Home Off Topic
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.

COVID-19 Check-in 2.0

1192022242571

Comments

  • PerroGrandePerroGrande Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2020

    https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/07/second-wave-not-even-close/


    I just read this interesting article on herd immunity and thought the board would be interested (especially @texdawg 😎). No doubt, there will be disagreement, but it makes some fascinating and potentially encouraging points. Executive summary: herd immunity for CV 19 is achieved at much lower thresholds than originally posited, and many places are already seeing a drop due to burnout of the virus. A lot of people have criticized Sweden for not shutting down, but their rates are dropping dramatically as if they might have achieved HI already. Were the scientists who advised Sweden right after all?


  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    No, if someone had lost a child then THAT person would not feel the same way; however, only 14 children under the age of 14 have been coded as Covid-related, and given what we know those could also be suspect. We aren't protecting children.

    If this were Ebola, 1) we now have a vaccine, but 2) there would have been a shutdown for one month and that would have been all there was to it because it would have been a total shutdown instead of this halfassed shutdown that hasn't accomplished anything except destroy the economy and small businesses. The people who say to open back up aren't saying there is no danger. They are saying 1) it is inevitable, and 2) the risk to the vast majority is small, which is a FACT, not an opinion - statistically speaking.

  • PerroGrandePerroGrande Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2020

    Let me add one comment about the Sweden graphs above: as I have argued, I believe the reason for the recent drop in death rates in the N. Hemisphere is actually due to increasing vitamin D levels in the population. The increasing death rates at high latitudes in the S. hemisphere show that vitamin D is the key reason. However, I totally missed the evidence right in these Sweden graphs. Note the large increase in cases through the month of June, peaking late in the month. What we should have seen was a corresponding spike in deaths 2-4 weeks after the spike in cases, but that isn't at all what we see here. The death rate plummets despite the increased case load. The death rate appears to be controlled by something independent of the case load. Could it be vitamin D? I would also argue that there might be more than one HIT. HIT could be dependent on a number of variables, particularly vitamin D levels in the population. Exactly like we see with cold and flu-like illness season at high latitudes. Consequently, we could see another wave this fall and winter as vitamin D levels fall in the population. That assumes our scientists won't figure this out. I'm not confident they will.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 23,463 mod
  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,556 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    You say the risk to the majority is small, but dismiss the effect of the lockdowns in mitigating the spread of the virus and it’s effect on national numbers.

    You argue that this is not about protecting children, dismissing that the point is losing someone you hold dear—could be a parent, spouse or sibling.

    You argue ebola would have been eradicated by a total shutdown of the nation—and there is a vaccine, but dismiss that it is just as inevitable as this virus. A “total” one month shutdown would have been violated by people just as the mitigation measures have been violated in this pandemic. Even in the case of Ebola, you gave reasons not to comply.

    What people call fact is just a piece of a larger puzzle that is still only partially out of the box. There are too many variables to act without extreme caution.

  • PerroGrandePerroGrande Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think it is mostly hypothesis and no proof at this point, so I don't know. My guess would be that it should make the disease shorter, not longer.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,556 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I’m taking vitamin supplements, including Vitamin D. As a diabetic, it just makes sense to take them in safe., doctor recommended doses.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 6,701 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Obviously Deaths are the most important data. I have looked at the 7 day average of cases which was very stable at the end of May. In June the 4 most problematic states FL, AZ, GA and TX gradually saw increases.

    Florida - it took until June 13th for the 7 day cases to double and posiivity rate increased from 3.5% for May to 10.4% for June. Deaths (7 day) were in the low 30s throught June but ticked up to the high 30s the last 7 days of the month. It wasn't until 10/11th July that the deaths doubled indicating a 28 day lag Cases -> Deaths.

    Georgia - their 7 day average cases doubled by June 25th and positivity rate for May was 6.5%, June 9.3%. Deaths were running around 20 for the latter part of June, dropped the low teens early July and have ticked up to the low-mid 20s of late. Based on the Florida trend I would expect them to be around 35 by the 22nd July and 50 August 1st.

    Texas - their 7 day average doubled by June 18th. Positivity rate May 5,6%, June 10.7%. Deaths were in the mid 20s most of the month but ticked up a tad in the last 10 days of June but still in the 20s. The 7 day average hit 50 on the 8th of July and are now at 95. The lag there seems to be around 20 days.

