Lol at GOP rolling back on masks. Really tired of stupid people, and the vast majority of Utahns, ****ing around and crying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
.
Beer
Well-Known Member
Beer
Well-Known Member
You're are #1 even to Thriller in terms of dumbassery with nothing to back it up.
I won't say it's not a possibility but most scientist disagree and the latest information is against that. Before it hit Wuhan it was in Barcelona 9 months earlier.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Something similar was in Barcelona, but we don't know exactly what it was.
We know it was Covid-19. There could be differences though.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
The virus is SARS-COV2, the disease is covid19.
It could be very similar to SARS-COV2, yet still completely non-infectious to humans, or symptom-free if infected.
Fair enough, the virus found is SARS-COV2. But it does need to be confirmed and more information is needed. There is a chance for a false positive with something similar.
Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows
Spanish virologists have found traces of the novel coronavirus in a sample of Barcelona waste water collected in March 2019, nine months before the COVID-19 disease was identified in China, the University of Barcelona said on Friday.
www.reuters.com
Avery
Well-Known Member
Seems like younger people might be contracting it more from what I hear anecdotally. That will influence the death rate as well.
States seem all over the place on their reporting as well so a true national baseline is a fallacy.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Are there any diseases that have seen herd immunity develop without vaccines?
I think herd immunity as a concept is more simplistic in theory than it is in reality, and may function more as a theoretical model than anything else. In any case, I was sharing that tweet not for the comments regarding it but just the graph. With regard to herd immunity, think before vaccines -- how many viruses infected the majority of the population before going away (or, the flips side of how many viruses go away before infecting the majority of the population)? There are way too many variables in the equation with any outbreak of anything, and we generally approach the idea of herd immunity in a vacuum. And I think the concept has been strictly reinforced as a result of public awareness of vaccines and the narrative surrounding them (not saying that's good or bad, just that it's important to know what's informing our assumptions about everything.)
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Have your cake and eat it too! Slow down the spread AND prevent a hit on the economy!
www.marketwatch.com
Goldman Sachs has done the math and a national mask mandate to halt the spread of coronavirus would have a big impact on the U.S. economy
Wearing a mask has become a uniquely hot-button issue in the U.S., which finds itself in the throes of viral pandemic that appears to be drifting out of...
www.marketwatch.com
I do have a genuine question of when people believe the deaths will pick up, and at least a ballpark idea of when and how much. I don’t say that facetiously, or in a way suggesting that they couldn’t, but we started with “15 days to flatten the curve” and then ended up in an indefinite shutdown. We’ve pivoted on this multiple times, with all roads leading back somewhere of why we can’t open is due to the administration. We criticized the numbers because we weren’t testing enough, but now we’re testing and everyone is concerned about the numbers, but nobody has mentioned that the deaths have continued to reduce, despite every prediction to the contrary. Now people will have to settle for spinning this as the numbers aren’t decreasing as fast as they could have / should have. But the underlying question remains: we shut down because of the perceived mortality and the unknown. If we knew then what we know now, would we have gone for it? Keep in mind, what rolled this whole thing out was the Imperial College study that predicted millions dead in the US. We’re still freaking out about new cases, but not concerned about what this ultimately means in terms of mortality. So, what if actually opening up doesn’t actually affect mortality? What’s the answer in that scenario? What if people comply with masks, and it reduces transmission the way everyone says? Can we open up? It really just seems like a dangling carrot when everything is satisfied, another issue pops up to say “nah, you all ****ed up, you’ve ****ed this whole thing up, and we can’t open up be cause you did/didn’t do ______.” Are we really taking dynamic approaches here that respond to new information, or are we sticking with positions because we perceived a line was drawn in the sand a few months ago and people are more invested in defending that line than in making course corrections.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I have questions about some of these red states who have a history of cooking the data. I question whether the death rates we’re seeing are reliable data. They’ve lied and deceived before. What’s stopping them now? I’m talking about Georgia and Florida specifically. Those two are led by two immoral and unethical governors.
Well, I guess there’s that. When the data doesn’t show what we predicted or what we wanted (were hoping?), just assume they’re lying.
But, I’ll play devil’s advocate: how many people do you think are dying in Georgia and Florida?
Red
Well-Known Member
That study included several models. As I recall, the model that predicted millions of deaths in the US based that prediction on a model that assumed no mitigation efforts whatsoever in the United States. That does not mean millions of deaths would have been the result of zero mitigation, in other words that the model prediction must be correct, but it should at least be pointed out that that was the assumption baked into that model.
Edit: just went back to look at the Imperial College study. The Imperial College group reported that if nothing was done by governments and individuals and the pandemic remained uncontrolled, then 510,000 would die in Britain and 2.2 million in the United States over the course of the outbreak.
If Britain and the United States pursued much more ambitious measures to mitigate the spread of coronavirus, to slow but not necessarily stop epidemic over the coming few months, they could reduce mortality by half, to 260,000 people in the United Kingdom and 1.1 million in the United States. Presently, this estimate does seem off, based on what has happened so far in the United States.
Finally, if the British government quickly went all-out to suppress viral spread — aiming to reverse epidemic growth and reduce the case load to a low level — then the number of dead in the country could drop to below 20,000. To do this, the researchers said, Britain would have to enforce social distancing for the entire population, isolate all cases, demand household quarantines of households where anyone is sick, and close all schools and universities — and do this not for weeks but for 12 to 18 months, until a vaccine is available.
The study did not offer estimates for the US, if the US also went with suppression as the strategy.
Last edited: