General COVID-19 talk, NHL remains suspended MOD Warning post #1

[tny760]

Fox news primetime on the other hand...

is garbage so you can cut that redirection right now

i used to actually rely on CNN for decent news coverage but at some point they decided to match fox with the boneheaded opinion "reporting"

 

[jfont]

Trump says he might give federal coronavirus aid to states if they comply with his political demands

*sigh*

 

[HeadInjury]

Bret Baier and Chris Wallace still try to be legitimate reporters. Tucker Carlson is sometimes interesting (and sometimes not). The rest of Fox is unwatchable.

But I could say the same about CNN.

The Internet is where I get 90% of my news these days.

 

[jfont]

is garbage so you can cut that redirection right now

Why not? They're the most watched "news" network now. And by the looks of it, they may be sued for misinformation on coronavirus reporting.

 

[tny760]

Why not?

because i wasn't talking about fox news?

 

[jfont]

Bret Baier and Chris Wallace still try to be legitimate reporters. Tucker Carlson is sometimes interesting (and sometimes not). The rest of Fox is unwatchable.

But I could say the same about CNN.

The Internet is where I get 90% of my news these days.

I guarantee you CNN will not be sued for coronavirus reporting. Fox News may be liable from via other media outlets.

 

[crassbonanza]

What is bothering you? That they didn't mention she was married? This sort of thing goes both ways you know. Last year I discovered my father, who is an avid Fox News watcher, never even heard of "grab 'em by the p***y".

I'm no fan of Fox News(or any for profit media for that matter) and am pretty solidly on the left with regards to most issues. However, I do think not mentioning that she had a family is an extremely glaring omission and a form of poor journalism. CNN has been one of the major organizations supporting Fergusson and they promoted the idea that this virus is extremely deadly to anyone who becomes infected. I think him exposing an innocent family to this disease is very noteworthy, if he really believed in that danger then he is knowingly putting her family at extreme risk.

 

[jfont]

because i wasn't talking about fox news?

They are absolutely what should be talked about for their primetime's misinformation on this pandemic

 

[tny760]

They are absolutely what should be talked about for their primetime's misinformation on this pandemic

 

[Bandit]

I'm no fan of Fox News(or any for profit media for that matter) and am pretty solidly on the left with regards to most issues. However, I do think not mentioning that she had a family is an extremely glaring omission and a form of poor journalism. CNN has been one of the major organizations supporting Fergusson and they promoted the idea that this virus is extremely deadly to anyone who becomes infected. I think him exposing an innocent family to this disease is very noteworthy, if he really believed in that danger then he is knowingly putting her family at extreme risk.

Yeah not disagreeing, basically just saying the same as republican vs. democrat, the whole CNN vs. Fox shit is tired. Everyone has an agenda and everyone is pushing their angle.

Who knows what the real story is, maybe that woman’s husband is banging the babysitter, maybe he’s totally innocent and she’s a . I feel bad for the kids though, this won’t end well for them in any case.

 

[crassbonanza]

Yeah not disagreeing, basically just saying the same as republican vs. democrat, the whole CNN vs. Fox shit is tired. Everyone has an agenda and everyone is pushing their angle.

Who knows what the real story is, maybe that woman’s husband is banging the babysitter, maybe he’s totally innocent and she’s a . I feel bad for the kids though, this won’t end well for them in any case.

I don't really care about the cheating, other than the fact that it is another sign that he doesn't believe in the necessity of the stay at home policies that he is the loudest proponent of.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I work in a physics lab, but am more of an applications scientist. I do not understand why people put full faith in models as being completely accurate and any deviation had to be from intervention. Especially when we are discussing orders of magnitude, to go from 200 million to 282 is not from intervention. Why are we not allowed to question models? Especially when said models are directing public policy. If it was on overreaction then we made most certainly made a mistake. The lockdown is not a decision that is lacking in consequences. This will have far reaching effects from starvation to delayed medical care to mental health issues. This also might be the last time we can utilize the lockdown for a good while once society has to deal with the fallout, so when a disease that actually would necessitate a lockdown comes along there will be stiff resistance.

We followed a rushed paper using a dated model that portrayed the worst case scenario, using data from China that was withdrawn, and it was from a professor who has been wildly wrong on numerous occasions.

Epidemiologists have called out Fergusson in the past and some did at the beginning of this whole situation.

Okay, no one said that.

But that's fine, and they should always be questioned. It's fine to have beef with Ferguson's model...now how about all the others that were suggesting this is a big deal and we need to take some measures?

In the effort to stem what was presumed to be exponential growth, we cut it off at the pass. Yes, it looks like an overreaction. I'm not sure why that's problematic that this resulted in less disastrous health outcomes then anticipated locally, especially given those results did in fact play out elsewhere.

