The new Corona virus, should we worry?

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,280
Reaction score
1,787
Points
113
The Empire Strikes Back, and strikes out. Ms. Whitmer argued if the rebellion against her sometimes bizarre, misplaced lockdown executive orders succeeds the workers (some that she put out of work) will lose their unemployment benefits. Actual footage from the hearing




LANSING, MI -- The Michigan Supreme Court issued two rulings Monday reversing a lower court’s opinion that supported Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s use of executive action during the coronavirus pandemic and denying Whitmer’s request to delay the impact of removing her emergency powers.

The Supreme Court previously ruled in a federal case it was asked to weigh in on that Whitmer does not have authority under state law to continue a state of emergency without the support of the Legislature, effectively ending Whitmer’s executive orders.

 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
Whitmer has so many evil villain costumes she could legitimately choose from for Halloween.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,117
Reaction score
3,191
Points
113
COVID Cases in the NFL? Shocking. They must be the only workplace that has it. I thought for sure the NFL would go case-free.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,789
Reaction score
2,308
Points
113
Spain is implementing new lockdowns, man they really hate Trump...🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,749
Reaction score
3,749
Points
113
Spain is implementing new lockdowns, man they really hate Trump...🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wait...are you saying that the covid is killing people outside of the US? I have been told that Trump killed 200,000 people here! This is big news if this is actually a world wide pandemic!
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
3,635
Points
113
It's all about the optics, dude. That's why they're making coaches and even game broadcasters wear masks on TV, even though everyone in the damn stadium has been tested relentlessly. Gotta protect the optics
The Titans had something like 18 cases. Clearly it's not just about optics.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,361
Reaction score
1,735
Points
113
I thought the NFL had totally figured out that positive cases are a scam due to bad testing? That's what your tweet said.
The tweet says they find fewer false positives then when the general population is tested. The US is at a 5% positive rate. The NFL is ~1%, or even lower considering the amount of tests they do each week.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
3,635
Points
113
The tweet says they find fewer false positives then when the general population is tested. The US is at a 5% positive rate. The NFL is ~1%, or even lower considering the amount of tests they do each week.
So you're saying the NFL is at a lower percentage AND that they're doing a very high number of tests every week? It's almost as if those two things are related. What would the US percentage be if we tested every person every day?
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,929
Reaction score
2,477
Points
113
SPG is my man. Go easy on him. GII is who you need to call out on masks. :)
Not sure what you want me to say since you didn’t provide anything new. Kinda beating s dead horse at this point. You’ll continue to ignore the evidence.

Once again will ask what exactly is the strategy you keep talking about? How exactly do you protect the elderly? Lock them and all medical/care personnel in facilities for the duration of this? What about all the older people not living in nursing homes? What about younger high risk people? Do you isolate them too? What about their immediate family? Places like Sweden are nowhere near herd immunity. It’s not a viable option without a vaccine.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,361
Reaction score
1,735
Points
113
So you're saying the NFL is at a lower percentage AND that they're doing a very high number of tests every week? It's almost as if those two things are related. What would the US percentage be if we tested every person every day?
Still higher with the higher cycle threshold.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,117
Reaction score
3,191
Points
113
So you're saying the NFL is at a lower percentage AND that they're doing a very high number of tests every week? It's almost as if those two things are related. What would the US percentage be if we tested every person every day?
Sounds like an argument to stop focusing on positivity % to me.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,117
Reaction score
3,191
Points
113
Not if you think finding cases is key to preventing future cases.

Exactly a month ago:

What do you think I was saying there? I said I wasn't debating the values of positivity rate with you as you changed the subject from our debate on case count. Now you are trying to imply I was endorsing it? As I asked then - why be so dishonest?

As I have said many times, positivity rate is a better measure than case count, but it is subject to many of the same downfalls.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,749
Reaction score
3,749
Points
113
Not if you think finding cases is key to preventing future cases.

Exactly a month ago:

You are not going to prevent future cases until we reach herd immunity. It ain't happening. The best case scenario would be for as many healthy young people as possible to get it ASAP and protect the old people. Do you want to do this over 3 months or 3 years? I like the 3 month plan.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,929
Reaction score
2,477
Points
113
You are not going to prevent future cases until we reach herd immunity. It ain't happening. The best case scenario would be for as many healthy young people as possible to get it ASAP and protect the old people. Do you want to do this over 3 months or 3 years? I like the 3 month plan.
The Lancet is one of the oldest and best known peer-reviewed medical journals.

A snippet:
In the initial phase of the pandemic, many countries instituted lockdowns (general population restrictions, including orders to stay at home and work from home) to slow the rapid spread of the virus. This was essential to reduce mortality,6, 7prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission following lockdown. Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems. In the absence of adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts, these countries have faced continuing restrictions.

This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.

Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity
3and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,
4and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID.
3Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30% of the population in some regions.
8Prolonged isolation of large swathes of the population is practically impossible and highly unethical. Empirical evidence from many countries shows that it is not feasible to restrict uncontrolled outbreaks to particular sections of society. Such an approach also risks further exacerbating the socioeconomic inequities and structural discriminations already laid bare by the pandemic. Special efforts to protect the most vulnerable are essential but must go hand-in-hand with multi-pronged population-level strategies.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,362
Reaction score
1,957
Points
113
Not sure about the hospitalization numbers. the cumulative totals from the State Dept of Health don't seem to jibe with the "beds in use" report - which is on the same website, just a different page.
It shows a decline in beds in use for yesterday, but an increase in the cumulative total. Only thing I can think of is that they are adjusting numbers based on updated data. Don't know. I'm too busy at work to deal with this. a FT employee is out sick and I'm trying to do the work of two people.


