Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
COVID-19 Check-in
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Read the piece I just posted, because it's the WHOLE picture, not a slice. It's long, but worth the time.
I prefer to get my info from scientists not a company that depends on business activity to survive. The graph they show is a joke. We all know that tomorrow's cumulative cases and deaths will be higher than today's and putting 2 lines on the same scale when we all know that the deaths will be far smaller than cases makes it impossible to see the correlation.
People have made their minds up on this since it's turned into a political issue. Facts won't change people's views at this point.
Fantastic article. Makes more sense than anything else I've reas.
Does this include yourself? Or is it a shot only at folks with a different point of view? I don't understand how this helps the conversation.
Uh, the numbers he uses come the CDC and Johns Hopkins. Apparently you missed the part about selective science. This is common sense, the numbers people should be paying attention to are the mortality rate (extremely low) and the rate of hospitalization (which measures severity and capacity). Yes, Covid is more deadly than the garden variety flu, but it's not even in the same league as the Spanish Flu.
This is about a scalpel approach as opposed to a blanket approach. If you had read the entire article you would have picked up on that common sense, data supported concept. Moreover, if you look at Japan's approach, it supports the conclusions found in this report.
It includes people who get medical information from a company that "was formed to provide independent and strategic recommendations on interest rates."
I have no issue with people that have different views as long as they can back them up. Feel free to point out any political bias you see.
Edit: That Pensford article is full of sarcastic comments making fun of expert recommendations. Does that not show bias?
I think hit on your first two sentences. Yes, it pertains to YaleDawg and yes it's a shot at people with a different point of view.
That doesn't mean the data he gives is incorrect, just because he works for a company.
Edit: That Pensford article is full of sarcastic comments making fun of expert recommendations. Does that not show bias?
You mean expert recommendations like the one Fauci made regarding the efficacy of masks? How about those stellar mortality models from Neil Ferguson that the CDC and other organizations were using to rationalize declaring a state of emergency. Remind us agains about the science argument. Yes, I'm making sarcastic comments about those brain dead "expert" recommendations.
I just received this from an anonymous healthcare worker. Might help explain some of the "spike". This is also why I'm very cautious and even skeptical of some the doomsday stats being pushed out. Sadly, it's hard to trust anything anymore. And perhaps this is why someone's "facts" don't necessarily change minds...
I wanted to share some insight into Covid numbers in Georgia many seem not to know. Pruitt Health which has a very large presence in nursing homes and rehab facilities in the state, is testing all of their patients every single week. Their patients who test positive for two, three or even four weeks are all being reported as positive cases multiple times. A single patient can be reported as a positive four or five times. There is a facility near my work which has far more reported cases than actual patients in the facility. This isn't the fault of Pruitt, but rather the reporting system for Georgia. Pruitt itself is reporting correct numbers via their website. It would be interesting to see if other facilities are doing similar reporting. The Pruitt companies alone could be accounting for hundreds of positive cases every week that are not new cases.
It's mostly his interpretations. He also calculates death percentages by calculating deaths per day/total population. Easiest way to spot someone who either doesn't know what they are talking about or has an ulterior motive is when they use a flawed calculation like that to produce a number that looks good but doesn't accurately reflect what's happening. He also cites a pre-print study about hospital stays from Singapore saying some non-vulnerable people only have to be hospitalized for 2 days while neglecting to mention the average stay was 9 days. Guess it must have slipped his mind to put the actual average in while only including outlier cases? Or maybe he was trying to hand wave away the 1.7% hospitalization rate for younger people? At one point he concedes there may be a delay between deaths and cases, but goes on to ignore that in the rest of the article.
"And before Judge Hidalgo emails me accusing me of callousness, I would simply ask where that same level of concern has been for annual opioid deaths (42k). Suicides (49k). Auto fatalities (37k)."
The ole "why don't you care about other people dying! COVID-19 must be a political tool!" strategy. I work on developing alternative pain therapies for opioids. There is a ton of money being put towards that. There are several suicide advocacy groups and the CDC even puts out policy proposals for addressing suicides. We have tons of traffic laws and we prosecute people who break those laws and hurt other people as a result. People care about those other things, but COVID-19 is just a much more immediate and pressing danger which causes more people to focus on it.
@YaleDawg makes some fair points here. The author did show some bias in at least those few instances. I'm not being snarky, really asking: what would your reopening strategy and criteria be? How would you determine the success of that strategy and potential need to shut things down again?
Fauci has already explained his position on masks throughout the pandemic. You're going to have to link to Neil's mortality rate because I can't find a number for it.
I'm not standing up for the article. Your comment seemed more generalized than targeted at that article or the poster who linked it. That's why I was calling you out. There are a lot of us genuinely looking for good information and commentary on the status of the virus. There are some who have clearly made up their minds, on both sides, about a situation that is fluid and full of unknowns. Everyone has had their bias about this virus. Some have been better than others about looking beyond that bias and considering alternate viewpoints and inconvenient facts. I will discount any opinion that is spouted as fact. Especially those of scientists who like the camera. However, I am clearly more biased against the doomsdayers. I am not ashamed of my natural tendency toward optimism. As fool hardy as it can be, recognition of that bias is much more powerful than denial of it.
You are very good at poking holes in arguments from the other side. Do you apply the same scrutiny to your arguments? It doesn't come across that way if you do.