The new Corona virus, should we worry?

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
Not sure if this has been brought up in this thread. Nick Saban test positive for COVID then has three negative tests in a row which would indicate the his positive test was a false positive.

When a state records a positive test are they retesting that individual again? If states are just recording positive tests whether they’re a false positive or not the total number of COVID cases should not by taken serious as any kind of metric.
As far as I know, there is no such system to track positives versus negatives.

I make this claim simply from the perspective of a computer-science expert and from general systems principles. The probability that some lazy government-salary person would have been so smart as to implement such a system in sufficient time for handling Covid statistics (or even in the 6 months since Covid has been a major problem) is infinitesimal.

> If states are just recording positive tests whether they’re a false positive or not the total number of COVID cases should not by taken serious as any kind of metric.

Well, that's what is happening (at least if you accept my above conjecture). [And as noted, different states hande what they do collect, differently.]

Nevertheless, it's the only kind of metric we have, and we have to do the best with what we have - while at the time assessing those values both with the proper grain of salt, and to the extent possible, applying guestimated fudge factors to try to correct the numbers as best we can. It's a heck of a conundrum for a scrupled statistician or data scientist. However, data-cleansing is the most laborious part of the data-scientist role. But how to clean, that is the question. Bottom line, we should consider any of these statistics to be accurate to no more than 1 significant digit. Yet we report them to about 6 significant digits, only because we are interested in their derivatives (rates) and you need to estimate to ridiculous levels of faux-accuracy just to get the derivatives to 1-2 digits of accuracy.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
I agree with this other than I believe the media knows exactly what they’re doing.

Curious to see if Biden wins the election if the media’s reporting turns from case count to more of a concentration on % positivity and hospitalizations.
> ... if the media’s reporting turns from case count to more of a concentration on % positivity and hospitalizations.

Dream on!

They will focus on case count, because that will be both the biggest number and the fastest growing number, and the media can take advantage of the fact that 99% of the viewers do not have an f-ing clue that a case right now is two orders of magnitude less serious than a case at the height of the New York/New Jersey wholesale slaughter (since the number of true infections per case is much lower now, and the demographics (mainly age distribution) of the infected are much younger now and thus much less likely to die or have lasting long-term consequences).

Remember, the media are not focused on positive outcomes for the country. The media are focused on click counts and ad views - in other words, the economic bottom line for the media outlet. Positive outcomes for the country are diametrically opposed to the desired outcomes of most media outlets.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
We know somewhere around 1% or so of PCR tests are false positives because of automated lab process flaws, contamination, human element.

Question: if a traveler dies of Covid-19 in one state, is that death reported to CDC in that state, or state of residence? Are there cross checks by SS# or other identifier to avoid double counts? I’d like to think there are processes in place to account for this but...
... but in answer to your question ... almost certainly no, there are no nationwide cross checks. Maybe in China where they have nationwide face recognition and nationwide social scores.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
That’s true, if you’re not really aiming to drive cases to 0, does it have a big impact on the numbers?
Your observation is correct.

If we're not aiming to drive cases to zero, but our goal is to derive cases to "approximately zero," then we can ignore the noise since in that scenario we are only interested in approximate cases, which is what we would actually have in that scenario.

The real problem comes in when the various state authorities (especially in Dem-ruled states) have established a criterion-for-success (which in turn rules the policy-making process) that is ostensibly based on trying to drive (actual, accurate count of) infections to zero, but in reality we only have very inaccurate estimates of case counts, not infection counts.

That is the goal scenario in many states (although not all). Under those conditions, you have multiple ongoing scientific f-ups by the state rulers. First, they fail to acknowledge that the numbers are mostly noise, in fact more noise than data in some cases. They are then attempting to drive the noise down to zero, which the designer of any electronic circuit can tell you is absolutely impossible.

Then too, they are (or are at least wanting to, but hardly anybody but @CutDownTheNet is calling their bluff on it) considering a case right now to be as terrible as a case back in April, and these are just not equivalent for the many reasons I have elucidated many times over. So some state governors are mandating themselves into a can-never-win scenario.

