The new Corona virus, should we worry?

RahSkiUMah

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
211
Reaction score
187
Points
43
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next several weeks. France has the daily equivalent of 140k cases right now, other European nations even more. Will hospitalizations and mortality follow? Will the US have an enormous winter surge? Some hypotheses about to be tested.
From a scientific perspective it is going to be fascinating. I am very curious to see if places that have surged and settled around 20% estimated infected will have further significant surges...

It’s getting interesting here in Wisconsin, hospitalizations went from about 300 people to 1100 people in a month. Multiple hospital systems have started to limit or apply tier systems to elective surgery.

Society isn’t going to collapse most people are going to be just fine, but hospital systems could be in trouble.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
another aspect. the Strib had a story the other day in which health officials claimed/suggested that some parents and children in MN are deliberately not getting tested because they don't want to drive the case rate up in their district - thereby risking that the local school would go to distance learning.

Why - because if the district goes to distance learning, then all sports are cancelled until the district can go back to in-person learning.

In other words, people are deliberately not being tested for a contagious disease, because their #1 priority is making sure their kids can play football or volleyball.

at least, that's what some state officials are contending.

ok - found the article:

But health officials, facing increasing challenges from parents, students and community members trying to conceal the spread of the virus to keep schools open and sports programs running, say those numbers are almost certainly an undercount.

Susan Klammer, an epidemiologist with the department, said in some communities, resistance to testing or quarantining after COVID-19 exposure has become more pronounced — and, in some cases, hostile — in the period since the Minnesota State High School League restarted school sports programs. Klammer said police have been called in cases where health workers were threatened for recommending that students quarantine, and students were threatened and harassed by their peers after seeking COVID-19 testing. Health officials have been notified of schools where groups of students have made pacts not to get tested, and to keep quiet if they think they are sick or have been exposed to the virus.
Is this as bad as damaging public trust by hiding hospitalization data?

As far as the article goes, people respond to incentives and are basically selfish. I’d guess there are numerous people that don’t want to get a 10-14 day involuntary vacation from work (or sport), potentially unpaid and thus avoid testing unless they are actively ill, unable to go in. Just wear a mask, aye. There may be others that don’t want to get the flu vaccine and risk later popping a low fever at daily work temp screening, and get sent for COVID testing, take the risk of testing positive with the same economic ramifications. There are probably others on the other end of the ledger with generous sick leave policies that are probably going to get tested every day or week.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
From a scientific perspective it is going to be fascinating. I am very curious to see if places that have surged and settled around 20% estimated infected will have further significant surges...

It’s getting interesting here in Wisconsin, hospitalizations went from about 300 people to 1100 people in a month. Multiple hospital systems have started to limit or apply tier systems to elective surgery.

Society isn’t going to collapse most people are going to be just fine, but hospital systems could be in trouble.
What are the demographics and locations of the outbreaks, or is it widespread?
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,901
Reaction score
722
Points
113
The Coronabros are not going to like this. Check it out before the Twitter police shut it down.

 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
16,360
Reaction score
2,739
Points
113
Fair enough. We look at things through different prisms.
The only prism is the correct application of government authority to prevent human to human transmission of a new virus, as optimally as possible given all known information and the state of the country and world.

Your "prism" is denying and rejecting government authority.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,872
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
FWIW - I got a flu shot Saturday. My local Hy Vee was having a flu shot clinic. I was sitting out in front of the store going through the screening, and - I kid you not - I was sitting in front of a pallet of the new "Kirk Cousins Cinna-MINN Snaps" cereal. Insert punchline here.

and now the numbers -


MN Covid-19 Update - Sunday, Oct 18

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Cases 122,524 +1,715. (positive test rate 5.7%)

Health-care workers with positive cases 12,423 +108.

Cases no longer needing isolation 108,316 +1,572.

Active cases 11,984 +118.

Deaths 2,224 +16.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,567 +13.

Total Hospitalized - cumulative 8,866 +65.

Total in ICU-cumulative 2,405 +12.

Total Tests processed 2,489,218 +30,020.

Number of people tested 1,681,318 +19,907.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
The only prism is the correct application of government authority to prevent human to human transmission of a new virus, as optimally as possible given all known information and the state of the country and world.

Your "prism" is denying and rejecting government authority.
If there were a feasible way to get case rates to a very low level and keep them there I’d be with you. Unfortunately as we have seen none of the governors have been successful in suppressing spread. You’re searching for the city of El Dorado. We all want it to go away, but it’s not going away in the near term.

