The new Corona virus, should we worry?

[BarnBurner]

Good tracing and localized restrictions is the answer IMO. If we’re going to talk about Sweden, that’s one area that we could adapt pretty easily. For example, they currently have some increasing cases in parts of Stockholm so a hospital stopped doing elective procedures for a few weeks and they asked entire families to stay home for 10 days if anyone in their household had symptoms. Try putting out the flames in the hot spots.

You wouldn’t even quarantine and stay away from work.

 

[GophersInIowa]

You wouldn’t even quarantine and stay away from work.

How do you know stalker?

 

[Wally]

You wouldn’t even quarantine and stay away from work.

He is saying he wouldn't....

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Some of the names that signed this: Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename, Dr. Johnny Bananas. Anyone can sign it and they don’t verify anything.

They also don’t actually provide a plan or define exactly who the vulnerable population is.

You doubt the veracity and wisdom of Dr. Holden McGroin?

For me, I think it is problematic to guarantee the safety of every person, that’s impossible. However I do think vulnerable people can take reasonable precautions and use quality masks and shields to protect themselves. Facilities can be coerced and/or aided to do a better job.

On an ideological level I’m very uncomfortable with ”temporary” emergency powers from politicians I don’t trust (at all), blanket decrees causing widespread economic harm, loss of education, and other negatives with our kids. I guess I’m a sympathizer to the anti-lockdown cause even if part of it is wacky-town because I don’t think we can contain this thing in our society. It’s going to spread absent China or Aussie-level dystopian nightmares, and people will autoregulate their behaviors in response.

 

[BarnBurner]

How do you know stalker?

Your non response told the story.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Teachers as a group have been, bar none, the most irrational and Debbie Downer negative drivers of policy. Can we figure out ways to make teachers feel safer? Maybe we need a new model of education delivery and funding?

 

[LesBolstad]

As I've said since the start, lockdowns are/were a disaster. Even the WHO now on board condemning them? The Coronobros are not going to like this:

Loading…

www.news.com.au

 

[GophersInIowa]

Your non response told the story.

I’m sorry I haven’t kept you up to date with my daily activities.

 

[GophersInIowa]

As I've said since the start, lockdowns are/were a disaster. Even the WHO now on board condemning them? The Coronobros are not going to like this:

Loading…

www.news.com.au

“And so, we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other.”

Almost everyone agrees with this. They’re not saying to do nothing either. The problem is those pushing the hardest against lockdowns are the ones least willing to do other things to control the spread.

 

[BarnBurner]

I’m sorry I haven’t kept you up to date with my daily activities.

Your dishonesty and hypocrisy are clear Gii.

Good for others is not good for Gii.

 

[BarnBurner]

He is saying he wouldn't....

Oh Wallace. Pipe down as you know nothing. Very apparent.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

test numbers down - positive test rate up.
the State Dept of health has not updated their "hospital beds in use" site since last Thursday. The site claims it will be updated every weekday. I'm shocked.

And Spoofin - After Sunday, I think Dr. Holden McGroin is the Vikings' team doctor.


MN Covid-19 Update - Mon, Oct 12

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Cases 113,439 +1,178. (positive test rate 6.6%).

Health-Care Workers with positive cases 11,654 +103.

Cases no longer needing isolation 101,376 +1,205.

Active Cases 9,919 -37.

Deaths 2,144 +3.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,522 +1.

Total hospitalized-cumulative 8,421 +67.

Total in ICU-cumulative 2,311 +20.

Total tests processed 2,337,122 +17,938.

Number of people tested 1,589,752 +11,028.

 

[OldBob53]

1,084,342 dead at this hour. And now the Star-Tribune and others report that brain damage --cognitive impairment/dementia -- afflicts a sizable percentage of those who do survive.

Here's one source today: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/c...n-fog-plagues-covid-19-survivors-5950461.html

 

[JimmyJamesMD]

1,084,342 dead at this hour. And now the Star-Tribune reports that brain damage --cognitive impairment/dementia -- afflicts a sizable percentage of those who do survive.

Fear mongering.

 

[bga1]

1,084,342 dead at this hour. And now the Star-Tribune and others report that brain damage --cognitive impairment/dementia -- afflicts a sizable percentage of those who do survive.

Here's one source today: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/c...n-fog-plagues-covid-19-survivors-5950461.html

When did you get it?

 

[CutDownTheNet]

Many European countries are going the wrong way.
View attachment 9660View attachment 9657View attachment 9661View attachment 9664View attachment 9663View attachment 9662View attachment 9659View attachment 9658View attachment 9656

The interesting thing re cases going up in Europe, per a good article I found (can't find the link at the moment) is that in most countries, cases are going up due to a combination of increased testing plus cancelation of lockdowns so that younger people are out and about now, but it's mostly younger people that are getting infected. As a result, in many countries, cases are going up while deaths are going down (also partly thanks to better treatments and old/sick people still staying mostly locked up). In some countries, cases are going up while deaths are going sideways.

