What's your COVID-19 gameplan?

[HIT4ME]

A bit over the top. If you follow that logic then everyone needs to be locked down until its completely gone.

The question I have for you, what is your acceptable death rate to open up? 50,000 die? 100,000? Do you we shut down until there is a vaccine?

Is the worth destroying a business in Texas when the majority of deaths of cases are 2000 miles away?

These are the questions nobody really wants to answer, especially a politician because the truth will get him crucified.

Not really over the top - people are dying. Business owners around here who have stayed open have gotten sick and are in the hospital. They quickly closed their doors after that happened. I'm not sure how you think it's over the top when it's happening. I mean, it's kind of the point - this entire thing is over the top.

It isn't about an acceptable death rate per se. It is about the cost of each path of action. Again, not doing anything has a huge cost. Ruining a bunch of businesses may actually be the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately. And I agree, it's a really tough call that I would probably want a ton of data to make a decision with - but at some point someone has to make the call.

This may have to go on until we do have some kind of herd immunity - which means we have to go about that slowly. Overwhelming the healthcare system with a disease we know so little about will make things much worse. Time will at least allow for fewer visits per day to the hospitals, and also allow for more information to be gathered for more patients (i.e. - if I get sick today, I will be treated with less available info than if I get sick in a week or a month, etc.)

As far as the unnecessary shut downs from 2000 miles away - I get that. I think that's where Trump talked big but ultimately made the right call. I know New York may be different, but ultimately there aren't any federal mandates that everyone has to stay home, or rights being trampled, etc. I can go to the store whenever I want, I can go for a walk, etc. I can even go to Wal-Mart and Home Depot which means I am way better off than my great grandparents were every day of their lives and even better off than I myself was 30 years ago in this area. I have heat and electricity and I can argue with a ton of my friends on the internet.

I can have zoom meetings with clients and even have formed a few new relationships from my house.

And believe me, I'm not about to let someone stop me from doing something I need to do. But I'm trying to be reasonable about what a need is vs. a want.

Some local governments may be going to far - I can agree with that. I don't think our federal government has though. Some individuals may be acting in very ignorant ways.

Wait until to see what happens post COVID when you give that much power to the lawyers.

I know what will happen - which is why those businesses will shut down if they are smart. It's not worth the cost of killing someone just so you can keep your business going.

Takes 10 second on Google to find those being arrested for violating social distance laws these days.

In fact you help...the Mayor of NYC set up a text hotline where you can report your neighbors for violating the social distance laws. Just snap a photo with the location and enforcement will be right out.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251496378372632577

Haha, thanks for the help. Now I can call the fuzz on my dumb neighbor

Admittedly, I think that's probably too far. People are going to be stupid. It is what it is.

I am not arguing that we should have laws to take away peoples' rights - so I think we can at least agree there. I think people should be smart, and at least try to make an attempt at self preservation and not harming others. Again, I think Trump has a fine line to walk here and while he may say stupid things or go in the wrong direction when he's talking off the cuff, I think in general he's done a good job of staying on that line. He wants to get things open, but he wants to take action to keep the population safe. But it's not really even about him - it's more about US. Individuals need to do what's right. I do agree that the Gov't itself should allow for the individual to make their own choices - but the individual should also be responsible for their actions.

This isn't toward Admin - just tangential - just thinking out loud - but it's a fine line with responsibility. If some infected person goes out and makes people sick and does so knowingly, I believe that's essentially assault and battery and if that person dies, then the person who infected them should be held liable.

But if you do that, how do you handle all the people getting sick from the flu every year? I mean, most of it isn't intentional, proving intent can be difficult, etc. - but if someone dies from the flu, is the person who gave it to them responsible?

I've come to no conclusions at all.

I wasn't directing that part at you - that was at Poison, but I get that it can be tough to know what you're responding to in all this These discussions get messy.

 

[Admin]

Technically censorship can be private too, there’s just no legal protection regarding free speech in private spaces. Taking down a post you disagree with is still censorship by the dictionary definition of the word. But it’s 100% allowed, since, as you said, it’s private, and you’re not a government. I think you may want to learn the difference though...

“Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.”

What Is Censorship? | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

“: the institution, system, or practice of censoring
They oppose government censorship.”