I can't believe I even need to say this, it feels like it should be common sense--we're dealing with an unknown opponent and making the best we can with what we have and the experts are projecting with all known info here's what it could be. Why is a group of folks myopically attacking solely the Imperial model? It's a totally revisionist, dishonest view of why we responded the way we did. It's going after one model in an attempt to invalidate all models.

Yes, this has disastrous economic results, and there's a case to be made there about when to open up vs. health outcomes. However, acting like this disease didn't necessitate action is pretty ignorant of what's happened in population centers around the world. Even the most moderate models were pretty bleak about infection capability if not death--which, ironically, is working in the 'open it up' crowd's favor if it's true that it's proving to be even more infectious yet less deadly than we thought. In fact, if you're attacking models, you should NOT want to open things up, because the HARD data we have says this thing is extremely deadly--the stuff that says we are good to try easing things up is a projection.

 

[crassbonanza]

But that's fine, and they should always be questioned. It's fine to have beef with Ferguson's model...now how about all the others that were suggesting this is a big deal and we need to take some measures?

I do not believe any other models were predicting 2 million+ deaths in the US. That model is the reason why the world locked down because those numbers are very extreme. If you had a model predicting 100-200K deaths in the US, we would have taken new precautions, but I don't think anyone would have shut down the world.

In the effort to stem what was presumed to be exponential growth, we cut it off at the pass. Yes, it looks like an overreaction. I'm not sure why that's problematic that this resulted in less disastrous health outcomes then anticipated locally, especially given those results did in fact play out elsewhere.

The overreaction is problematics because there are going to be consequences to the lockdown. Beyond the argument of civil liberties, the economy, food shortage or mental health this lockdown will directly lead to deaths: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30265-5/fulltext

I can't believe I even need to say this, it feels like it should be common sense--we're dealing with an unknown opponent and making the best we can with what we have and the experts are projecting with all known info here's what it could be. Why is a group of folks myopically attacking solely the Imperial model? It's a totally revisionist, dishonest view of why we responded the way we did. It's going after one model in an attempt to invalidate all models.

The world is always facing an unknown opponent, it is scary that we resort to dangerous extreme policies because of a single model. The imperial model was flawed and calling it out is not revisionist history: In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable data

Yes, this has disastrous economic results, and there's a case to be made there about when to open up vs. health outcomes. However, acting like this disease didn't necessitate action is pretty ignorant of what's happened in population centers around the world. Even the most moderate models were pretty bleak about infection capability if not death--which, ironically, is working in the 'open it up' crowd's favor if it's true that it's proving to be even more infectious yet less deadly than we thought. In fact, if you're attacking models, you should NOT want to open things up, because the HARD data we have says this thing is extremely deadly--the stuff that says we are good to try easing things up is a projection.

It did necessitate action, it did not necessitate this extreme action. I'm not sure what you are arguing towards the end here. The seroprevalence studies showing the low IFR are not projection models, they are simply looking at the percent of the population with antibodies. They are not making any projection as to the death total, there is extrapolation involved, but it is not a projection model.

I don't believe in a full open up, we can still take precautions, but the draconian measures at this point are not necessary and are in my opinion dangerous. The virus isn't going to go away and we are not likely going to find a miracle cure in the next couple of months. Which is why I don't understand why we are still locked down, I don't know when the lockdown changed from bend the curve to eliminate the virus. Because we are just prolonging it at this point.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I do not believe any other models were predicting 2 million+ deaths in the US. That model is the reason why the world locked down because those numbers are very extreme. If you had a model predicting 100-200K deaths in the US, we would have taken new precautions, but I don't think anyone would have shut down the world.

The overreaction is problematics because there are going to be consequences to the lockdown. Beyond the argument of civil liberties, the economy, food shortage or mental health this lockdown will directly lead to deaths: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30265-5/fulltext

The world is always facing an unknown opponent, it is scary that we resort to dangerous extreme policies because of a single model. The imperial model was flawed and calling it out is not revisionist history: In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions without reliable data

It did necessitate action, it did not necessitate this extreme action. I'm not sure what you are arguing towards the end here. The seroprevalence studies showing the low IFR are not projection models, they are simply looking at the percent of the population with antibodies. They are not making any projection as to the death total, there is extrapolation involved, but it is not a projection model.

I don't believe in a full open up, we can still take precautions, but the draconian measures at this point are not necessary and are in my opinion dangerous. The virus isn't going to go away and we are not likely going to find a miracle cure in the next couple of months. Which is why I don't understand why we are still locked down, I don't know when the lockdown changed from bend the curve to eliminate the virus. Because we are just prolonging it at this point.