Public education campaigns (completely MIA in California) on case numbers, hospitalization numbers, reduction of spread; support of frontline hospital workers in terms of PPE, disaster response, supply lines/therapeutics. We’re 10 months in and the PPE situation is still a disgrace. The general public has no clue how to properly wear masks, or have the right kind. It’s theater.

The worst part of this has been the academic censorship, social media censorship, dishonesty, misinformation and fear tactics from some quarters from day 1. Just be honest. Stop with the model projections. They are inaccurate beyond a few weeks. Be transparent with data. Stop with the “lack of immunity“, “reinfection”, “long hauler“, trumpeting of sky high rates of “myocarditis“ as accepted fact. This is “science” or unproven hypotheses not accepted or supported scientific evidence. Be honest with the data on cloth masks. Be honest in what we think we know and definitely don’t know.

Stop arresting surfers in the middle of the ocean, or shutting down parks. Many people have lost trust in their officials and frankly they have every reason to. Once positions are taken early on there are public optics, liability issues that tend to make policy people double down on positions.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
16,360
Reaction score
2,739
Points
113
FWIW - I got a flu shot Saturday. My local Hy Vee was having a flu shot clinic. I was sitting out in front of the store going through the screening, and - I kid you not - I was sitting in front of a pallet of the new "Kirk Cousins Cinna-MINN Snaps" cereal. Insert punchline here.

and now the numbers -


MN Covid-19 Update - Sunday, Oct 18

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive Cases 122,524 +1,715. (positive test rate 5.7%)

Health-care workers with positive cases 12,423 +108.

Cases no longer needing isolation 108,316 +1,572.

Active cases 11,984 +118.

Deaths 2,224 +16.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,567 +13.

Total Hospitalized - cumulative 8,866 +65.

Total in ICU-cumulative 2,405 +12.

Total Tests processed 2,489,218 +30,020.

Number of people tested 1,681,318 +19,907.
Target minuteclinics have them via appointment. Little if any waiting. Sign up for a time, show up at that time, get a stick in your shoulder, go buy whatever you need. You even get $5 coupon.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
16,360
Reaction score
2,739
Points
113
If there were a feasible way to get case rates to a very low level and keep them there I’d be with you. Unfortunately as we have seen none of the governors have been successful in suppressing spread. You’re searching for the city of El Dorado. We all want it to go away, but it’s not going away in the near term.

Public education campaigns (completely MIA in California) on case numbers, hospitalization numbers, reduction of spread; support of frontline hospital workers in terms of PPE, disaster response, supply lines/therapeutics. We’re 10 months in and the PPE situation is still a disgrace. The general public has no clue how to properly wear masks, or have the right kind. It’s theater.

The worst part of this has been the academic censorship, social media censorship, dishonesty, misinformation and fear tactics from some quarters from day 1. Just be honest. Stop with the model projections. They are inaccurate beyond a few weeks. Be transparent with data. Stop with the “lack of immunity“, “reinfection”, “long hauler“, trumpeting of sky high rates of “myocarditis“ as accepted fact. This is “science” or unproven hypotheses not accepted or supported scientific evidence. Be honest with the data on cloth masks. Be honest in what we think we know and definitely don’t know.

Stop arresting surfers in the middle of the ocean, or shutting down parks. Many people have lost trust in their officials and frankly they have every reason to. Once positions are taken early on there are public optics, liability issues that tend to make policy people double down on positions.
First para: it was never containable, short of Chinese lockdowns. You and/or others can hate China all you want (of course it's a farce that they created the virus or that they released it on purpose), but when something very important has to get done, all their leaders need to do is snap their fingers and it's done. None of this utter BS pissing, moaning, and tribal party fighting that we have in the US, Europe, and other democracies.

Second para: don't follow what the first sentence is ... are you saying those things need to be done or have been done or haven't been done? Fine with you complaining about PPE or proper mask usage, though lots of people refuse to even wear them, so even just to get people to have something over their facehole, is more than nothing.

Rest of it: all over the place. Mostly comes off as you exercising your Libertarian rage, to me.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
692
Points
113
Be transparent with data. Stop with the “lack of immunity“, “reinfection”, “long hauler“, trumpeting of sky high rates of “myocarditis“ as accepted fact. This is “science” or unproven hypotheses not accepted or supported scientific evidence. Be honest with the data on cloth masks. Be honest in what we think we know and definitely don’t know.
I agree, but the media needs clickbait, its just a fact. All info is available if you care to look. Better info straight from gov would be good tho.