 

[bga1]

Almost everyone agrees with this. They’re not saying to do nothing either. The problem is those pushing the hardest against lockdowns are the ones least willing to do other things to control the spread.

The people pushing for lockdowns are the people that are saying the most about protecting the vulnerable. We are also saying that the virus is going to spread and you are better off protecting the elderly and vulnerable and getting at the business of life. You reach herd immunity quicker and you to less societal and collateral damage to likely achieve the same number of actual covid deaths.

I obey the laws, but.....Masks do next to nothing. Everyone should wear a N95 in a seniors facility. Other than that, wear one if you want to. Or stay home.

 

[GopherJake]

Masks do next to nothing. Everyone should wear a N95 in a seniors facility. Other than that, wear one if you want to. Or stay home.

Logic fail. You state that masks have value, then in the next sentence, state they have no value. Which is it?

 

[CutDownTheNet]

This is pretty fascinating.

Loading…

www.wsj.com

Yeah, every state with a big airport got an early start on Covid infections.

China had banned local intra-China travel while at the same time it was encouraging Chinese to travel overseas (and those outbound flights had not shut down, nor had Trump yet banned inbound flights from China since he didn't know the severity yet due to China's lies).

China lied to the US (and lied to the WHO and the WHO lied for China) for 3 weeks while during this time saying that Covid was not human-to-human transmissible, while the Chinese Communist Party actually did know that it was highly contagious, and was taking steps to protect its own people, while cornering the market on raw materials to manufacture masks.

Also at this time, China was cleansing its labs and databases of Covid evidence.

Much of the motivation for this might have come simply from the traditional Chinese character trait of not wanting to lose face. But perhaps more importantly, China didn't want to lose US/World business and industrial/financial investments. Well, they only delayed the eventual (beginning of its) world-trade decline for an extra 3 weeks.

It has been claimed that 95% of the worldwide deaths due to Covid-19 could have been preventable if only the Chinese Communist Party had played the game in a humane way instead of only putting its own self-interests as the only criteria. In other words, that extra 3 weeks of warning that they could have given the world, probably would have been sufficient to prevent 95% of the deaths that actually happened (with more still to come).

Things would have been even worse off if it weren't for the bravery (in the face of possibly spending the rest of their life in a CCP concentration camp) of a couple of Chinese virologists who published the SARS-Cov-2 genome directly into two shared international databases of viruses. The world's research institutions picked it up from there - launching the most massive and time-critical effort of scientific research in human history. The results are still unfolding, so that Covid-research history book has yet to be written.

I'm not sure about the fate of those brave Chinese scientists. One of the early Chinese Covid-research-doctor whistle-blowers actually died of Covid. But do you recall the lady virologist who escaped from China to shelter (and hopefully eventually asylum) in the US, and who appeared on Tucker Carlson? She was on Tucker again a week or two ago announcing that her mother had been arrested and imprisoned within China in punishment for her leaking details of the CCP coverup in the US. What a shame, and how can 1.4 billion people agree to be governed in that manner.

Actually, Xi Jinping is feeling a little nervous and threatened about the stability of his authority at the moment, and he has been conducting a lot of purges in the last few months. They've got epic floods, and explosions in Huawei research/plant facilities, and 1/3 failed crops due to floods, and an economy that is failing worse than the setback to the US economy, all on top of their ongoing Covid pandemic (plus a small bubonic plague scare). Seems like Karma is punishing the Chinese Communist Party pretty severely for their recent escapades, but don't hold your breath if you expect any sort of revolution there. Instead, they are actually contributing to the violence in US streets.

 

[RahSkiUMah]

The interesting thing re cases going up in Europe, per a good article I found (can't find the link at the moment) is that in most countries, cases are going up due to a combination of increased testing plus cancelation of lockdowns so that younger people are out and about now, but it's mostly younger people that are getting infected. As a result, in many countries, cases are going up while deaths are going down (also partly thanks to better treatments and old/sick people still staying mostly locked up). In some countries, cases are going up while deaths are going sideways.

This is pretty much the same thing that's happened in the states that have seen surges in the summer/now. Then the other age groups follow. Check out WI as one of the most recent examples:



Hopefully hospitalizations and deaths stay down, although hospitalizations are definitely increasing in WI.

 

[Wally]

1,084,342 dead at this hour. And now the Star-Tribune and others report that brain damage --cognitive impairment/dementia -- afflicts a sizable percentage of those who do survive.