What did the world do that you don't approve of based on any models whatsoever?

I'm sorry but "draconian measures" is extreme hyperbole. Nothing is remotely like that in the US, the 'freedom' protests are beyond hilarity frankly, it's a 'stay at home' order, not a literal quarantine like China did where they were literally delivering food door to door because people couldn't leave the house. And more than half the US never even did a stay at home the way we did and they're still complaining. I get making your voice heard that you're ready to open up--but not going to the beach and not getting a haircut is a long way from getting decapitated for stealing vegetables.

The funny thing is, it's the same thing that's happening with me and K17--we're actually agreeing on what should be done +/- a week or two. But I disagree with people going full antiscience in the name of opening up, just like others disagree with the state/government having any authority to shut things down. It's counterproductive and will lead to more trouble down the road, equal to or even more so than taking measures to slow the disease down.

 

[crassbonanza]

What did the world do that you don't approve of based on any models whatsoever?

I am not in disagreement with all models. I work with analytical models every day actually. Specifically with regards to material analysis. While those are not projection models, it does give me some insight into some of the drawbacks. To begin with you are reliant on subjective input, the modeler is playing a role in defining the outcome. Secondly, you are reliant on accurate data. The Imperial model suffered from both of these flaws. The Imperial Model was a 15 year old model that was used many times before and was wildly inaccurate. The Imperial model also used data from China that was withdrawn by the time the predictions were published. The data they were using was not in any way accurate.

My issue is with using a single projection model to make extreme political decisions.

I'm sorry but "draconian measures" is extreme hyperbole. Nothing is remotely like that in the US, the 'freedom' protests are beyond hilarity frankly, it's a 'stay at home' order, not a literal quarantine like China did where they were literally delivering food door to door because people couldn't leave the house. And more than half the US never even did a stay at home the way we did and they're still complaining. I get making your voice heard that you're ready to open up--but not going to the beach and not getting a haircut is a long way from getting decapitated for stealing vegetables.

It is not extreme hyperbole. We fundamentally took away a number of civil liberties and they will only be returned to us when the Governor decides. He gets to make decisions at his whim as to what people are allowed to do. He punished Orange County and closed their beaches because he was pissed at them. Now he let some of them open, but is not allowing Newport to open for reasons that nobody really knows. He also doesn't feel the need to answer why he made that decision, which when you think about it is pretty scary.

I am not complaining about a hair cut. I am not complaining about not going to the beach. I am complaining because we set a very dangerous precedent in basically giving up any sort of liberty because of a projection model. I am complaining because this lockdown is going to have severe long term affects on the population as a whole and nobody is giving any credence to the dangers in continuing it. They are treating anyone opposed as simpletons who just want a haircut. I mean since we are talking abotu projection models, the UN is projecting that 140+ million new people will be subjected to starvation due to the lockdowns. Those projections may be wrong as well, but I don't see anyone in arms to try to solve that problem right now.

The funny thing is, it's the same thing that's happening with me and K17--we're actually agreeing on what should be done +/- a week or two. But I disagree with people going full antiscience in the name of opening up, just like others disagree with the state/government having any authority to shut things down. It's counterproductive and will lead to more trouble down the road, equal to or even more so than taking measures to slow the disease down.

I am not antiscience. Again, I work at a physics lab. I just don't understand why Fergusson was the only scientist we latched onto at the beginning. Fauci's early model projected this as a severe flu season. I linked to you Dr. Ioaniddis earlier who was against the lockdown from the start. Are they not valued in this discussion? I think by holding onto bad data and continuing to prop up bad models we are actually going to create more of an anti-science sentiment among the public.

By the way, the Fergusson thing is just ridiculous the more you think about it. Fergusson having his married lover over multiple times during the stay at home is the same as Mayor Lightfoot going to the hairstylist when Chicago was locked down. It's the same as Trudeau vacationing at his summer cottage during Easter while telling Canadians to not do the same. It's the same as Governor Pritzker's wife travelling to Florida to visit her Horse Ranch while Illinois is under strict do not travel orders. It's the same as the Sonoma County Emergency Services manager shutting down the beaches to the public, then bringing his family to said beaches.

The very people who have assumed mass amounts of control and are telling people to stay home can't even follow their own orders.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I am not in disagreement with all models. I work with analytical models every day actually. Specifically with regards to material analysis. While those are not projection models, it does give me some insight into some of the drawbacks. To begin with you are reliant on subjective input, the modeler is playing a role in defining the outcome. Secondly, you are reliant on accurate data. The Imperial model suffered from both of these flaws. The Imperial Model was a 15 year old model that was used many times before and was wildly inaccurate. The Imperial model also used data from China that was withdrawn by the time the predictions were published. The data they were using was not in any way accurate.

