|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 27, 2020 19:31:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 27, 2020 19:40:42 GMT -5
Wow. 26 miles (about 35 minutes drive) from the White House. Wow. That's really irresponsible. Really. Wow. Nice job. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 27, 2020 20:46:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess he gave up on enforcing law and order.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 27, 2020 20:51:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess he gave up on enforcing law and order. No. They still haven't managed to destroy the Emancipation monument even though they've showed up for 4 days now. Hint: Trump's the boss. He's got people (lots of people really) who handle the details.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 28, 2020 3:11:14 GMT -5
Sure, he has lots of good people...
|
|
|
COVID 19
Jun 28, 2020 7:46:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Jun 28, 2020 7:46:58 GMT -5
Sure, he has lots of good people... Yeah, I'd certainly say that about the US military. I know a bunch of them.
|
|
|
COVID 19
Jun 28, 2020 12:22:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by robjh22 on Jun 28, 2020 12:22:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 28, 2020 12:59:04 GMT -5
Where I am, most of the new cases are younger people. Fewer of them will die (although the virus can still cause lasting damage). Also, deaths lag behind spikes in new cases. I don't offer that as a complete explanation. I don't think anyone has a complete explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 28, 2020 13:18:53 GMT -5
Daily Wire. Not my first stop for interpretation of medical news. I'll wait for somebody not employed by Ben Shapiro or the Washington Times for a read on this.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 28, 2020 13:48:21 GMT -5
The Daily Wire still seem less than thorough and guarded in its mentions/assessment of the Ionnadis study and I think there are other problems with the report. I can't be bothered to elaborate. This article I read a while back makes sense to me. blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/so-how-deadly-is-covid-19/Scientific American, Nature and others mostly offer covid-19 articles free.
|
|
|
COVID 19
Jun 28, 2020 14:39:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by robjh22 on Jun 28, 2020 14:39:48 GMT -5
The Daily Wire still seem less than thorough and guarded in its mentions/assessment of the Ionnadis study and I think there are other problems with the report. I can't be bothered to elaborate. This article I read a while back makes sense to me. blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/so-how-deadly-is-covid-19/Scientific American, Nature and others mostly offer covid-19 articles free. I can delete it if this is your area of expertise and if you have reason to believe the article is irresponsible and dangerous. Maybe it is. I don't claim that it's gospel, just that the extrapolation is encouraging; death numbers are what they are. All the Daily Caller did, I thought, was compare those death numbers to this new denominator suggested by the CDC director. It was he, not the Daily Caller, who floated the new infection numbers. Or do you disagree with his estimate of infections?
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 28, 2020 15:02:02 GMT -5
<Daily Wire>
I don't claim any special expertise. I don't want you to delete the link. I didn't say the article was irresponsible or dangerous. I didn't share your takeaways from the article except perhaps "something".
|
|
|
COVID 19
Jun 28, 2020 15:30:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by robjh22 on Jun 28, 2020 15:30:20 GMT -5
Okay. There is plenty of bad news out there, and it depresses me. I don't avoid it but I look for hope where I can. So I latch on to any news or analysis that reduces despair. It could be total garbage, I don't know.
George Schultz describes himself and Ronald Reagan agreeing to ban CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons --sp?) back in the 80s due to its effect on the ozone layer. The science was mixed at the time, and business was predictably against the ban. Reagan decided to ban them on a "better safe than sorry" basis. Or that's what Schultz claimed.
That's about where I am on this mess.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2020 15:30:39 GMT -5
Well, that was amicable! No swearing or personal insults. Two slightly differing perspectives presented in a discussion about an incredibly puzzling virus that is still in the process of revealing itself. Kudos Rob and James.
Hmm, I just noticed, both of you guys look alike. Maybe that's the secret. We all should adopt the same baldy guy avatar. Reinforces our common heritage, a faceless lack of anything meaningful or knowable. Encourages humility.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 28, 2020 15:33:38 GMT -5
death numbers are what they are. Actually, there have been questions about mortality figures going back quite a while. Since the "crude" numbers are based on death certificates, it's possible that (especially before the pandemic was identified as a pandemic) some cause-of-death categorizations were actually due to COVID. Then there's the argument about what exactly constitutes a COVID death. Did 94-year-old Bucky Pizzarelli die of COVID or because he was 94 and in frail health? Did my friend Peter Ecklund die of COVID or because he was also suffering from Parkinson's? Did apparent flu victims from late last year through February of this actually have COVID? The only way to have really solid mortality figures is with broad-based virus and antibody testing, contact-tracing, and probably post-mortems. And even if the bulk of the general population is not likely to die, there's the question of how to deal with that portion that is. Explanatory background: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.htmlwww.dw.com/en/covid-19-death-rate-sinking-data-reveals-a-complex-reality/a-53365771
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2020 15:40:42 GMT -5
Russell doesn't look like anyone else. But it is clear he has a questioning spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 28, 2020 16:22:41 GMT -5
Actually, in dim light I look a bit like one of my grandfathers. And not the nice one.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 28, 2020 17:15:17 GMT -5
I've always thought the death figures were more reliable than the infection figures. Neither are precise but a lot of infected people think they're healthy. No one who dies thinks they're still living. At least I assume not. It therefore seems likely to me that we're not grossly undercounting deaths from the virus. We can be pretty sure, though, that our figures on infections are just a fraction of the reality. I think CDC recently estimated that infections were 10X the reported figures. After a period when you could easily get tested here, we're back to a situation in which it's difficult.
Several weeks ago, IHME projected that Arizona would become a mess. At the time, our numbers weren't bad. I thought maybe IHME had ignored the big increase in testing in May. But no, they nailed it. They now project a total of 5,300 deaths here by mid-September but only 3,100 if masks are universally required. They now largely are.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 28, 2020 17:32:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 28, 2020 17:45:13 GMT -5
Can't go wrong with death. No weaseling there.
I pay most attention to North Dakota's hospitalization numbers, and they are precise and categorized usefully. Hospitalizations are way down (never were way up) but more importantly, ventilator use numbers are way down and hospital stay times are way down. This indicates less severe cases and better treatments (or it indicates severe cost-cutting procedures have been implemented)
I'm not that concerned about death. 1) death is just a little too abstract. I know I will die but I don't feel I'm going to die. And 2) if I do die, then there isn't much to worry about. I won't care anymore. But, I am concerned about getting dog damn sick and losing lung capacity and being generally fucked up (in new and different ways, that is). So, lower ventilator use and shorter hospital stays are very good signs.
|
|