Definition of CENSORSHIP

the institution, system, or practice of censoring; the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively; the office, power, or term of a Roman censor… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Their preceding “censorship” with “government” in their example tells us that censorship isn’t inherently or exclusively a government/public action

LOL

Its not that I disgreed with anyone, its just he was being an asshole. So ba bye. Don't really care what you want to call it.

If you want to act like an asshole, you get treated like an asshole.

 

[HIT4ME]

I need a nap.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

LOL

Its not that I disgreed with anyone, its just he was being an asshole. So ba bye. Don't really care what you want to call it.

If you want to act like an asshole, you get treated like an asshole.

Again, I’m not saying you are wrong for doing it, or that it’s not your right, or anything of that sort, only that it’s still technically censorship. But life is never as simple as censorship is always 100% bad, of course.

 

[HIT4ME]

LOL

Its not that I disgreed with anyone, its just he was being an asshole. So ba bye. Don't really care what you want to call it.

If you want to act like an asshole, you get treated like an asshole.

I agree he got a little worked up and crossed some lines. I wish he had calmed down before he escalated it.

 

[Admin]

Again, I’m not saying you are wrong for doing it, or that it’s not your right, or anything of that sort, only that it’s still technically censorship. But life is never as simple as censorship is always 100% bad, of course.

Yes but technically he said it was censorship to one side. If the one side is is him being an asshole, you are correct. Otherwise I'm not censoring anyone's viewpoint based on "one side". As you can see I left most of comment talking about the picture..both sides. I didn't want the discussion to turn into a meme fest. You can do that in political forum and threads in which I hardly ever touch.

 

[justhere4comm]

Humor break:

“I asked my wife if I were the only one she'd been with. Her reply was, of course!
The others were 9's and 10's.”

LMAO. Because it took me a good minute to get it.

 

[HIT4ME]

On a side note, someone posted this via ergo-log in another thread somewhere, and I thought it was worth sharing the original link (you can download the full PDF once you get to the page)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3571484

Of note: 92.8% of the covid patients with "normal" vitamin D levels had mild or "ordinary" cases of the disease. 3.6% had severe and 3.6% had critical cases.

In contrast, only 1.4% of the vitamin D deficient cases had mild cases and 26% had "ordinary" cases. Of course the remaining 72.8% had severe or critical cases.

It isn't perfect, but it's pretty compelling to me none-the-less.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yes but technically he said it was censorship to one side. If the one side is is him being an asshole, you are correct. Otherwise I'm not censoring anyone's viewpoint based on "one side". As you can see I left most of comment talking about the picture..both sides. I didn't want the discussion to turn into a meme fest. You can do that in political forum and threads in which I hardly ever touch.

Ok. Yeah, I didn’t mean to weigh in on the “why” you censored him, only that it’s still censorship, since you seemed to suggest it wasn’t.

 

[thebigt]

here in my little part of the world we haven't been hit by this virus very hard at all...the dollar stores, grocery stores, drug stores, walmarts have been open the entire time and only lately have employees began wearing masks and there isn't but around 80% compliance-these stores don't seem to have many employees out for illness, seems like the normal amount of employees throughout the stores...

but I will say people are really getting ill tempered because of many stores being shutdown-unemployment is very high. a freind of mine who is a cop told me domestic abuse is higher than he has ever saw it in his 20+years in law enforcement.

 

[Admin]

Ok, but you're not grasping the point at all. You are applying a "study" (that wasn't even peer reviewed - yay science) that went out into the socializing population and advertised that they would be "testing" before the study. Not only are you taking a group of people who are more likely to be infected (they are socializing) - you are further skewing those results by offering free testing, which all but insures ANYONE with symptoms who couldn't get tested is going to show up. Think about that.

I don't think they "advertised" the study. Actually there are about 6 total studies, only two have been American studies by research groups (the rest by European gov's) and they all come to the conclusion. Far more people have had the COVID-19 virus than what is being reported. I hope you're not denying that fact.

I don't think you are getting my point at all which is simply saying its not killing 10% of people who get it...its not killing 8% of people nor 3-5% of people based on any anti-body test that has been conducted.

When you have testing that is limited to only those that show symptoms, you are going to get an extremely high death rate.