My issue is with using a single projection model to make extreme political decisions.

But it wasn't the single projection model used universally, it was 'wildly inaccurate' at least partially because it literally modeled "what if no one does anything?", and you're still not shedding light on what 'extreme' political decisions were made, though at least you backed off 'draconian measures.'

It is not extreme hyperbole. We fundamentally took away a number of civil liberties and they will only be returned to us when the Governor decides. He gets to make decisions at his whim as to what people are allowed to do. He punished Orange County and closed their beaches because he was pissed at them. Now he let some of them open, but is not allowing Newport to open for reasons that nobody really knows. He also doesn't feel the need to answer why he made that decision, which when you think about it is pretty scary.

I am not complaining about a hair cut. I am not complaining about not going to the beach. I am complaining because we set a very dangerous precedent in basically giving up any sort of liberty because of a projection model. I am complaining because this lockdown is going to have severe long term affects on the population as a whole and nobody is giving any credence to the dangers in continuing it. They are treating anyone opposed as simpletons who just want a haircut. I mean since we are talking abotu projection models, the UN is projecting that 140+ million new people will be subjected to starvation due to the lockdowns. Those projections may be wrong as well, but I don't see anyone in arms to try to solve that problem right now.

It's not 'at his whim.' It's laid out and literally days away and based on measurable criteria. It was a very tame 'civil liberties' takeaway given we could leave the house at any time.

The Orange County Beaches thing is petty bullshit but you can't have it both ways--"we're responsible let us out" and "f*** you I have to go to the beach in April." I don't like the move because it's a step in the wrong direction--I personally don't think you can/should save people from themselves more than has already done--but it's pretty clear WHY it was done: right at our peak for infections and deaths thus far, people freaked out and acted like things were over. I get that this was the part of the entire even that has you heated, and I understand.

But If we were really so oppressed, there'd be a whole lot more people getting tear gassed or thrown in jail over this, rather than packing bars in San Clemente with their middle fingers in the air. I can't take the civil liberty repression claim seriously. I'm a small business owner and I take this thing in the can just about as hard as anyone, but given we have a roadmap for this thing, I believe it's worth hanging on.

Yes, there are huge economic consequences. There always were going to be, and worldwide. But At least you caught yourself before walking into "I don't believe the infection models" while simultaneously giving full credence to possible starvation models.

What should have been done, in your opinion? And based on what data?

I am not antiscience. Again, I work at a physics lab. I just don't understand why Fergusson was the only scientist we latched onto at the beginning. Fauci's early model projected this as a severe flu season. I linked to you Dr. Ioaniddis earlier who was against the lockdown from the start. Are they not valued in this discussion? I think by holding onto bad data and continuing to prop up bad models we are actually going to create more of an anti-science sentiment among the public.

By the way, the Fergusson thing is just ridiculous the more you think about it. Fergusson having his married lover over multiple times during the stay at home is the same as Mayor Lightfoot going to the hairstylist when Chicago was locked down. It's the same as Trudeau vacationing at his summer cottage during Easter while telling Canadians to not do the same. It's the same as Governor Pritzker's wife travelling to Florida to visit her Horse Ranch while Illinois is under strict do not travel orders. It's the same as the Sonoma County Emergency Services manager shutting down the beaches to the public, then bringing his family to said beaches.

The very people who have assumed mass amounts of control and are telling people to stay home can't even follow their own orders.

Again, Ferg wasn't the only one. Fauci was listened to. Ioaniddis WAS part of the discussion, it was just decided pretty well collectively that just unleashing the whole thing was an unacceptable preventable loss of life. There were also plenty of departmental State/Federal projections as well as projections from many other organizations and colleges that were part of the scene. I truly do not know where you are getting the idea that Fergusson was the only one. The generally accepted idea based on a collective of models and available data was let's mitigate as much as we can while we solve this thing. Other countries tried other models, and most peeled back. Remember when the UK was going to go full herd immunity? They tested that--how did it go? Boris Johnson will tell ya once he gets his voice back. Basically every state/country that has said 'f*** you it won't happen to me' has had scientific karma kick them in the teeth. You know who has handled it arguably better than anyone? South Korea. New Zealand. THOSE are the most successful outcomes thus far. That's the hard data we have. And they took steep measures and early to curb it. And their ideas were based on models. But agreed on bad, especially outdated, data. I feel like we're not getting good info as this thing goes on, whether it's fatigue or what, and that's problematic for everyone, particularly those in charge of policy.