The worst case seems to be California, whose governor (or maybe it's just the San Francisco mayor, I forget which) appears to be a nitwit of even bigger proportions than Cuomo (and that's saying a lot). They are now mandating (according to some bogus Critical Covid Theory, I guess?) equal-outcome Covid results. That is, they won't open things up until Covid results are equal among all demographics (not sure if the demographics in question are just racial, or also gender based). So, to the extent that California Latinos might have 3.4x the Covid infection rate, or blacks might have 1.5x the Covid death rate, California says, apparently, that we can't open up until we have equal-opportunity(-results actually) Covid infections and equal-opportunity(-results actually) Covid deaths. Of course, all the latter is not only total scientific incompetence by the Cali governor, but also insanity of such a high degree that the responsible authorities (not sure if this is at the state level or just the city level) ought to be given a free ride to the funny farm.
 
Last edited:

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,953
Reaction score
1,665
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.
As bad as it sounds SON, I think many, maybe most people need to be personally affected by this or have a good scare put into them before they change their behavior. Outside of burned out, empty compassion meter, PTSD-riddled health care workers dealing with the death and dying on a daily basis and those highly anxious individuals/worried-well, the threat of COVID-19 seems as distant as a heart attack or a metastatic cancer diagnosis for so many.

Will self-preservation behaviors click on in our lizard brains at some point in a local surge (ie Wisconsin and the Dakotas at the moment) and mitigate the spread?

Will Biden have some sort of wunderwaffen Jedi mind trick ability to make people behave or cooperate with contact tracers, should he get in?

Will the T cell hypothesis end up holding any water at all?
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,493
Reaction score
1,866
Points
113
Oh, and filling high risk facilities with infected folks.
Is this still happening? (Not really asking you specifically but more others here that actually post evidence instead of saying “it’s true because I say so”)
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
Who funds this ****.

Serious question. Guys, listen, you’ve tried really hard, but you’re not good at this. Your schizophrenic up and down predictions from spring onward are beyond silly at this point. You’re off the rails loony birds just throwing darts. Perhaps your funds can go towards tuition reimbursement at U Dub. You’re fired.
> Our model update this week forecasts that the US will reach nearly 317,000 #COVID19 deaths by Dec. 1. That's up from our forecast last week by 7k.

As we speak (Sunday Oct 18, 2020), the US has a Covid death toll of 224,776. Subtracting from 317,000, we get that the IHME predicts another 92,224 Covid deaths by December 1st. That's equivalent to an average of 2,096 deaths per day over the next 44 days.

The current daily average US Covid death rate (smoothed over two weeks in which it was nearly linear) is 757 deaths per day. In order to move from an average of 757 per day to an average of 2,096 per day, it would have to end up at a daily rate of 3,435 deaths per day on December 1. In other words, daily US Covid deaths would have to increase by a factor of 4.537 X between now and 44 days later.

This IHME conjecture (of hitting 317,000 deaths by December 1st) is thus mathematically insane! That is, its projection is insanely high. The IHME model is not science based, but rather, it's insanity based.

> If mask wearing in public increases to 95%, more than 67,000 lives could be saved.

Under this sub-prediction, that reduces (from the IHME primary prediction) the predicted additional US Covid deaths by December 1st from 92,224 to a smaller 25,224. The latter translates to 573 US Covid deaths per day, on average, over the 44-day period from now to December 1st. That's a lowering from the current 757 per day. And actually, that's not too far off from reality, given that these predictions were made in August (and I have the advantage of predicting from an October perspective).

From my experience (limited to only one city in one state) we already have 95% of the people wearing masks in public places. So really, their second proposition of "if mask wearing in public inceases to 95%" is already true. Maybe other states are less religious than mine about masks. So I don't know how we're going to get the average Covid deaths per day reduced down to a net-smaller-by 183 deaths-per-day just due to additional mask-wearing, when nearly all are already wearing masks, and under those conditions the deaths per day has been going strictly sideways for the last 3 weeks. Now perhaps the disastrous IHME predictions were predicated on very little mask wearing, and the fact that we have worn masks fairly consistently, has nudged us closer to their with-masks prediction - and if so, then my earlier prediction that their model was now +/-10% was close to true.