The only real on going concern(if you are low risk) is icu capacity. If the hospitals fill up we will get hit with lots more economic pain even if they don't add any restrictions.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
I agree, but the media needs clickbait, its just a fact. All info is available if you care to look. Better info straight from gov would be good tho.

The only real on going concern(if you are low risk) is icu capacity. If the hospitals fill up we will get hit with lots more economic pain even if they don't add any restrictions.
There is real harm being done by amplification of misinformation on potential complications. Physical and psychological. Insult to injury.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
Yikes! Now they are suppressing studies that don't fit the mask narrative:

View attachment 9808
The DANMASK 19 study and others need to see the light of day. This BMJ editorial/opinion from Sept asks why non-pharma interventions have not been well-studied:





Non-drug interventions should be based on evidence. We need to generate this to inform the covid-19 and future pandemics, argues Margaret McCartney
Almost 1300 controlled trials have been registered for drug interventions for covid-19.1 Among them have been large, well powered, international trials that have assessed the effectiveness of treatments such as dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine. But why have non-drug interventions not been subject to the same interrogation?

The BESSI Collaboration (Behavioural, Environmental, Social, and Systems Interventions (for pandemic preparedness)) is currently being developed. But so far only 10 controlled trials of non-drug interventions have been registered, with three reported.

This makes no sense. Drug interventions are generally aimed at a relatively small group of people who have been infected and are ill. Non-drug interventions, such as physical distancing, face coverings, or school patterns of re-opening, are aimed at whole population groups, and yet these are hardly being tested.

But these interventions affect more people. In the initial weeks of a pandemic, I understand the need to make urgent decisions using best guess judgment. But over time we have ample opportunity to consider which other interventions in use are effective, which are not, and which have unintended consequences that outweigh potential benefits. We take drug trials seriously because we recognise the possibility of iatrogenic fatalities: we seek the protection of a data monitoring committee and acknowledge that good intentions are not enough. Why is this not the case for non-drug strategies?

It is as though non-drug interventions are not considered capable of doing harm, or regarded as either too hard to investigate, or too obviously beneficial to bother with trials. I think this is an error. A recent analysis in The BMJ argued that concern about risk compensation was a “dead horse” that “now needs burying to try and prevent the threat it poses through slowing the adoption of effective public health interventions.”2 Using the example of face masks, evidence was cited which found no clear reduction in concurrent hand washing with mask wearing. But this is not the only possible form of risk compensation. The fundamental question is whether face coverings reduce harm to people in the population. For example, do supermarkets rely on face coverings instead of physical distancing and is this harmful? Do face coverings give people confidence to leave home more, and take more risks when they are out?

There are large gaps in our knowledge and without clear evidence on the use of cloth masks in the community we may be wearing false reassurance.34 Observation of the use of face coverings, in real life, finds that they are commonly worn incorrectly.5 Nor have we considered enough the broader societal impact. People with histories of trauma, or who have hearing difficulties, are placed at disadvantage.6 Yet those who do not wear face coverings are categorised, by proponents of face coverings, as “deviants from the new norm.”7 Societal cohesion is risked by dividing rather than understanding behaviour. These are all harms. Nor do we have a clear “end” strategy. We need less panic and more practical, pragmatic research.

But how? In the past few days the UK government has changed its mind over face masks in schools. It would be far more honest and transparent for the government to explain the difficulty of making recommendations without evidence and for medical advisers to explain the need to obtain it. Without underestimating the effort required, it would be possible to randomise schools in geographical areas to “usual care” or “masks supplied,” giving children resources and instruction on how to use them, obtaining data on infections both in the school and in the community. Stepped wedge trials would also be possible. Knowing what works will either support roll out or ensure we do not waste resources. If we can do international trials of drugs, we should be able to work across local authorities. Public health departments, with their intimate knowledge of regions, could support researchers in the community. The UK public should be allowed the opportunity to contribute, in keeping with the partnership model between patients and clinicians that the NHS supports. If we want public trust—possibly the most important thing in the management of a pandemic—we must earn it.

Another argument is that large scale trials, say of face mask use in schools, are impossible, because of the belief that every child would need a guardian to consent, making recruitment practically impossible. But this is deeply problematic. This suggests that the government can choose and implement any policy, without requiring any individual consent, as long as it is not called a trial. For as long as this double standard is allowed to persist, giving less powerful results and unnecessary uncertainty, people may come to avoidable harm. Nor does valuable information come only from randomised controlled trials. Complex interventions require multiple disciplines and types of research for assessment. But where are they?