I also didn't mean "you" in particular were antiscience, just that most of the rhetoric attacking the models and data are simply there obfuscating whatever grains of truth we ARE getting.

As far as that guy as a human being? Yep. Right with your examples. Just another terrible human being who doesn't think the rules apply to them holding a position of power. There are more of him than not, these days.

 

[crassbonanza]

But it wasn't the single projection model used universally, it was 'wildly inaccurate' at least partially because it literally modeled "what if no one does anything?", and you're still not shedding light on what 'extreme' political decisions were made, though at least you backed off 'draconian measures.'

His model of what if no one did anything was wrong though. His IFR rates are wildly inaccurate, so even if this had a 100% infection rate we would not get to his numbers. They were flat out wrong and used bad data.

The extreme political decisions was handing absolute authority to a single person and allowing him to dictate our lives. Making it illegal to protest, shutting down businesses at his discretion, deciding who gets to do what and where. I'm thankful it is not China, but I don't think we should be comparing ourselves to them.

It's not 'at his whim.' It's laid out and literally days away and based on measurable criteria. It was a very tame 'civil liberties' takeaway given we could leave the house at any time.

It is not measurable criteria though, I mean the Orange County situation was not measurable. Further I can't even find where he lays out his requirements for each phase anymore, all that I can find is that he says phase 4 only begins when we have a vaccine. Which is a tall ask, because one has never been created for a coronavirus before.

The Orange County Beaches thing is petty bullshit but you can't have it both ways--"we're responsible let us out" and "f*** you I have to go to the beach in April." I don't like the move because it's a step in the wrong direction--I personally don't think you can/should save people from themselves more than has already done--but it's pretty clear WHY it was done: right at our peak for infections and deaths thus far, people freaked out and acted like things were over. I get that this was the part of the entire even that has you heated, and I understand.

It wasn't done for the right reasons though. The science backs up that outdoor transmission is not likely. He acted purely on spite and emotion.

Yes, there are huge economic consequences. There always were going to be, and worldwide. But At least you caught yourself before walking into "I don't believe the infection models" while simultaneously giving full credence to possible starvation models.

What should have been done, in your opinion? And based on what data?

Haha, I did parse that phrase welly didn't I? My point there is that the lockdown is not some innocent decision that people are only protesting because they want a hair cut. If we do want to follow models tightly then we should be responding to what appears to be potentially much more deadly.

Again, Ferg wasn't the only one. Fauci was listened to. Ioaniddis WAS part of the discussion, it was just decided pretty well collectively that just unleashing the whole thing was an unacceptable preventable loss of life. There were also plenty of departmental State/Federal projections as well as projections from many other organizations and colleges that were part of the scene. I truly do not know where you are getting the idea that Fergusson was the only one. The generally accepted idea based on a collective of models and available data was let's mitigate as much as we can while we solve this thing. Other countries tried other models, and most peeled back. Remember when the UK was going to go full herd immunity? They tested that--how did it go? Boris Johnson will tell ya once he gets his voice back. Basically every state/country that has said 'f*** you it won't happen to me' has had scientific karma kick them in the teeth. You know who has handled it arguably better than anyone? South Korea. New Zealand. THOSE are the most successful outcomes thus far. That's the hard data we have. And they took steep measures and early to curb it. And their ideas were based on models. But agreed on bad, especially outdated, data. I feel like we're not getting good info as this thing goes on, whether it's fatigue or what, and that's problematic for everyone, particularly those in charge of policy.

Ioaniddis was a part of the discussion and it appears that he was for the most part right.

Fergusson was the major one, he was cited every night on the news and was the public face of the lockdown. He very much was a big part of the lockdown, hence the article I shared with you from March criticizing our governments for going down a lockdown tunnel based on his models.

What state/country had scientific karma kick them in the teeth? Sweden? Belarus?

I wouldn't call New Zealand a success just yet. They did have the benefit of beign an island with few people and a more rural population and in their scenario a lockdown was effective. However, they are going to be reliant on the rest of the world figuring out the disease or they will have to essentially only interact with Australia. For a nation built on tourism that can end up going bad.

There is a lot of misinformation, but I think it is very widely accepted that the disease is not nearly as deadly as once thought. The media still lives by the mantra "if it bleeds it leads" hence why we are getting fun reports on the "Asian murder hornet" or the "mutant Covid 19" now.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Speaking of data--LA county is just a disaster. But outside LA, OC is now the fastest growing area by cases and by deaths.

I've been pulling data from here, which links it back to each county's site.

