The new Corona virus, should we worry?

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,355
Reaction score
1,948
Points
113
testing numbers down - positive test rate up.

MN Covid-19 Update - Tues, Oct 6th

data reported by 4pm the previous day

Positive Cases 105,740 +954. (positive test rate 6.8%)

Health-Care workers with positive cases 10,998 +97.

Cases No Longer needing isolation 95,614 +1,198.

Active Cases 8,039 -261.

Deaths 2,087 +4.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,488 +1.

Patients Hospitalized (cumulative) 8,020 +80.

Patients In ICU (cumulative) 2,212 +23.

Total Tests processed 2,182,970 +14,029.

Number of people tested 1,502,736 +8,559.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
12,972
Reaction score
3,566
Points
113
... has there been any new information since February? Why are you so dishonest?
Well, we haven't had 100,000 people die from the flu in 40 years, and more than 210,000 people have died from COVID, so yeah, the new information doesn't help Dear Leader's tweet either.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,355
Reaction score
1,948
Points
113
As a member of the American Society for Microbiology, Osterholm has served on the Committee on Biomedical Research of the Public and Scientific Affairs Board, the Task Force on Biological Weapons, and the Task Force on Antibiotic Resistance. He is a frequent consultant to the World Health Organization, the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense, and the CDC. He is a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology and the IDSA.[6]

Osterholm has received honorary doctorates from Luther College[19] and Des Moines University,[20] and is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.[6] His other honors are the Pumphandle Award from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; the Charles C. Shepard Science Award from the CDC; the Harvey W. Wiley Medal from the Food and Drug Administration; the Squibb Award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America; Distinguished University Teaching Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota; and the Wade Hampton Frost Leadership Award, American Public Health Association. He also has been the recipient of six major research awards from the National Institutes of Health and the CDC.[6]


Yeah, he's a fruitcake. but some guy on an internet message board is an expert. sure.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
49,663
Reaction score
7,407
Points
113
Well, we haven't had 100,000 people die from the flu in 40 years, and more than 210,000 people have died from COVID, so yeah, the new information doesn't help Dear Leader's tweet either.
Trump had a real chance to show at least some level growth and empathy in the last week and instead he doubled down on ignorance. Almost nothing he does surprises me, but this still did.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,275
Reaction score
1,785
Points
113
As a member of the American Society for Microbiology, Osterholm has served on the Committee on Biomedical Research of the Public and Scientific Affairs Board, the Task Force on Biological Weapons, and the Task Force on Antibiotic Resistance. He is a frequent consultant to the World Health Organization, the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense, and the CDC. He is a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology and the IDSA.[6]

Osterholm has received honorary doctorates from Luther College[19] and Des Moines University,[20] and is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.[6] His other honors are the Pumphandle Award from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; the Charles C. Shepard Science Award from the CDC; the Harvey W. Wiley Medal from the Food and Drug Administration; the Squibb Award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America; Distinguished University Teaching Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota; and the Wade Hampton Frost Leadership Award, American Public Health Association. He also has been the recipient of six major research awards from the National Institutes of Health and the CDC.[6]


Yeah, he's a fruitcake. but some guy on an internet message board is an expert. sure.
Love him or hate him, his predictions have been off the rails. He’s speaking out of his posterior, rather than as a scientist. Granted, he understands he’s just guessing which sets him apart from some of the modelers out there but I think his innate, sincere empathy for his kids, grandkids, and others is clouding his views. His podcasts are literally a group therapy session complete with Osterholm reading inspirational verse at the end. Its interesting, and I think he’s a great person, father. Not sure about his views otherwise.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
As a member of the American Society for Microbiology, Osterholm has served on the Committee on Biomedical Research of the Public and Scientific Affairs Board, the Task Force on Biological Weapons, and the Task Force on Antibiotic Resistance. He is a frequent consultant to the World Health Organization, the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Defense, and the CDC. He is a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology and the IDSA.[6]

Osterholm has received honorary doctorates from Luther College[19] and Des Moines University,[20] and is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.[6] His other honors are the Pumphandle Award from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; the Charles C. Shepard Science Award from the CDC; the Harvey W. Wiley Medal from the Food and Drug Administration; the Squibb Award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America; Distinguished University Teaching Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota; and the Wade Hampton Frost Leadership Award, American Public Health Association. He also has been the recipient of six major research awards from the National Institutes of Health and the CDC.[6]


Yeah, he's a fruitcake. but some guy on an internet message board is an expert. sure.
I predicted in March that he would be proven wrong. I was right. I predicted he would be wrong about September/October. I was right again.

I guess that makes me an expert! 🤯
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,275
Reaction score
1,785
Points
113
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed...”

Worth listening to their POV.



As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.



 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,275
Reaction score
1,785
Points
113
I’m shocked there isn’t any solid observational or experimental basis for this system*. California innovation.
*not shocked


Why one coronavirus metric might be keeping your county from reopening

...To move from the purple tier to the red tier, a county’s positivity rate must be 8% or lower, while its daily case rate is seven or fewer per 100,000 residents. These numbers are in part estimates, said UC San Francisco epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford.

“It’s all arbitrary,” Rutherford said. “There’s not some page in an epidemiology textbook that you could point to and say, ‘This is how you do this.’ ... We’re learning as we go along.”


 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
8,956
Reaction score
1,410
Points
113
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed...”

Worth listening to their POV.



As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.



Very reasonable.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
2,254
Points
113
Signing the kids up for private school, this covid might be a good thing because otherwise we wouldn't have done it and the school looks pretty good. Only cost half of our Trump Tax cut.
 

OldBob53

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
225
Points
63
1,055,999 dead at this hour, countless more stricken with lasting organ damage, e.g., lungs, kidneys, brain. Now lets see how many White House staffers Trump can kill by boldly hobbling about the premises mask-less.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed...”

Worth listening to their POV.



As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical, and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.



Joe Biden says we MUST follow the scientists.

But they are scientists Joe.

Oh.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,275
Reaction score
1,785
Points
113
Very reasonable.
Perhaps a debate between these and other like-minded folks and Osterholms of the world is in order? Listening to Osterholm (for many months now) it’s clear on an intellectual level he knows the problems and impossibility of continued lockdowns but given his influence he doesn’t want “blood on his hands” and he’s a genuinely very empathetic person. Of course, lockdowns have their own negative effects and unintended consequences that aren’t so obvious at first, and it takes time to evolve hysteresis of entrenched positions.
 
Top Bottom