    Arizona - I don't have the daily detail from earlier than June 17th. Cases in May were 12k and June 59k (2k per day). This increased to 3.5k for the first part of July but dropped back to 3.2k the last few days. The deaths for June averaged 33 the later part of June and early July but has been around 62 the last 5 days. The indication is that still likely to rise through this month and could reach 100 during the last week of the month.

    General - The overall percent positive in May was 5.2%, June was 5.4% but July is currently at 8.4%. The testing for may averaged 345k/day, June 509k and July to date 697k. As you can see this is a significant increase and if the spread is stable you would expect a reduction in positives rates as testing increases. However the month on month increase June to July is over 50% indicated serious acceleration in spread. To compare deaths to cases for the same time periods is not reliable as seen above.

    IMO we are in a much worse position pretty much everywhere except the NE and Mid-West.

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 5,348 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2020

    You say the risk to the majority is small, but dismiss the effect of the lockdowns in mitigating the spread of the virus and it’s effect on national numbers.”

    How are these even related? The statistics are what show the effect on the majority being small, not lockdowns This is not a point up for debate. The CDC and WHO are in agreement. The effectiveness of the lockdowns will he debated for decades, but the fact is that some countries who did more thorough lockdowns are still experiencing new case growth, as well as California. If anything worked in NY it was wearing a mask. Most their infections occurred during the lockdown.

    ”You argue that this is not about protecting children, dismissing that the point is losing someone you hold dear—could be a parent, spouse or sibling.“

    You are the one who brought up children. Now you are simply changing your argument when I accurately pointed out the problem.

    You argue ebola would have been eradicated by a total shutdown of the nation—and there is a vaccine, but dismiss that it is just as inevitable as this virus. A “total” one month shutdown would have been violated by people just as the mitigation measures have been violated in this pandemic. Even in the case of Ebola, you gave reasons not to comply.

    In an ebola outbreak, people would not have been going to Home Depot, new home remodels wouldn’t have started en masse like has happened with this, pest control and service companies wouldn’t have continued entering 15 houses a day, etc. The lockdown was a joke as it pertains to the definition of lockdown. Ebola is just not a good comparison because the true case fatality rate for ebola has been 25-90% Everyone knows that stuff will kill indiscriminately


    What people call fact is just a piece of a larger puzzle that is still only partially out of the box. There are too many variables to act without extreme caution.

    When I state a fact, I have the data to back up the claim. We’ve already been acting with caution. Extreme caution would have been more effective but its too late for that.

    I wear a mask. I take the necessary precautions. Im doing my part. This thread has never been about people not wearing a mask. Ever.

  • GrayDawgGrayDawg Posts: 1,907 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    It is my opinion that the virus will run its course through every significant population center before it dies off/herd immunity is reached. Similar to @PerroGrande's article, I believe herd immunity is likely less difficult to achieve than originally thought. I have read several things that have led me to this conclusion. Undoubtedly, there will likely be information that comes out which demands my conclusion be altered.

    This thing is like an algebra equation with variables only. You've got to make some assumptions to even start trying to figure this thing out so everybody's opinion/data is flawed by definition. I like how @Denmen185 tracks data state by state. I believe that provides better information than taking a nationwide approach. I bet city by city data would be even better.

    While cases are high in Georgia, I am taking a much more cautious approach than I was when New York was blowing up. To me, this is a more logical response than quarantining when there were less than 50 cases in my county. Once the virus seems to have run its course through Georgia, I'll choose to go back to living normally (not some kind of new normal).

    I've learned that I don't want to have the virus. I don't want anyone I know to have the virus. While it is running through Georgia, it only makes sense for me to be more cautious.

    Having spent some time studying recent economic data I am convinced we are headed into a severe recession. The stimulus has delayed the effects of the shutdown. The PPP loan program has delayed even more layoffs. Just yesterday, I met with the owners of a privately held regional company. If not for the PPP loan program, they would've cut 100 jobs. Once they've met the 24 week employee retention requirement to gain forgiveness of the PPP loan, those jobs are gone. Not because they want to fire people. Because they would jeopardize the company and risk the jobs of all 500 of their employees if they don't cut back.