But taking the IHME projections at face value, I could agree with the latter (lower) death-rate trajectory under one major additional condition, namely that instantaneously everyone in America were provided with an N-95 mask to wear (instead of the weak cloth masks). That could provide such an improvement. But many of us have been clamoring for N-95 masks for months now, and the N-95 supply chain still seems to have not caught up to demand. So no dice - we will be going sideways in daily deaths for the foreseeable future, since there's very little room for improvement in mask usage when it's already at 95% in a lot of states.

> Who funds this ****.

In a word, Bill Gates.

The IHME is a project that supposedly involves about 80 PhD researchers (on a part-time basis). Plus probably some computer programmers and software architects to make modifications to the code. The majority of funding comes from Bill Gates or his foundation.

Now many months ago, I was satisfied to simply poke major fun of the IHME model since its short-term (on the order of a month or so out) predictions were accurate to +/-25% whereas my simplistic model was accurate to about +/-1%. You can find these results scattered among the posts in this thread. Just for the record, I do not have a PhD degree in epidemiology (or any other field) but rather a bachelors' degree plus a lifetime of continuing education, and Bill Gates hasn't given me a dime.

The IHME model all of a sudden got a lot more accurate a few months ago, being (at that time, by my estimate) improved to about +/-10% accuracy. Then all of a sudden its predictions went way wacky again, such that its most current predictions are so totally wacky that (quoting them) Biden implicitly claimed that Covid deaths might double in less than 3 months (this was at the first debate). It looks like the sole purpose of the IHME model at this point in time is to act as a (partly) credible source of lies for Joe Biden to quote.

What this says to me (that is, the fact that the IHME model is now so wacky that it makes a mockery of the scientific method - if anyone still believes that IHME used the scientific method in any way/shape/form in developing its current model) is that the IHME model is not a scientific model at all. Rather, it can only be a bunch of scientists and computer jocks who have prostituted themselves to kissing Bill Gates ass, politically speaking.

That is, the only rational conclusion I can come to is that Bill Gates gives them some target numbers that their model must hit, all based on politically motivated goals set by Bill Gates himself, and then his flunkies go to work to tweak their BS IHME model to hit that arbitrary political goal.

That's simply the only way that the IHME model can be as insane as I have proven it to be, above. I mean, seriously, IHME makes even Osterholm look semi-honest.

> Serious question. Guys, listen, you’ve tried really hard, but you’re not good at this. Your schizophrenic up and down predictions from spring onward are beyond silly at this point. You’re off the rails loony birds just throwing darts. Perhaps your funds can go towards tuition reimbursement at U Dub. You’re fired.

Agree completely. But good luck firing Bill Gates.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
47,781
Reaction score
5,472
Points
113
Active cases/million:

MN 2,164
WI 5,905
ND 7,416
IA 7,538
SD 9,057
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
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.
Not to mention that some parents (who typically have gone back to work) have no plan-B for kid-sitting resources if their children go back to online education. So it's a double-whammy to those parents (too-high testing means no sports plus a huge cost in arranging for someone to supervise their kids during at-home learning).
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
Is this still happening? (Not really asking you specifically but more others here that actually post evidence instead of saying “it’s true because I say so”)
No, not anymore. But now the issue is more that the governor(s) are failing to take easy steps that they could do, to protect seniors in nursing homes and LTCFs. They are already isolated with limited visitation, so that part of the problem is covered. Now all they need to do is give them and their staff cheap/quick antibody tests twice weekly. Easy and cheap way for (Minnesota, for instance) to decimate deaths in nursing homes and LTCFs, which in turn decimates total deaths (since in Minnesota, it's still about 70% of deaths from nursing homes) - but crickets from both Walz and the legislature. About time for the legislature to grow a pair, since Timmy has proven himself to be a eunuch w.r.t. Covid policy.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
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.
> (of course it's a farce that they created the virus or that they released it on purpose)

By my revised estimate of the probabilistic logic of the matter ...

There's about a 70% probability that the Chinese "made" this virus, based off a previously collected bat-virus sample, and that it was accidentally released into the wild via a lab accident (thanks to very lax lab-security situation).

There is approximately nil chance that it was released on purpose. Even the Chinese Communists are not that stupid.

But the scale has been tilted (thank you, Occam's Razor) more in the direction of it most likely being a synthetic virus synthesized from a natural bat-borne virus, by means of Gain-of-Function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The chances of it being a natural virus that somebody got from eating a bat bought at the Market, are about 30% or less, at this point. The Market might also be involved, if someone from the Lab was selling dead bats at the Market.