No, you are implying it.

Once again, I'm not.

You may not grasp that you are implying it - that's a different issue - but you are certainly implying it. You are basically saying that since there is a cost, we shouldn't attempt to intervene.

How on earth can you possible come to that conclusion? In fact, I've actually asked the question for the opposite!

i.e. - Why should the government effect the businesses of cigarette manufacturers by forcing them to create packaging that scares their customers? Have they considered the effect on those businesses and the economy?

I've never even mentioned the cigarette manufacturers but your questions are valid. In the same light, should we force people on dietary guidelines to save live from heart attacks, diabetes, etc...

They are questions for debate.

Why should the government back health care? It costs tax payers millions just because someone wants to smoke or become obese?

Another valid question. Where did imply otherwise?

Of course we have interventions - in this case, the only intervention that will work is avoidance.

Yes but the question still remains and you haven't answered it. To what level?

It's not just about death rate. It's about resources. Think of it like this - if we have a hospital with 10 beds in it and 20 people become infected and need ventilators - what happens then? Essentially there are 10 people who a hospital does not exist for. What is their death rate? 100%? 50%?

Which is why I said herd immunity from a pure perspective won't work in highly populated areas. I said that twice now.

And the states and businesses are trying to support these efforts to save lives - what about those costs? If they are struggling to get by because the load is just too much - or their employees won't work, or they get sick - what happens when we have to double the load because people are all getting sick at once?

As I pointed out, using your heart disease angle - we spend over $1T/year on heart disease treatment in this country. How do we arrive at that number? I mean, that's $1T+ in resources down the tubes. At what point do we cut that off?

I have no idea what you're saying here. Who spends? The government? Private industry? Who is cutting off anything?

It isn't like anyone ever says, "Oh, just 60,000 people a year die from the flu. We shouldn't even bother treating it. It costs too much." These people get treatment, and a lot of them die - but we try. And in this case, if we don't try - a lot MORE people will die because at some point, people won't get treatment because it won't exist.

You really make giant leaps into what people state and what you think they state. When have I ever stated we shouldn't treat it we should cut them off? I have no idea where you are getting any of this.

Who says don't try?!?!?!

Yeah, I think you missed my point but that is because I wasn't organised in my thoughts here so that is probably on me.

What I am saying is, if we DON'T shut down and everyone goes out and gets sick - what do you think the cost of all that healthcare will be? It is already at a point to be at least the 3rd deadliest thing we face this year, if not 1 or 2.

Shut down what? Everything? All business? Areas that aren't effected? You keep saying if we don't shut down, A will happen then B will happen...but you don't even define what "shut down" means...

And when you do define it, tell me when its acceptable to lift it?

Do we shut down a florist in Des Moine, Iowa for prevention?

And our government right now is paying for A LOT of that healthcare that these patients are receiving. We overlook that. But if we had completely free, government funded healthcare - I guarantee there would be full on lockdowns everywhere. It wouldn't be up to governors, and we wouldn't have a president saying he wants to get the country open. It would be a no-brainer decision that if the gov't doesn't keep people in their homes, they would be crushed - so the lockdowns would be BRUTAL.

Ok, so is that the scenario you want? I don't understand where you are going with this at all.

Just because someone doesn't grasp the cost to society of NOT having a lock down, doesn't mean they aren't there. It isn't just deaths, there is an economic costs to letting people out to run their businesses, etc.

So if there is, can't you quantify it?

If insurance companies can quantify risks to death and accidents, why can't the government?

It really is determined by the cost/reward. So if we put a number on this and say, for instance, that if we let this run wild there will be x amount of sickness, y amount of deaths and the cost of medical treatment will be $1.5T this year

Which the government does everyday.

- but if we get everyone to stay home and give the least wealthy 70% of the country $Z/month and it costs us $1.6T and saves 200,000 lives/month - Would you pull the trigger on that? Sure, it costs $100B more but - 20,000 lives. Are those lives worth $100B?

According to insurance companies and government, no. Its a grim and morbid thought.

Now, what if I said, "Hey - you could lose a million lives and this could cost $1.5T. Or we might lose 50,000. No way to be sure, but there's a real chance of the losses adding up quickly." - which policy would you go with?