And so bravo to the Germans for the Restart19 project, which is a study comprised of several sub projects to assess the risk of holding a major sporting or cultural event indoors.8 Chapeau to the Danish, who have set up two trials. The DANMASK randomised controlled trial, will study whether face masks protect the wearer against covid-19.9 Another Danish group is running a trial of community made cloth masks in Guinea-Bissau.10 In Norway, trialling full opening versus partial re-opening in all primary schools over four weeks was planned, but the government withdrew support.11 The researchers intend, however, to prepare a similar trial so that it can begin if infections in Norway rise. Further, they are planning a prospective study of university students to assess whether on-campus teaching is associated with a higher risk of covid-19 infection compared with online learning.12 This work can rationally inform what we do now and in the future. Further, detailed research can identify health inequalities and generate information on how to reduce them.

We need trials because we cannot presume that non-drug interventions won’t do harm or waste resources, thereby diverting attention and money. There is past form on this. In Australia, baby simulators were used to try and reduce teenage pregnancy but a cluster randomised controlled trial found that it had the opposite effect.13 The “Scared Straight” programme was used to try and deter young people at high risk of committing criminal acts, but resulted in increasing criminality, at large cost.14 Dr Spock’s well meaning, seemingly sensible advice to lay babies on their fronts to sleep was associated with at least 50 000 infant deaths.15

In Scotland, arrangements for blended learning (a mix of online and in-class teaching) were abandoned with a decision to have all children return to school full time after preparations had been made. Yet this would have been a good opportunity for a trial, randomising across geographical areas. It could have given rapid, helpful results, and opportunity for qualitative research on the wider social impacts. Trials for colleges and universities need to be planned right now. Covid-19 is not going away anytime soon, and we are squandering the opportunity to learn for this pandemic—and the next.

Footnotes
  • Competing interests: MMcC is a senior fellow for evidence and values at the Royal College of General Practitioners, and a freelance writer and broadcaster who receives royalties for three books. She gives a small amount regularly to Keep our NHS public and is honorary fellow at the CEBM Oxford.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
2,095
Reaction score
692
Points
113
This makes no sense. Drug interventions are generally aimed at a relatively small group of people who have been infected and are ill. Non-drug interventions, such as physical distancing, face coverings, or school patterns of re-opening, are aimed at whole population groups, and yet these are hardly being tested.
Makes sense, drugs make someone money and therefore a system is in place to test them. Your right tho we should be testing other interventions just like we should be testing all kinds of things that don't make people rich, in general we don't do that.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
First para: it was never containable, short of Chinese lockdowns. You and/or others can hate China all you want (of course it's a farce that they created the virus or that they released it on purpose), but when something very important has to get done, all their leaders need to do is snap their fingers and it's done. None of this utter BS pissing, moaning, and tribal party fighting that we have in the US, Europe, and other democracies.

Second para: don't follow what the first sentence is ... are you saying those things need to be done or have been done or haven't been done? Fine with you complaining about PPE or proper mask usage, though lots of people refuse to even wear them, so even just to get people to have something over their facehole, is more than nothing.

Rest of it: all over the place. Mostly comes off as you exercising your Libertarian rage, to me.
Paragraph 1: we can a)become an autocratic dystopian nightmare state (China), b) dig a moat around the United States, c) obtain 10% or less obesity as in Asian nations instead of 40%, d) ask people to not be dumbasses.

Paragraph 2: these are things we could do better on a national, state, county, municipal level. Unfortunately we have political activists sabotaging public trust at every turn, denialists at the top, and rapacious capitalists running health systems/hospitals. Would TimWalz support ending Agra subsidies for corn-based diet bombs in a war on obesity? 🤔

Paragraph 3: We are bombarded with weakly supported hypotheses. People yelling at each other about the “truth” which we don’t have. This has been a Waterloo year for science, so far. Stay tuned.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
Makes sense, drugs make someone money and therefore a system is in place to test them. Your right tho we should be testing other interventions just like we should be testing all kinds of things that don't make people rich, in general we don't do that.
Public universities and other entities are in a position to perform these activities when there is little payoff. Some people already “know” and have their minds made up. Dexamethasone and similar, HCQ are not moneymakers and have been studied fairly extensively so far.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,652
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
For those that didn’t read the whole editorial above this was interesting 😆