MN Covid-19 Update - Thurs, Oct 15

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Cases 116,865 +1,108. (positive test rate 5.6%).

Health-Care workers with positive cases 12,024 +112.

Cases no longer needing isolation 104,547 +717.

Active Cases 10,126 +367.

Deaths 2,192 +18.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,546 +11.

Patients currently Hospitalized 445 -42. Cumulative 8,652 +67.

Patients currently in ICU 115 -19. cumulative 2,362 +16.

Total Tests 2,386,848 +19,801.

Number of people tested 1,623,276 +10,045.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,280
Reaction score
1,787
Points
113
Thanks SON, appreciate the daily reports. The beds thing must involve subtraction of patient discharges. Or maybe the numbers are a mess. State employees still recovering from Indigenous Peoples Day office party.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,117
Reaction score
3,191
Points
113
Not sure about the hospitalization numbers. the cumulative totals from the State Dept of Health don't seem to jibe with the "beds in use" report - which is on the same website, just a different page.
It shows a decline in beds in use for yesterday, but an increase in the cumulative total. Only thing I can think of is that they are adjusting numbers based on updated data. Don't know. I'm too busy at work to deal with this. a FT employee is out sick and I'm trying to do the work of two people.


MN Covid-19 Update - Thurs, Oct 15

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Cases 116,865 +1,108. (positive test rate 5.6%).

Health-Care workers with positive cases 12,024 +112.

Cases no longer needing isolation 104,547 +717.

Active Cases 10,126 +367.

Deaths 2,192 +18.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,546 +11.

Patients currently Hospitalized 445 -42. Cumulative 8,652 +67.

Patients currently in ICU 115 -19. cumulative 2,362 +16.

Total Tests 2,386,848 +19,801.

Number of people tested 1,623,276 +10,045.
Hey Son - I don't say Thanks enough for doing this report. So, Thanks!
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
The Lancet is one of the oldest and best known peer-reviewed medical journals.

A snippet:


This Lancet paper has 8 interesting references, but otherwise is a worthless paper. They really don't even say anything except more-or-less "we gotta do something about this Covid thing."That, plus a couple bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The main thing in the paper seems to be to introduce some resolution that they want you to sign. I didn't bother reading it, cuz if the paper was that bad, then I didn't see much hope for anything useful in the resolution. If anyone wants to read it, maybe I shall stand corrected.

Here's a quote ...

The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence. Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population.


So, they slam herd immunity without naming any support for that premise. The reference (#3) that they do refer to in the last sentence is about long-covid, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with their premise.

In short, this might be a decent undergrad term paper in a survey course covering Covid-19. How this got published in the Lancet, I'll never know.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
8,956
Reaction score
1,410
Points
113
This Lancet paper has 8 interesting references, but otherwise is a worthless paper. They really don't even say anything except more-or-less "we gotta do something about this Covid thing."That, plus a couple bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The main thing in the paper seems to be to introduce some resolution that they want you to sign. I didn't bother reading it, cuz if the paper was that bad, then I didn't see much hope for anything useful in the resolution. If anyone wants to read it, maybe I shall stand corrected.

Here's a quote ...

The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence. Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population.


So, they slam herd immunity without naming any support for that premise. The reference (#3) that they do refer to in the last sentence is about long-covid, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with their premise.

In short, this might be a decent undergrad term paper in a survey course covering Covid-19. How this got published in the Lancet, I'll never know.
Sadly, there are narratives and counter narratives to publish these days. I'm afraid the days of objective journals are gone.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,280
Reaction score
1,787
Points
113
This Lancet paper has 8 interesting references, but otherwise is a worthless paper. They really don't even say anything except more-or-less "we gotta do something about this Covid thing."That, plus a couple bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The main thing in the paper seems to be to introduce some resolution that they want you to sign. I didn't bother reading it, cuz if the paper was that bad, then I didn't see much hope for anything useful in the resolution. If anyone wants to read it, maybe I shall stand corrected.

Here's a quote ...

The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence. Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population.


So, they slam herd immunity without naming any support for that premise. The reference (#3) that they do refer to in the last sentence is about long-covid, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with their premise.

In short, this might be a decent undergrad term paper in a survey course covering Covid-19. How this got published in the Lancet, I'll never know.
The authors must realize a “large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population” has been occurring since March in the US in different areas of the country and is ongoing now in most European nations, Canada.

Without strict lockdowns, geographic isolation it seems logical to infer the spread is only delayed, not suppressed. We can decide to protect to the extent possible the vulnerable elderly and compromised via quality (N95+) masks and daily staff testing, guaranteed sick leave; urge others to (gasp) lose weight - has anybody seen ANY guidance from our public health overlords, Cassandra Osterholms regarding this singular enormous risk factor - and hope for an effective vaccine and/or underlying T cell mediated immune activity in a large percent of the population TBD.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,280
Reaction score
1,787
Points
113
Get outside, get to a gym, stop snacking, portion control. Diet of choice.


“The largest descriptive study yet of hospitalized U.S. COVID-19 patients, posted as a preprint last month by Genentech researchers, found that 77% of nearly 17,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were overweight (29%) or obese (48%). (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines overweight as having a BMI of 25 to 29.9 kilograms per square meter, and obesity as a BMI of 30 or greater.)

Another study captured the rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations among more than 334,000 people in England. Published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it found that although the rate peaked in people with a BMI of 35 or greater, it began to rise as soon as someone tipped into the overweight category. “Many people don’t realize they creep into that overweight category,” says first author Mark Hamer, an exercise physiologist at University College London.“



 
Top Bottom