COVID-19/Coronavirus Real Time Updates With Credible Sources in US and Canada | 1Point3Acres

12 deaths today, most in the state outside LA. Even hotspots like Riverside have started to taper off, but OC has a 5% growth rate in deaths.

As a state, today was the 3rd deadliest day we've had.

Hopefully this 'opening' is on the other side of the hump and most of the infected are either quarantined or hospitalized.

 

[KINGS17]

Speaking of data--LA county is just a disaster. But outside LA, OC is now the fastest growing area by cases and by deaths.

I've been pulling data from here, which links it back to each county's site.

COVID-19/Coronavirus Real Time Updates With Credible Sources in US and Canada | 1Point3Acres

12 deaths today, most in the state outside LA. Even hotspots like Riverside have started to taper off, but OC has a 5% growth rate in deaths.

As a state, today was the 3rd deadliest day we've had.

Hopefully this 'opening' is on the other side of the hump and most of the infected are either quarantined or hospitalized.

Sorry, when I see around 70 deaths in Orange County vs over 1,300 deaths in LA County, I don't think they are comparable. In fact, if Orange County is the #2 problem in California, it tells me it's time to start winding down the stay at home orders, and move toward stage 3 everywhere except LA County.

Again, I would like to see some context here as well. What was the average age of the people who were lost? How many were living in an institution of some type?

Los Angeles County has a population of approximately 10 million. A death total of 1,300 represents 1.3% of the total population. Over 40% of the LA County deaths have occurred in nursing homes, so now we are talking about less than 1% of the population that is not living in an institution. Orange County has a population of over 3.1 million people. If my math is correct the deaths in Orange County represents around 0.23% of the total population. The rate in Orange County does not warrant the drastic measures which are currently in place, and like should have been lifted over a week ago.

Any life cut short by this virus is a tragedy, but we can't continue doing damage to the health and welfare of people who have decades of life left to live. The initial response due to the lack of data and knowledge was fine, but it's time to change our approach and isolate the elderly and those at most risk, and quarantine anyone who has symptoms or has tested positive.

Are we going to see a bump in the number of cases after reopening? Yes, absolutely we will see an increase.

 

[King'sPawn]

I don't believe in a full open up, we can still take precautions, but the draconian measures at this point are not necessary and are in my opinion dangerous. The virus isn't going to go away and we are not likely going to find a miracle cure in the next couple of months. Which is why I don't understand why we are still locked down, I don't know when the lockdown changed from bend the curve to eliminate the virus. Because we are just prolonging it at this point.

The advisory was for states to begin opening up once they have 2 weeks of reported cases going down.

I find arguments this is 1) extreme 2) draconian and 3) a violation of civil liberties and 4) dangerous very disagreeable.

Especially since the federal government told states they are on their own, and is now extorting states to agree to meet his political agenda before offering aid.

I'm most concerned that the "we must restart the economy" rhetoric comes when the virus is most dangerous for people of retirement age. Would we be so eager to sacrifice lives if the lethality was higher against prople in the 20-64 age range?

Myself, I'm in danger. I have issues with my lungs. Even though my girlfriend is able to do her job at home, her work is trying to force her to go in. If she contracts Covid and brings it home to me, I'm very concerned that's it.

Maybe my perspective is different, but the right of people to get the best chance to survive a pandemic outweighs the "civil liberties" of people carelessly failing to adhere to the simple precautions you espouse we take.

The government can coordinate to help provide finances and services for people to recoup losses if they ask people to stay inside and are unable to work. The government can't revive people who die.

So, I am sorry my desire to live and avoid a virus that attacks where I'm vulnerable conflicts with your perceived compromise of civil liberties. I'm sorry there are people suffering financially and mentally of being unable to work and congregate like they used to. More than anything, I'm sorry we have leadership, from the governors to the president, who is letting us all worry that we have to sacrifice some tenets to protect the others.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

His model of what if no one did anything was wrong though. His IFR rates are wildly inaccurate, so even if this had a 100% infection rate we would not get to his numbers. They were flat out wrong and used bad data.

The extreme political decisions was handing absolute authority to a single person and allowing him to dictate our lives. Making it illegal to protest, shutting down businesses at his discretion, deciding who gets to do what and where. I'm thankful it is not China, but I don't think we should be comparing ourselves to them.

I think it's safe to assume it was wrong, but we don't know that it's wrong because even the most open states didn't do nothing; they still had reduced travel, etc.

Is it illegal to protest? I see hundreds protesting in every city every day and I don't see anyone but the violent getting arrested.

It is not measurable criteria though, I mean the Orange County situation was not measurable. Further I can't even find where he lays out his requirements for each phase anymore, all that I can find is that he says phase 4 only begins when we have a vaccine. Which is a tall ask, because one has never been created for a coronavirus before.