Tough question to answer. I'll have to answer with the three wisest words ever spoken...

I don't know.

 

[Admin]

Ok, on 03/24/2020 there were 54,453 cases and 780 deaths. We had just started to implement lock down recommendations at this point.

Today, 1 month later, with the lock downs, there are 902,000 confirmed cases and 50,988 deaths and still over 750,000 people who have yet to recover.

Just yesterday we had 46,023 confirmed cases and 2,360 deaths.

I'd say, in 1 month we have had 50,000 deaths. I'd say, based on yesterday's total, and the daily totals we've been seeing, next month is going to be worse.

Just because the large amount of cases of death occur within a short period of time, you still have to look at when the disease entered the population and base you calculations on that. Its not linear as I sated before.

Again, you're missing the point. You are arguing for us not to have these lock downs - but what's the alternative?

Seriously when have I ever said that? I simply asked WHEN do you implement a country wide lockdown? I'll ask you the question. When Texas had 245 deaths out of 29 million people do you lock it down and why? Nobody is saying you are right or wrong for believing what you believe.

Let it just run free? Well, to your point - we have a large number of deaths from the flu and that's with herd immunity AND vaccination.

Once again, Who said run it free?!?!?!

And this disease is much more transmittable than the flu.

Which the anti-body tests suggest....

So you are trying to compare an infection with herd immunity and a vaccine to this, but you are ignoring all the deaths STILL present from that disease. If the death rate is high in the flu - what do you think it would be for a flu to which we had no immunity and no vaccine? That doesn't even take into account whether or not it is more transmittable or more deadly.

I'm really having a hard time having this conversation with you because you really aren't representing my position at all. In fact, my position is really up in the air because the conditions keep changing. You are literally creating scenarios that I have never stated.

Ummm - if the data actually said that, then that would be an intelligent argument.

So far you're ignoring actual collected data and basing your argument on a study with obvious flaws, from authors with an obvious agenda, that hasn't even passed peer review. And again, you're throwing out a data set of millions of people and ignoring it, yet basing your argument on a study of 3,300 people advertised on Facebook.

IF the data somehow changes, then I will have to change my mind. But as of today, I stand by my statement, there is no intelligent way of arguing that the death rate and transmission rates of Covid are not much greater than the flu.

As I've stated before, there are a total of 6 studies based on antibody testing with the latest 2 coming form American research groups.

I have no idea what agenda you are talking about...yes they aren't peer reviews, same as the German government ones. Its sort of a fluid situation. Same as the data of testing people that come into the ER....

Who is throwing out data??? What statistics have I ignored??? The data set is people who've been tested and the criteria to get tested is...you must have symptoms. Thats the data we've been basing everything on in terms of public policy for two months. Why would anyone in their right mind think that data is complete? Its all incomplete at this point...

The entire reason the anti-body tests are being conducted is because we KNOW that a larger population have been infected by COVID-19 and that the actual case numbers are not accurate therefore the death rate of this disease will not be accurate based on everyone that has had it.

Who is ignoring data?!?!?

 

[justhere4comm]

Moved to politics.

 

[Jiigzz]

Hit4me, you completely misread my post, read again.

I didn't vote for trump, there were better options. It's looking more and more like I will be voting for him this time. That being said, he fucked us over by adopting Imperial College bullshit estimates as a guideline how to proceed. The CDC said this week we can expect a second worse wave, and I think I explained why in this thread already: we've pushed a majority of the deaths into next year's flu season, instead of dealing with it in the summer. Sweden is very unlikely to experience a second wave. Comparing Denmark deaths to Sweden is stupid, because Denmark will have a second wave as well, while Sweden will not, you're making comparisons before it's over.

The UK tried the Swedish approach, and Boris Johnson was slammed for doing so. I remember when they announced it and thinking that it could be a viable strategy to try bring up herd immunity in those less vulnerable whilst enforcing lockdown measures for those who are in the over 65 bracket and those considered vulnerable.

The problem is you are playing with lives, and people dont like to be experiments. We dont know the long term effects of exposure at this stage, but some emerging data is showing that those who experienced a more severe form of covid19 are at increased risk for things like blood clotting and lung fibrosis. It's still early stages, but given that 20% of reported cases are experiencing more severe respiratory tract infection, that's potentially a LOT of people who will need to suffer before the herd immunity threshold is met.