We need trials because we cannot presume that non-drug interventions won’t do harm or waste resources, thereby diverting attention and money. There is past form on this. In Australia, baby simulators were used to try and reduce teenage pregnancy but a cluster randomised controlled trial found that it had the opposite effect.13 The “Scared Straight” programme was used to try and deter young people at high risk of committing criminal acts, but resulted in increasing criminality, at large cost.14 Dr Spock’s well meaning, seemingly sensible advice to lay babies on their fronts to sleep was associated with at least 50 000 infant deaths.15
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
724
Points
113
Why is the CDC not have a national conversation about obesity? Who knows, maybe the CDC is trying but the media won't touch it?

Want to beat covid? Attack obesity
Want to beat lessen heart disease? Obesity
Diabetes Type II? Obesity
Lower health care costs? Obesity

Obesity rates have really good correlation with Covid experience in nations. Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam- all incredibly low obesity rates 2%- 6% range. Vietnam- 90 million people- 35 deaths- 2% obesity.

US- 40%

But Trump! That's why we are not hearing much about obesity right now- it goes against the orange man bad narrative of the media. If obesity is the real underlying issue that exacerbates the covid problem then it wouldn't be Trump's fault. So let's not discuss.

The media is the enemy of the people. It should be the voice of the people and the voice of truth. Instead it is the voice of lies and propaganda.
Biden was trying to use this point ["But Trump!" and the US obesity] against Trump when he claimed that "if Trump didn't do something [sic] soon, the Covid deaths among black population would double in a mere 3 months," but the 1.5 X ratio between Covid black deaths per million and total deaths per million in the US, is totally explainable by the demographic difference of worse diet and more obesity among black population (and of course, worse diet might in turn be explainable by other demographic factors).

Of course, Biden wanted to make it into a racial thing (because his support is eroding among black voters), but he could equally well have said, "if Trump didn't do something [sic] soon, the Covid deaths among fat population would double in a mere 3 months."

The "[sic]" is not there to indicate some sort of spelling or grammatical error, but rather to indicate a huge semantic error on Biden's part, namely his implied assumption that Trump was a causal factor in these hypothetical Covid-related events. Of course, the other semantic error by Biden was his way-off overestimation of potential Covid deaths in the last 3 months of the year - however, there are numerous way-off-base Covid models to choose from. It's almost "pick your desired conclusioin that you want to make" and then "find a wacky model among the 30 or so models available" to provide support for your desired conclusion.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
724
Points
113
What is in the bill Wally? Blue state (lock down) bail outs, elimination of voter ID? If so - no thanks.
Devil is in the Blue details.
This should be the world's easiest bill. Always pork. Both sides do it. Just ridiculous!
> Always pork. Both sides do it. Just ridiculous!

Both sides do it, but historically at least, there has been a gentleman's agreement that the fatty pork was there for the purpose of inter-party negotiation to arrive at a compromise bill.

In this case, the 1.8 to 2.2 $trillion difference (18%) should not be the barrier for at least starting the negotiation. Rather, Nancy Pelosi (and some of her Dem troops, not all, as some Dems are arguing "let's get this thing done") is literally refusing to negotiate. She is quite willing to screw the US population through next January (February by time of implementation) over her hatred for Trump and refusal to give Trump any partial win that might result from a compromise right now.

If not this time, then next election, I hope the millions of Californians that went bankrupt and homeless thanks to Pelosi's political unwillingness to negotiate, vote her out of office.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
724
Points
113
This was in response to the Great Barrington Declaration that was even more vague. Essentially just says to stop lockdowns and shoot for herd immunity. But no plan on how to actually do it. Do we isolate 30% of the population? This is also stating that protecting the vulnerable would be impossible if we just let the virus spread uncontrollably.
In at least a partial sense, the new Lancet paper appears to be support for the Great Barrington Declaration. In the sense that both herd and vaccine immunity can work. This other declaration (from the weak paper, and thank you for digesting it) maybe purports to be another argument for, but as you noted, it is very weak in the sense that now that we've (approximately) resolved the primary question of efficacy (for herd immunity or vaccine immunity), the secondary question remains of "what about the vulnerable." No action plan at all.
 