> when something very important has to get done, all their [Chinese Communist Party] 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.

It's true that we could have had better Covid results with an authoritarian approach similar to that used by the Communist Chinese. You could say that we pay a steep price for our freedoms. Not sure many (except those on their Covid deathbeds and their loved ones) would give up their US constitutional freedoms in exchange for China Covid results plus Chinese Communist dictatorship-by-the-CCP.

It would be a gawd-awful conspiracy theory to believe that the Chinese intetionally released Covid to the world just to show how much better an authoritarian Communist regime can deal with it (and thus create the desire among some to go Communist).

> Rest of it: all over the place.

Rest of it: a pretty good summary of how badly various powers and organizations have played the US Covid cards.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
The Coronabros are not going to like this. Check it out before the Twitter police shut it down.

I think this is a new post of a fragment of an old video, right? I haven't heard of a new public meeting of "the whitecoat doctors" lately.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,761
Reaction score
2,456
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.
Is someone forcing you to interact with infected people? Can you not wear a mask, social distance, sanitize you hands, etc.? So herd immunity isn’t an option. Are we expected to have partial shutdowns until vaccines have been distributed widely? It seems to me that you have total control over how much you might be exposed to the spread of the virus. If people don’t want to be as compelled to obey and are willing to take some risk of being exposed, why should you have a say over their freedom of choice?

My brother and his wife, and other family members of mine, are living somewhat reclusive lives to minimize the risk of being exposed. Great. That is probably wise for their circumstances. Why should others be forced to follow government mandates when people can be responsibly secluded for their protection, if they are willing to take some risk?
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
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.
Very astute observations here, SON, albeit containing some of the grim outlooks that perhaps some of us are loathe to admit. I say, better to confront the facts so that we can have more people thinking about possible solutions.

> 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.

Osterholm is ever the source of partial truths, partial insights, and partial exaggerations. It's not quite as bad as the Osterholms and the Bill Gates of the world would have us believe.

Waiting for herd immunity will still have some painful consequences, but I believe that a combination of herd immunity plus early-arrival vaccine immunity can work.

First of all, unless all the vaccines go bust or are delayed indefinitely, we should probably stop considering here/vaccine immunity to be separate things, and acknowledge that instead we should be talking about herd+vaccine immunity. Because that's the way it works in practice. Sure, the theoretical epidemiologists just call the former herd immunity since they are always talking in an abstract environment (never bolted to any reality of some vaccine potentially being on the near horizon). But in practice (and also in theory, if you incorporate potential vaccine into the theory) there are two ways you can get immunity for about 8 months to a year - namely an effective vaccine injection or having been effected.

That makes two ways of individual people attaining immunity. Three ways, actually, when you add that some people have some sort of natural immunity (and although we are far from sure, some people (including myself) suspect that many (including the young whose immune systems are great) have the equivalent of pre-immunity without being infected or being injected with a vaccine. What is really needed is a proper three-way theoretical model for herd+vaccine+natural immunity. And at this point, I don't know enough about theoretical epidemiology to be sure if a formula exists for that, but I will research that in the future.

So if we had the latter formula, plus an accurate estimate for natural immunity percent, plus an estimate for potential vaccine immunity percent, plus decent data-based estimates of herd immunity percent, plus a good estimate of R value, then we could have a good estimate of how close our current herd+vaccine+natural immunity percent is to the relevant HVNIT. I just made up that last acronym, based on the normal epidemiology HIT (Herd Immunity Threashold), to stand for combined Herd+Vaccine+Natural Immunity Threshold.

If we knew all this (which I think we don't currently, at least not nearly accurately enough) then we actually might find that some US states are much closer to herd+vaccine+natural immunity than we thought, while other states (that got a late start) are still in the process of getting there.

So I'm a little more positive than might be the natural bleak reaction to your astute analysis.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,053
Reaction score
1,220
Points
113
But Sweden.....

Sweden is moving away from its no-lockdown strategy and preparing strict new rules amid rising coronavirus cases
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,036
Reaction score
1,619
Points
113
Osterholm was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. a few excerpts, courtesy of 'Business Insider' of all places:

Dr. Michael Osterhom, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, warned Sunday that the next three months may be the "darkest of the entire pandemic," citing a "major problem in messaging" related to COVID-19.

