthma, lacerations, fractures and multiple other examples.    

I've also had probably 20 times my typical rate of people signing out AMA when I advised admitting them for treatment because they are scared of being admitted - at least 2-3 a shift.

The loss of ER volume is multifactorial, but some types of visits are way way down - I usually see 3-4 car accidents a shift and now see maybe 0.5. No one is driving. Seeing very few visits for things like gastroenteritis, migraines, and workman's comp injuries. The moderately sick are avoiding until they are more ill and no one is getting hurt at work.....

I feel that to simply claim that since visits are down 50%, that it just means those 50% didn't need to really be there to be a very simplistic argument 

 
Ok, this Plandemic YouTube video has found its way into my Facebook feed.  :tinfoilhat:  Even by some, I thought, normal people. Anyone else? I did a search for that word and got nothing so apologies if it’s been covered. I’m not linking it.


Do not engage! 
I've seen this pop up on my facebook several times, but each time I try to click the link it's been taken down.  Is there a summary of this and why it's wrong anywhere on the internet?

 
JAA said:
Fair point.

For example, If I am an uninsured person in the city who leverages the hospital for all of my care, then yes.  Its more than likely this individual is not headed to the hospital.

While I have conceded your point, one could argue \in that scenario the individual may not have really needed to go to the hospital and thus there truly is no net loss.

Do you have any examples or detail to provide?
I'm an ER doc and I've had literally dozens of patients with non-covid problems delay coming in until they were much worse -specifically telling me they waited because they were scared - ruptured appy, heart attacks, asthma, lacerations, fractures and multiple other examples.    

I've also had probably 20 times my typical rate of people signing out AMA when I advised admitting them for treatment because they are scared of being admitted - at least 2-3 a shift.

The loss of ER volume is multifactorial, but some types of visits are way way down - I usually see 3-4 car accidents a shift and now see maybe 0.5. No one is driving. Seeing very few visits for things like gastroenteritis, migraines, and workman's comp injuries. The moderately sick are avoiding until they are more ill and no one is getting hurt at work.....

I feel that to simply claim that since visits are down 50%, that it just means those 50% didn't need to really be there to be a very simplistic argument
Thank you for sharing. 

If you had to guess, what % of people who should be going to the ER due to serious medical condition are choosing not to go due to covid?  Would you put that at 1%, 10%, 40%, or 75%. Just curious about a guess here.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Not besides all the people who've already posted here with examples of this. 
Oh, ok. I misread your post. I made an assumption you were speaking with first hand knowledge and not speculation. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top