It wasn't done for the right reasons though. The science backs up that outdoor transmission is not likely. He acted purely on spite and emotion.

Here are the phases. Nothing is completely arbitrary in such a way that anyone can honestly claim 'power grab.'

California's reopening will come in 4 phases: What you need to know



Phase 2 was supposed to come when we had a two-week falling--but instead, we're doing it at the peak to appease.

The idea was that we'd have a better handling on testing, a start on tracing, and some sort of treatment in hand.

And of course outdoor transmission is unlikely and after all the findings on Vitamin D deficiency the sun may be a powerful tool--but again, it's not like people are safely socially distancing at the beach, they're protesting in place within inches of each other with no PPE, which isn't much better than inside, if at all.

Haha, I did parse that phrase welly didn't I? My point there is that the lockdown is not some innocent decision that people are only protesting because they want a hair cut. If we do want to follow models tightly then we should be responding to what appears to be potentially much more deadly.

I get it, and I have very liberal friends who are amongst the protesters for similar reasons--they are poor and ready to take their chances. I know not everyone is the mouthbreathing idiot with an assault rifle marching on the state capitol because the nail salon is closed. I'm willing to bet the great majority aren't just trying to spit on Newsom, they're in legitimate financial peril. But again, that's a long way from "i can't go to the beach in April." It's why P2 is opening businesses.

Ioaniddis was a part of the discussion and it appears that he was for the most part right.

Fergusson was the major one, he was cited every night on the news and was the public face of the lockdown. He very much was a big part of the lockdown, hence the article I shared with you from March criticizing our governments for going down a lockdown tunnel based on his models.

What state/country had scientific karma kick them in the teeth? Sweden? Belarus?

I wouldn't call New Zealand a success just yet. They did have the benefit of beign an island with few people and a more rural population and in their scenario a lockdown was effective. However, they are going to be reliant on the rest of the world figuring out the disease or they will have to essentially only interact with Australia. For a nation built on tourism that can end up going bad.

There is a lot of misinformation, but I think it is very widely accepted that the disease is not nearly as deadly as once thought. The media still lives by the mantra "if it bleeds it leads" hence why we are getting fun reports on the "Asian murder hornet" or the "mutant Covid 19" now.

Sweden, UK, even parts of the US. Iran, definitely--they decided NOT to shut down for a while, only big public gatherings.

No, of course NZ isn't comparable. But South Korea is, even down to the public reporting date--they're basically our timeline mates and look at how they responded.

Yes, agreed on the reporting. There is actually a LOT of good news out there and progress being made, it's just being buried by mushroom cloud rhetoric.

Sorry, when I see around 70 deaths in Orange County vs over 1,300 deaths in LA County, I don't think they are comparable. In fact, if Orange County is the #2 problem in California, it tells me it's time to start winding down the stay at home orders, and move toward stage 3 everywhere except LA County.

Again, I would like to see some context here as well. What was the average age of the people who were lost? How many were living in an institution of some type?

Los Angeles County has a population of approximately 10 million. A death total of 1,300 represents 1.3% of the total population. Over 40% of the LA County deaths have occurred in nursing homes, so now we are talking about less than 1% of the population that is not living in an institution. Orange County has a population of over 3.1 million people. If my math is correct the deaths in Orange County represents around 0.23% of the total population. The rate in Orange County does not warrant the drastic measures which are currently in place, and like should have been lifted over a week ago.

Any life cut short by this virus is a tragedy, but we can't continue doing damage to the health and welfare of people who have decades of life left to live. The initial response due to the lack of data and knowledge was fine, but it's time to change our approach and isolate the elderly and those at most risk, and quarantine anyone who has symptoms or has tested positive.

Are we going to see a bump in the number of cases after reopening? Yes, absolutely we will see an increase.

I didn't say they were comparable, I specifically pointed out LA county is a disaster. But you take that out, and OC is accelerating virus trouble at a higher rate than any other part of the state. You can brush that off if you like, but that's the data.

It's much like how if you pull NYC out, the rest of the US is still rising, rather than plateauing. As you say, from a raw numbers perspective that may not be trouble, but with the historically exponential growth of this thing (see data on previous page of Socal counties doubling in death every two weeks), I don't think you can ignore it, it bears monitoring very closely.

And so I'm very clear again to both of you--you may remember I advocated that yes, it's time, around the 2nd week of May. I'm just urging caution because it seems like many (not you in particular) think 'opening' means full-speed-ahead, no mask, no distancing measures--that's my biggest worry. People are just going to forget what we've learned about mitigation. Let's do it, but with caution, and be ready to peel back if things blow up--yet, of course, based on the beach in april thing, my secondary worry is we'll catch fire and people will refuse to go back to stay-at-home. And that's how you get a second peak. I'm just hopeful that new knowledge and treatment measures will stop all that.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The advisory was for states to begin opening up once they have 2 weeks of reported cases going down.