Here's one source today: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/c...n-fog-plagues-covid-19-survivors-5950461.html

Anyone who requires long term sedation, especially if they are older is susceptible to this. One of the ways going on a ventilator fucks you up.

 

[Wally]

Instead, they are actually contributing to the violence in US streets.

 

[RahSkiUMah]

The people pushing for lockdowns are the people that are saying the most about protecting the vulnerable. We are also saying that the virus is going to spread and you are better off protecting the elderly and vulnerable and getting at the business of life. You reach herd immunity quicker and you to less societal and collateral damage to likely achieve the same number of actual covid deaths.

I obey the laws, but.....Masks do next to nothing. Everyone should wear a N95 in a seniors facility. Other than that, wear one if you want to. Or stay home.

What is the strategy to protecting the vulnerable? Do we lockdown the vulnerable? Do we assign risk to individuals and then enforce some other protection measures? Do we put it on the community to protect the vulnerable?

I am fully with you that we mostly need to protect those higher risk individuals but how do we do it?

 

[CutDownTheNet]

As I've been pointing out for 5 months on this thread, the slaughter in MN nursing homes and LTCFs is easily slowed to a trickle. Just test everyone (patients and care providers) twice per week using new cheap-and-fast antibody tests. If you do so, you find out infections with only a 3.5 day delay max, or a 1.75day delay on average. This means you discover the infection on more of a Trump-like timetable, and the treatment outcomes for early-detection treatment of Covid are orders of magnitude better than for too-late infection (and especially within the threatened population of the old).

I earlier campaigned for once-per-week testing, but with cheaper antibody tests, we now should push for 2X per week testing.

But Walz is about as dumb in LTCF Covid management as he is in riot management.

 

[MplsGopher]

Almost everyone agrees with this. They’re not saying to do nothing either. The problem is those pushing the hardest against lockdowns are the ones least willing to do other things to control the spread.

Exactly. Well said.

The predictable response to a statement of "use other types of intelligent policy to control the spread, than lockdowns" is "see!!!11 laissez faire MFer!!!!111 Sweden !!!111".

(and Sweden is far from laissez faire, but nevermind that ...)

 

[CutDownTheNet]

Beeg - you may have a point here. BUT - when you say things like sick old people who were going to die anyway, you hurt your own argument because it makes you look like a bleep-hole who doesn't care if Grandma dies.

that allows the other side to criticize you - not because of what you're saying, but because of how you're saying it.

Oh, and BTW - the State Dept of Health says a recent rise in covid cases in nursing homes is due to employees bringing the virus into the facilities. so it's not Granny's fault that she got the covid - it's the fault of the nurse, the cook or the orderly who had the covid and came to work. Should those people be prosecuted for causing Granny's death?

No, it's the fault of Walz, who did not test the employees bringing the virus into the facilities.

With visiting more or less shutdown, the only way Covid is coming into a nursing home/LTCF is via infected staff, or the occasional new admission (who ought to be quarantined 14 days on arrival). See my post above.

 

[Ogee Oglethorpe]

What is the strategy to protecting the vulnerable? Do we lockdown the vulnerable? Do we assign risk to individuals and then enforce some other protection measures? Do we put it on the community to protect the vulnerable?

I am fully with you that we mostly need to protect those higher risk individuals but how do we do it?

Don't those that are at high risk have at least some modicum of responsibility to keep themselves safe and take proper precautions? No responsibility or accountability for their own health at all?

 

[RahSkiUMah]

Don't those that are at high risk have at least some modicum of responsibility to keep themselves safe and take proper precautions? No responsibility or accountability for their own health at all?

100% they do. What do we do when a big proportion of an at risk population refuses to do those things?

 

[GophersInIowa]

The people pushing for lockdowns are the people that are saying the most about protecting the vulnerable. We are also saying that the virus is going to spread and you are better off protecting the elderly and vulnerable and getting at the business of life. You reach herd immunity quicker and you to less societal and collateral damage to likely achieve the same number of actual covid deaths.

I obey the laws, but.....Masks do next to nothing. Everyone should wear a N95 in a seniors facility. Other than that, wear one if you want to. Or stay home.

What’s the plan? How exactly do you protect the vulnerable and who decides who’s considered vulnerable? Current unemployment is about 8% I believe. A much greater percentage of the working population are considered high risk so “protecting the vulnerable” could potentially cause a higher unemployment rate. And then do you protect the high risk people’s immediate family as well or do you seperate them?

It’s easy to say do this or that when you don’t have to actually come up with the details. I’m not even saying it’s a bad strategy, just trying to understand what it would look like.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Don't those that are at high risk have at least some modicum of responsibility to keep themselves safe and take proper precautions? No responsibility or accountability for their own health at all?

There are many people that can only do so much. Many jobs require people to be in close contact with others for long periods of time so they depend on the actions of others.