    A second stimulus package could soften the blow some, but would more than likely further delay the inevitable. Some statistics pointed out that over the last 24 months there were significant increases in job creation but production remained flat. That's not a good combination and explains why several economists were predicting a recession even before the virus. It also means there will be a lot of jobs lost that will never come back.

    All that to say, a second shutdown makes no sense to me. I think the virus is coming at some point regardless. The damage to the economy of the first shutdown has not fully been felt. It is coming. Having another shutdown is only going to amplify that pain. My goal is to keep my s*it together financially and avoid getting the virus. Y'all can make your own decisions and I won't judge you for them. Everything matters differently to everyone. Of course we are going to reach different conclusions. I will never appreciate centralized government making blanket decisions for everyone. Therefore, I will do my best to avoid criticizing any of your personal choices.

    Go Dawgs.

  • Denmen185Denmen185 Posts: 6,701 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    The number of infections are the number of infections. The number of deaths are the number of deaths. Increased testing finds more of the infections which means more cases. The positivity rate should decline because the additional tests are not confined to those with the most severe of symptoms. For example truly random testing would result in a positivity rate significantly below 1%. The increased cases found are on average less severe and hence less likely to lead to hospitalization and death so death rates will fall even if there is no change in care. Furthermore, in the early stages testing was in such short supply that you virtually had to be hospitalized to get a test so there were many that died in NY before they could get a test. There is a lot of talk of increased spread among younger people. Is that true or was it more that they didn't get sick enough to qualify for a test. Early on there was higher priority given to the elderly so we will never know. So, as more of the young become cases, it's not surprising that the deaths per case would decline.

    Very few Americans can stop infected people from dying (or at least give them a better chance of survival). ALL Americans can and must do their part to limit the infections (spread) which limits the deaths!

  • PerroGrandePerroGrande Posts: 4,920 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    It is usually better to work with a wise doctor on supplementing (at least run it by them), but if you have diabetes, I would say it is a must, so good job and good luck. And, don't forget that the sun is our primary source. A fair skinned person at the beach in late morning can make megadoses of D in a matter of 30 minutes or so, so most people who get a nice tan this time of year (not burned, just tanned) don't need to supplement at all.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,556 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Bankwalker

    You qualified your “fact” that risk is low to the majority by saying, “statistically speaking”. If the method for gathering and interpreting data is called into question—something both sides of the debate do—then how can you be sure? I argue the lockdowns could have had an effect on the statistics. If they work to slow the spread, that could call your “facts” about risk into question. Your numbers would be higher if we did absolutely nothing to mitigate.

    On children, my intended point is loss of a loved one. The point is your perspective changes if you have to actually sacrifice something or perceive a risk to someone you hold dear. Not changing anything—just clarifying.

    Yes, Ebola is a good comparison—unless one assumes her statistics are right where the other side’s is wrong. It is a good comparison if one feels a moral obligation to protect life. If all life is sacred, then morally we should treat/ should have treated this virus like all infectious diseases that kill. I think you made the point that if we had—this would be over. I agree. If we had implemented mitigation procedures and remained open, we would have had a better result than half way doing it, as you suggested.

    I don’t know that we disagree on what should be done at this point. If you believe we should do our best to protect life, then we don’t disagree. If you believe we should all wear masks and social distance, then we don’t disagree in what really matters.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,556 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2020

    “This thread has never been about people not wearing a mask. Ever.”

    If one takes a position her “facts” prove the risk is overstated, the death rate is inflated, and the mitigation efforts were unnecessary, then it fuels irrational, anti-mitigation rhetoric and actions. That makes it about people not wearing masks.

  • texdawgtexdawg Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I have a simple, basic and non partisan question:

    We have 5 essential employees tested every Friday. We have for the past 4 weeks. Had my 4th test an hour ago.

    We get our results in 15 minutes. Why can't everyone find out in 15 minutes?

  • Casanova_FlatulenceCasanova_Flatulence Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited July 2020

    It's a legit question. I believe the answer is two fold: 1. There's more than one type of test equipment being used with various costs. 2. There's not enough of the 15 minute variety deployed across the country.

This discussion has been closed.