Last edited:

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,162
Reaction score
1,537
Points
113
In at least a partial sense, the new Lancet paper appears to be support for the Great Barrington Declaration. In the sense that both herd and vaccine immunity can work. This other declaration (from the weak paper, and thank you for digesting it) maybe purports to be another argument for , but as you noted, it is very weak in the sense that now that we've (approximately) resolved the primary question of efficacy, the secondary question remains of "what about the vulnerable." No action plan at all.
That continues to be the issue. 8 months into this and still no plan.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
724
Points
113
Trump is Obese, you think his CDC will say anything about it? ROTFLMAO good luck.

I agree with you tho.
Maybe Trump should lead by dropping 30 pounds by Christmas. A two-cheeseburger per day plus water diet, maybe?
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
724
Points
113
six consecutive days with positive test rate 6% or higher.

note- the 'beds in use' site only reports on weekdays, so no updated daily numbers for patients hospitalized and in ICU.

One of my co-workers has been out sick all week. he got a covid test, but doesn't have the results back yet, and company policy says he can't return until he gets the result, so I'm trying to cover all of his duties and my own simultaneously. Which sucks donkey dicks.

MN Covid-19 Update - Sat, Oct 17

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive cases 120,818 +1,682. (positive test rate 6.2%)

Health-Care Workers with positive cases 12,315 +146.

Cases no longer requiring isolation 106,744 +1,624.

Active Cases 11,866 +44.

Deaths 2,208 +5.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 1,554 +1.

Total Hospitalized- cumulative 8,801 +83.

Total In ICU- cumulative 2,393 +18.

Total tests processed 2,458,271 +27,145.

Number of People tested 1,661,351 +14,649.
> One of my co-workers has been out sick all week. he got a covid test, but doesn't have the results back yet, and company policy says he can't return until he gets the result, so I'm trying to cover all of his duties and my own simultaneously.

Plus publish MN Covid statistics daily. Hang in there, SON.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
724
Points
113
That was mentioned, along with part of the editorial implying systemic racism is to blame for minorities sometimes not socially distancing, sometimes acting irresponsibly, perhaps at disproportionate rates. In CA for example Latinos have a 3.4x greater rate of Covid-19 test positivity than collectively Asians, whites, blacks. Why? Why does my neighbor hold large bashes throughout the height of a pandemic? Is culture part of it? You betcha.

Poor eating habits, sedentary lifestyles, also the fault of society.
> In CA for example Latinos have a 3.4x greater rate of Covid-19 test positivity ...

It would be interesting to correlate (by demographic) all of {test positivity, number of people in family unit, inverse of size of living quarters]. I'm betting $1 that California Latinos have a larger number people living in a home or apartment with a smaller number of square feet.

Ya think it's easier to get infected if you're living in close quarters with a larger number of people? Of course. It's simple math and probability.

> ... systemic racism is to blame for minorities sometimes not socially distancing, sometimes acting irresponsibly, perhaps at disproportionate rates.

The idea that systemic racism is to blame for minorities ...
  • ... not social distancing (at disproportionate rates)
  • ... sometimes acting irresponsibly (at disproportionate rates)
... is absolutely ludicrous.

To the extent that systemic racism exists (and some does, for sure, just not in the epic proportions that some lunatics claim), then certainly blacks might be subject to the latter-conjectured phenomena, as well. But you don't see blacks with a 3.4x greater rate of Covid-19 test positivity. Not sure what that stat would be, but I doubt 3.4x. You do see blacks with 1.5x the Covid-19 death rate, but I think only a fraction of that is due to increased positivity, with the remainder due to other factors.
 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,872
Reaction score
1,477
Points
113
I'm not a science guy, but the fact that case numbers keep going up, and the positive test rate remains fairly high, seems to indicate that this virus has really permeated the entire country. it's everywhere.

Osterholm was on CCO the other day, and he said that, as a practical matter, waiting for herd immunity will not work, because (he said) that would result in many more cases, more hospitalizations and more deaths.

Even Walz has said that another lockdown isn't practical. the people would not take it and the economy can't take it.

So, what is left? Waiting for a vaccine - hoping like h*ll it works - and keeping to the face coverings, social distancing, hand washing routine.

Yeah, I'm sick of it. but what is the alternative?

the Darwinian notion of letting the old, the sick and the obese get the virus and die may make sense in a certain way, but no medical professional or elected official could endorse that plan and get away with it.

For the people saying "let me live my life," well, if you could guarantee that you - and you alone - would get the virus, and would not spread it to anyone else, I'd be willing to make that deal. But, of course, you cannot make that guarantee.

There are no good solutions here.
 
Top Bottom