 

[thebigt]

as opposed to #metoo movement, lol.

 

[Admin]

We’re going to find out about herd immunity real fast....

Holy frak Batman.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253763907719761924

I’m calling this the “you first movement.” #youfirst

I would suspect most people on twitter, who tend to lean a certain direction, don't mind seeing this as it will "thin the ranks" as so nicely reported by this Miami Herald reporter.

I would rather keep this to discussion rather than have people quoting twitter and showing how much they "love" the other side. And yes, I'm guilty of the above as well. Lets keep that type of stuff to the political forum.

 

[Admin]

At this point, its time to sanitize my liver a bit with some strong proof. Have a nice weekend.

 

[Jiigzz]

At this point, its time to sanitize my liver a bit with some strong proof. Have a nice weekend.

Sounds like a good plan. You too

 

[Smont]

In new York they found out that over a million ppl had it according to blood plasma, it puts the death rate from 14% down to 0.5% I'm sure the same will eventually be shown everywhere.

 

[Jiigzz]

In new York they found out that over a million ppl had it according to blood plasma, it puts the death rate from 14% down to 0.5% I'm sure the same will eventually be shown everywhere.

Can anyone link me a source for this? Cant seem to find one

 

[thebigt]

ran 5 miles today, tomorrow will be a lifting day...trying to get 3 liftings days and 5 running days in each week...been having trouble on days I double up with both running and lifting, but so far been able to keep to this schedule---hopefully it will get easier.

taking advantage of being off work, it won't last long hopefully, so going to make the best of it while it lasts.

 

[GreenMachineX]

Why does this keep happening?! A second COVID thread I’m trying to follow and I don’t get notifications. Thank God I caught this one after being behind only 4 pages...not like the other where I was 10-15 pages behind. That took way too long to catch up. But it looks like I missed the fun too...

 

[GreenMachineX]

Also wanted to add my additional COVID-19 game plan that others have mentioned...
Watch others argue about COVID-19.

And no, nothing useful to add.

 

[Smont]

Can anyone link me a source for this? Cant seem to find one

It was all over the news and articles everywhere lol. I don't know how to link stuff but I can look it up and tell you what to search, hold on

 

[Smont]

Why does this keep happening?! A second COVID thread I’m trying to follow and I don’t get notifications. Thank God I caught this one after being behind only 4 pages...not like the other where I was 10-15 pages behind. That took way too long to catch up. But it looks like I missed the fun too...

Because anabolic minds is trying to do you a favor and save you a headache by not following these threads

 

[GreenMachineX]

Because anabolic minds is trying to do you a favor and save you a headache by not following these threads

Valid point.

 

[justhere4comm]

https://www.facebook.com/649373161/posts/10158219416258162

Uh.

 

[GreenMachineX]

https://www.facebook.com/649373161/posts/10158219416258162

Uh.

Everything about COVID-19 and the response to it has added new meaning to the phrase “armchair quarterback.”

 

[Nac]

Man, some of the stuff emerging now regarding the virus' capacity to cause clotting and strokes is worrying. Looks like some of those affected are people in their 30s-50s, and otherwise "normal and healthy".

Im sure some time in the future we humans will have a solid, near-complete picture of exactly what this virus is capable of and how it can potentially fuk you up....but obviously our current ignorance is what fuels concern and pushes our paranoia buttons.

 

[Ricky10]

https://www.facebook.com/649373161/posts/10158219416258162

Uh.

You don’t even know how much I loved this!

Man, some of the stuff emerging now regarding the virus' capacity to cause clotting and strokes is worrying. Looks like some of those affected are people in their 30s-50s, and otherwise "normal and healthy".

Im sure some time in the future we humans will have a solid, near-complete picture of exactly what this virus is capable of and how it can potentially fuk you up....but obviously our current ignorance is what fuels concern and pushes our paranoia buttons.

I had the same thoughts. It can have a negative impact on multiple organs other than the lungs too. People may be surviving, but what unforeseen impact will it have on their long term health?