"We do have vaccines and therapeutics coming down the pike," Osterholm said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "But when you actually look at the time period for that, the next six-to-12 weeks are going to be the darkest of the entire pandemic.

Osterholm told host Chuck Todd that despite some progress, "vaccines will not become available in any meaningful way until early to third quarter of next year."

"Friday, we had 70,000 cases, matching the largest number we had seen back during the really serious peak in July," he said Sunday. "That number, we're going to blow right through that. And between now and the holidays, we will see numbers much, much larger than even the 67,000 to 75,000 cases."
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
26,493
Reaction score
1,866
Points
113
Is someone forcing you to interact with infected people? Can you not wear a mask, social distance, sanitize you hands, etc.? So herd immunity isn’t an option. Are we expected to have partial shutdowns until vaccines have been distributed widely? It seems to me that you have total control over how much you might be exposed to the spread of the virus. If people don’t want to be as compelled to obey and are willing to take some risk of being exposed, why should you have a say over their freedom of choice?

My brother and his wife, and other family members of mine, are living somewhat reclusive lives to minimize the risk of being exposed. Great. That is probably wise for their circumstances. Why should others be forced to follow government mandates when people can be responsibly secluded for their protection, if they are willing to take some risk?
Except many people can’t just protect themselves due to their jobs. Not everyone has the option of working from home, and many people have to work in close contact with many others. Then add in that 25% of people don’t have paid sick time.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
3,053
Reaction score
1,220
Points
113
The next couple months will be interesting, I just hope my kids can stay in school now that we are paying for it. Now more than ever is the time to be extra careful.
 

RahSkiUMah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
345
Reaction score
343
Points
63
No, not anymore. But now the issue is more that the governor(s) are failing to take easy steps that they could do, to protect seniors in nursing homes and LTCFs. They are already isolated with limited visitation, so that part of the problem is covered. Now all they need to do is give them and their staff cheap/quick antibody tests twice weekly. Easy and cheap way for (Minnesota, for instance) to decimate deaths in nursing homes and LTCFs, which in turn decimates total deaths (since in Minnesota, it's still about 70% of deaths from nursing homes) - but crickets from both Walz and the legislature. About time for the legislature to grow a pair, since Timmy has proven himself to be a eunuch w.r.t. Covid policy.
I very much support your campaign for more targeted and smart approaches to this whole thing, but I do have to ask, has your view on this strategy changed at all given the White House outbreak? Presumably, they were testing everybody new who came in contact with the President, yet likely a single event (and probably person) infected 30(?) people.

From a numbers perspective, would I be wrong to assume the higher community spread the higher the chance that the virus sneaks into a LTCF?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,761
Reaction score
2,456
Points
113
Except many people can’t just protect themselves due to their jobs. Not everyone has the option of working from home, and many people have to work in close contact with many others. Then add in that 25% of people don’t have paid sick time.
You’re ignoring the fact that CV19 is basically the flu for people under age 55, and especially if those above 55 take personal precautions. It’s such a small number of people that are above age 55 that have to closely interact with others for their job, it is irrational to suggest that EVERYONE has to constantly wear masks and avoid public events solely for that subset of the population. If we’re going to do mandates, make the mandate accommodating when in close contact with those over 55.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
934
Points
113
You’re ignoring the fact that CV19 is basically the flu for people under age 55, and especially if those above 55 take personal precautions. It’s such a small number of people that are above age 55 that have to closely interact with others for their job, it is irrational to suggest that EVERYONE has to constantly wear masks and avoid public events solely for that subset of the population. If we’re going to do mandates, make the mandate accommodating when in close contact with those over 55.
GII has to work with others closely. This is all about himself.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,953
Reaction score
1,665
Points
113
But Sweden.....

Sweden is moving away from its no-lockdown strategy and preparing strict new rules amid rising coronavirus cases
This sounds more like a public education campaign and suggestions than mandates with teeth. The Swedes are on balance probably more sensible than Americans. They didn't mention any new school closures in the article.


“Unlike in other countries, however, there are not expected to be fines or legal consequences for people who decide not to follow any new advice. Bitte Brastad, the chief legal officer at Sweden's public-health agency, said the rules were "something in between regulations and recommendations."”
 

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,629
Reaction score
139
Points
63
has your view on this strategy changed at all given the White House outbreak? Presumably, they were testing everybody new who came in contact with the President, yet likely a single event (and probably person) infected 30(?) people.
Not that anyone cares what I think but I'm inclined to believe someone hit them on purpose.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,853
Reaction score
3,364
Points
113
> (of course it's a farce that they created the virus or that they released it on purpose)

By my revised estimate of the probabilistic logic of the matter ...

There's about a 70% probability that the Chinese "made" this virus, based off a previously collected bat-virus sample, and that it was accidentally released into the wild via a lab accident (thanks to very lax lab-security situation).

There is approximately nil chance that it was released on purpose. Even the Chinese Communists are not that stupid.

But the scale has been tilted (thank you, Occam's Razor) more in the direction of it most likely being a synthetic virus synthesized from a natural bat-borne virus, by means of Gain-of-Function research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The chances of it being a natural virus that somebody got from eating a bat bought at the Market, are about 30% or less, at this point. The Market might also be involved, if someone from the Lab was selling dead bats at the Market.

> when something very important has to get done, all their [Chinese Communist Party] 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.

It's true that we could have had better Covid results with an authoritarian approach similar to that used by the Communist Chinese. You could say that we pay a steep price for our freedoms. Not sure many (except those on their Covid deathbeds and their loved ones) would give up their US constitutional freedoms in exchange for China Covid results plus Chinese Communist dictatorship-by-the-CCP.

It would be a gawd-awful conspiracy theory to believe that the Chinese intetionally released Covid to the world just to show how much better an authoritarian Communist regime can deal with it (and thus create the desire among some to go Communist).

> Rest of it: all over the place.

Rest of it: a pretty good summary of how badly various powers and organizations have played the US Covid cards.
Thanks for mentioned GOF research. Had never heard of it before, Googled it, and learned something new.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.


So is it possible that experiments were being done for academic purposes? Sure, it is possible.

If credible evidence comes out that academic G/LoF experiments on CoV were being conducted at the Wuhan lab and that an accident occurred, I may be inclined to believe it.

Until then, it's just RW water cooler talk.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15,953
Reaction score
1,665
Points
113
Osterholm was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. a few excerpts, courtesy of 'Business Insider' of all places:

Dr. Michael Osterhom, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, warned Sunday that the next three months may be the "darkest of the entire pandemic," citing a "major problem in messaging" related to COVID-19.

"We do have vaccines and therapeutics coming down the pike," Osterholm said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "But when you actually look at the time period for that, the next six-to-12 weeks are going to be the darkest of the entire pandemic.

Osterholm told host Chuck Todd that despite some progress, "vaccines will not become available in any meaningful way until early to third quarter of next year."

"Friday, we had 70,000 cases, matching the largest number we had seen back during the really serious peak in July," he said Sunday. "That number, we're going to blow right through that. And between now and the holidays, we will see numbers much, much larger than even the 67,000 to 75,000 cases."
He could well be right on the cases exploding but time will tell. He was saying the same thing about exploding cases in the Sept/Oct period back in August.

Will the Wisconsin and Dakota surges peak and ebb over the same 8-12 week pattern seen elsewhere? Will there be resurgences in the Northeast, Southeast, Southwest and California? Areas like Northern CA/Bay Area, Oregon, Washington haven’t had surges yet due at least in part to stricter local policies. When will the surge occur? Hard to know for certain.

On Osterholm’s most recent podcast he was (in a nutshell) saying we should lockdown until a vaccine arrives in latter half of 2021 (assuming good efficacy). He then went on a wierd monologue about how the economy wasn’t harmed by lockdown mandates, and only the virus and the public’s fear. Beyond the illogic on lockdowns/virus/fear chicken and egg, he tends to get upset about people speaking outside of their areas of academic expertise. Well Dr, you are definitely out of your realm on that. He may be entirely correct and things could potentially spin out of control in terms of hospital capacity and staff morale leading to an unmitigated nationwide disaster beyond what we’ve seen, but he’s consistently predicting worst case scenarios that have thus far not come to pass.
 
Top Bottom