While I think we do keep learning more about the consequences of the virus, it’s also possible that it is the result of the virus mutating

 

[Jiigzz]

The below is an expert from a paper examining the cases reported from China in the early stages of the outbreak. The table below indicates the criteria that was required during different stages to determine a confirmed case. Initially, strict criteria meant they limited calling someone a confirmed case unless the person had an epidemiological link to Wuhan or the Wet Markets on question. Importantly, respiratory symptoms were not used until phase 5.

The authors could not establish what criteria was used before Jan 12th (the first 41 cases that seemed stagnant for 10 days). The paper places figures at Jan 1st as being approximately 11,000.

" 232 000 cases (95% CrI 161 000–359 000) could have met the case definition and could have been detected by Feb 20, 2020, of which 127 000 cases (86 000–198 000) were from Wuhan, 55 000 (38 000–86 000) were from the rest of Hubei province excluding Wuhan, and 50 000 (34 000–78 000) were from the rest of China excluding Hubei (figure 3). Among the 127 000 cases that we estimated in Wuhan by Feb 20, we estimated that there could have been approximately 11 000 infections (95% CrI 7000–21 000) that met version 5 of the case definition with illness onset by Jan 1, 2020"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30089-X/fulltext

 

[Jiigzz]

Just to add to the above, this is also interesting (from the same paper)

"We were not able to explore the change after version 5 as we only analysed data up to Feb 20, 2020, which included just the first 2 days after the release of version 6. We were not able to find publicly available information on incidence of cases by illness onset date after Feb 20, and had to censor our analysis at that point.

The number of individuals who were infected is likely to be greater than 232 000 because many mild cases were not tested or confirmed, and some infections were asymptomatic"



Theoretically the numbers could be higher if they were able to apply the future versions classification criteria to their data, but they couldnt.

 

[HIT4ME]

I came back here to respond to @Admin but I am too tired to keep going around and around.

Plus, I think I may have confounded some of Admin's arguments on here with some of the other arguments in this thread.

My big point is, there is a point at which it makes sense to shut everything down and the number of deaths is just one small factor.

It is not a simple calculation, making the call would require consideration of a large number of complicated factors, and those factors are easily effected by emotions.

For instance, I can place an economic value on your wife's life - but if I were to say, "Hey man, sorry. She was only worth $2 million and we are at that point. We can't spend another dollar on her." - I am sure you would disagree.

But all of the data at hand - real, easily observable data - suggests that not shutting down would be catastrophic at this point.

The bottom line is that even with avoidance, we still can easily see the medical system is about to burst and doctors are running out of resources. Anyone who thinks the death rate will go down without avoidance or with fewer resources available to treat an even bigger demand, is just ignoring the facts. And I don't blame them. The fact that this sh!t show we have now is the better alternative is tough to swallow.

And re-reading Admin's posts and his follow ups, I think your argument is more nuanced than that, so yeah. I will quote you, "I don't know" where that line is. It isn't just a matter of deaths or death rate. It is ultimately a matter of resources - and lives are only one resource to consider.

 

[justhere4comm]

I'm seeing nurses and doctors dying in large numbers for this to be considered a common anything (flu).
If they are dying, consider opening up and what that could do to the system of healthcare.

One more point made by a woman who owns a tattoo parlor. (GA)
She said, they 'business' like hers are being pushed under the bus. It's about money, and nothing more.
If the system of healthcare workers cannot get PPE, then she is competing with them to get it at higher prices.
That has to balance out first as well. She made great points for safety and the illegitimacy of opening GA soon.

 

[HIT4ME]

I'm seeing nurses and doctors dying in large numbers for this to be considered a common anything (flu).
If they are dying, consider opening up and what that could do to the system of healthcare.

One more point made by a woman who owns a tattoo parlor. (GA)
She said, they 'business' like hers are being pushed under the bus. It's about money, and nothing more.
If the system of healthcare workers cannot get PPE, then she is competing with them to get it at higher prices.
That has to balance out first as well. She made great points for safety and the illegitimacy of opening GA soon.

This is a very good point, even if you hate Trump. I think we all want to play games with denomenators and we are ignoring the REAL evidence. Talk to a doctor, go to an ER, you will see that this is more dangerous than the flu and not to be taken lightly. This is having a HUGE impact on healthcare that many of us don't talk about.

I have a friend in private practice who sends me his logs and revenues have come to a halt while they are trying to deal with this. There have been some serious questions raised about the future of private practices in his logs.

And sure - everyone wants to get their business open. Until they have a suck customer come in and they get sick or a bunch if their employees get sick and they have to close down anyway.

I know how much fun people have now that they have discovered how denimenators work and they think these anti-body studies are some kind of smoking gun - but all they have potentially proven is that the disease is much more infectious than we may have thought, and thus more dangerous. There are some doubts out there that antibodies to this disease even confer immunity. So, even if you have some antibodies, what difference would it make then? I don't buy this yet - but it seems to be a possibility at this point.

For those looking for info on the Stanford and other antibody studies, here is an easy-to-read article that is fairly balanced:

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

And yes, the Stanfird study recruited on Facebook. However, to this study's credit they at least have submitted for preprint, while most of the other studies just went to the media and avoided peer review altogether.

I am not arguing that the denominator is not possibly higher than we realize. I would suspect it is. But we don't have enough data to make a guess yet and it is speculation and poor science to jump to conclusions just because we want it to be true.

 

[justhere4comm]

File under WTF.

Exclusive: Coronavirus caused heart to rupture in nation’s first known victim, autopsy shows

The Santa Clara woman suffered a massive heart attack because of COVID-19, an autopsy...

www.sfchronicle.com

 

[justhere4comm]

Some moron posted there was 61,000 deaths in the USA from H1N1 and nobody cared.
In case anyone else considers this idiocy as truth, my response.

Covid-19
54,000 deaths (USA)
203,000 deaths (World)
2 months.

H1N1
13,000 deaths (USA)
151,000 - 500,000 deaths (World) - Odd spread, see*
1 year

Covid-19 If you extrapolate, we could have **minimum:
115,000 deaths (USA)
2,500,000 deaths (World)
1 year




*when checking on the Spanish Flu, the world estimation
cannot be calculated, but adjusted from 50,000,000 to 200,000,000.
Someone maybe can enlighten as to this discrepancy.

**and this is a very low minimal estimation.
I don't think it can be calculated with a lower accuracy
but probably much higher. Considering shut down / no shutdown. (H1N1)

 

[Admin]

Interesting projections if it pans out.

It would be 2x that of a bad flu year and not even close to the Spanish Flu.

And the timeline you can't really use because death rates in all of these is not linear at all. Usually very large spikes, then a very large drop.


Watching Sweden

 

[justhere4comm]

80k died of the common flu in a year.
54k died of Covid 19 in 2 months.

Let's keep some perspective here.

 

[Admin]

80k died of the common flu in a year.
54k died of Covid 19 in 2 months.

Let's keep some perspective here.

Sure, of those 80k that died the majority happened within 4 months yet the report says a year.

Thats why the CDC projections are from October to April for flu seasons.

 

[justhere4comm]

Sure, of those 80k that died the majority happened within 4 months yet the report says a year.

Thats why the CDC projections are from October to April for flu seasons.

We locked down (eventually) thankfully.
If we hadn't the Covid-19 deaths would probably have kept jumping exponentially, just like Spanish Flu.

Look at San Francisco: They locked down immediately during the Spanish Flu and all but avoided the first wave.
Unfortunately other states failed to act as fast and suffered. It was the second wave that hit them in a big way.

Locking down saved far more lives.
You cannot use Sweden here.
As much as you wish, it still doesn't make it true.

 

[Admin]

As much as you wish, it still doesn't make it true.

This is why having conversations with you is almost impossible. The rest of your statements are so beyond factual that its pointless to even continue with you.

 

[justhere4comm]

Two weeks ago, Wisconsin Republicans forced voters to risk their lives. "New cases" have now reached new highs for 3 straight days. (When the GOP ruled mail in ballots were not permitted, and closed all but 3 of 180 polling places, forcing in person voting and long lines..)

Guess what? A jump in Covid-19 cases.
Go figure.

 

[justhere4comm]

It's a matter of historical record about San Francisco during the Spanish Flu.
I'll document it if you want, but easy enough to look up.

Why the Second Wave of the 1918 Flu Pandemic Was So Deadly | HISTORY

The first strain of the Spanish Flu wasn’t particularly deadly. Then it came back in the fall with a vengeance.

www.history.com

Spanish Flu - Symptoms, How It Began & Ended

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, the deadliest in history, infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide—about one-third of the planet’s population—and killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million victims, including some 675,000 Americans.

www.history.com

How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Spanish Flu | HISTORY

How U.S. city officials responded to the Spanish flu played a critical role in how many residents lived—and died.

www.history.com

Photos show how San Francisco emerged from a lockdown too soon during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, leading to an even deadlier 2nd wave that rampaged through the city

The city went from a national role model to one of the worst-hit cities after lifting shutdown orders prematurely, resulting in over 45,000 cases.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Admin]

The flu mortality rate is 0.1 percent in the USA.
We will be at 3-5% mortality rate overall with older people taking the brunt of it, along with those with immune deficiency issues and conditions.

If it stays at 1% and does not climb but rests there for a few months...
My man. Do the math. This is a war of attrition and it can outlive us.

1 percent of the USA.
3,290,000 people will have died across the spectrum.

It could be 3-5x that...

Covid-19 is 10x as contagious as the common flu.

Edit:
Again, this is not an argument I want to win. I'd be happy to lose. I would do the jig, video it, and post it.

Its statements like these that you continue to make that show your complete lack of understanding about how any of these projections work. On top of that, when people explain your errors you simply revert to hyperbole.

Nobody with any type of credibility would try to make a projection that 100% of the population is going to be infected therefore try to calculate how many will die based on that.

And after one month of discussion, you literally did it again 3 posts up and told the rest of us to keep perspective.

 

[thebigt]

Its statements like these that you continue to make that show your complete lack of understanding about how any of these projections work. On top of that, when people explain your errors you simply revert to hyperbole.

Nobody with any type of credibility would try to make a projection that 100% of the population is going to be infected therefore try to calculate how many will die based on that.

And after one month of discussion, you literally did it again 3 posts up and told the rest of us to keep perspective.

his agenda is anti-trump...nuff said!!!

 

[HIT4ME]

I think another thing to consider, ultimately, we are comparing covid numbers for a fraction of the US to Flu numbers for all of the US.

For instance, the US has 20-80K flu deaths/year. We have had 50k+ covid deaths in less than 2 months in the US. It seems like it may be worse, but not much worse.

Only, well, not all of the US has really been hit yet. The map shows some spots are lit up like Christmad and others, like Montana, are just starting to glow.

Coronavirus map of the US: latest cases state by state

There are now more than 890,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 across the United States

www.theguardian.com

It looks like in 2018, less than 4700 people died from the flu in NYC. A big number to be sure. So far, we are over 11,800 deaths in NY from Covid. And that is with severe gov't lockdowns.

If the antibody studies show anything, it is that even when you take a population skewed toward an unrealistically high infection rate, only 4% of the people have it.

10% of the population is estimated to get the flu and around 5% is "confirmed".

We are looking at a disease that is 2-3x as infectious as the flu.

We have 1 million confirmed cases of Covid - less than 0.33% of the population. That has created almost 50,000 deaths in 2 months.

If you extrapolate that to the flu, we are looking at around 800,000 people dead if this even infects the same number of people infected by the flu each year - based on what we have actually seen. And that is conservative because it doesn't take into account the R0 being so much higher will increase infections exponentially, not linearly.

 

[Admin]

If you extrapolate that to the flu, we are looking at around 800,000 people dead if this even infects the same number of people infected by the flu each year - based on what we have actually seen. And that is conservative because it doesn't take into account the R0 being so much higher will increase infections exponentially, not linearly.

So you think 800,000 people will die of COVID-19 in the US?

 

[thebigt]

So you think 800,000 people will die of COVID-19 in the US?

no way, not even close!!!

 

[muscleupcrohn]

So you think 800,000 people will die of COVID-19 in the US?

No, because we’ve been limiting travel and practicing social distancing. If we did nothing, then yes, easily. There’s an argument to be made for when to open various states/cities that aren’t hit hard, or have gotten over the hump of the worst of it when that happens, but yes, if we did absolutely nothing and relied purely on the building of herd immunity to stop it, we’d be looking at probably 250k to 1mil dead. But doing absolutely nothing from the start would have been really dumb.