I find arguments this is 1) extreme 2) draconian and 3) a violation of civil liberties and 4) dangerous very disagreeable.

Especially since the federal government told states they are on their own, and is now extorting states to agree to meet his political agenda before offering aid.

I'm most concerned that the "we must restart the economy" rhetoric comes when the virus is most dangerous for people of retirement age. Would we be so eager to sacrifice lives if the lethality was higher against prople in the 20-64 age range?

Myself, I'm in danger. I have issues with my lungs. Even though my girlfriend is able to do her job at home, her work is trying to force her to go in. If she contracts Covid and brings it home to me, I'm very concerned that's it.

Maybe my perspective is different, but the right of people to get the best chance to survive a pandemic outweighs the "civil liberties" of people carelessly failing to adhere to the simple precautions you espouse we take.

The government can coordinate to help provide finances and services for people to recoup losses if they ask people to stay inside and are unable to work. The government can't revive people who die.

So, I am sorry my desire to live and avoid a virus that attacks where I'm vulnerable conflicts with your perceived compromise of civil liberties. I'm sorry there are people suffering financially and mentally of being unable to work and congregate like they used to. More than anything, I'm sorry we have leadership, from the governors to the president, who is letting us all worry that we have to sacrifice some tenets to protect the others.

Exactly. One person's rights end where they infringe upon another's. Not on this forum, but there are a large group of "MY rights" people protesting right now, meaning "only I matter, what about me" not "I want everyone to be completely free".

 

[KINGS17]

How to reopen society using medical science and logic

From an article written by Scott W. Atlas, MD. Dr. Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a member of Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Health Care Policy. He investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access, quality, pricing, and innovation in health care, and he is a frequent policy adviser to government leaders in those areas.

The curves have been flattened – the stated goal of the isolation has been accomplished – for both hospitalizations per day and deaths per day.

We now have an even greater urgency, due to the severe and single-minded policies already implemented. Treating COVID-19 “at all costs” is severely restricting other medical care and instilling fear in the public, creating a massive health disaster, separate from a potential world poverty crisis with almost incalculable consequences. Half of neurosurgery patients still refuse to come in for treatment of diseases that if left untreated risk brain hemorrhage, paralysis and death, even when their doctors directly reassure them. That’s just one subset of the latest reports of skipping two-thirds to three-fourths of cancer screenings, most childhood vaccinations and treatment for new strokes and known cancer.

Here are specific and logical steps to end the lockdown and safely restore normal life:
First, let’s finally focus on protection for the most vulnerable — that means nursing home patients, who are already living under controlled access.

Second, those with mild symptoms of the illness should strictly self-isolate for two weeks. It’s not urgent to test them — simply assume they have the infection.

Third, open all K-12 schools. Children have nearly no risk of serious illness from COVID-19. Exceptions exist, as they do with virtually every other clinically encountered infection, but that should not outweigh the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Again, standards for consciously protecting elderly and other at-risk family members or friends would still be employed.

Fourth, open businesses, including restaurants and offices, but require new standards for hygiene, disinfection and sanitization via enforceable, more stringent regulations than in the past.

Fifth, public transportation, the lifeblood of much of the workforce in cities, should resume. In addition to new standards of cleanliness and hygiene that passengers would welcome, regional authorities could require barrier masks for passengers.

Sixth, parks and beaches should open. The closure policy was aiming to prevent social mingling. There is no scientific reason to insist that people remain indoors.

Finally, implement prioritized testing for three groups: Nursing home workers, health care workers and first responders, and patients in hospitals with respiratory symptoms or fever.

Total isolation must now end to limit the enormous harms accumulating from sacrificing vital health care and imposing economic lockdown. Smart re-entry cannot be delayed by fear or hypothetical projections, because we have direct data on risk and experience with managing it.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

How to reopen society using medical science and logic

From an article written by Scott W. Atlas, MD. Dr. Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a member of Hoover Institution’s Working Group on Health Care Policy. He investigates the impact of government and the private sector on access, quality, pricing, and innovation in health care, and he is a frequent policy adviser to government leaders in those areas.

The curves have been flattened – the stated goal of the isolation has been accomplished – for both hospitalizations per day and deaths per day.

We now have an even greater urgency, due to the severe and single-minded policies already implemented. Treating COVID-19 “at all costs” is severely restricting other medical care and instilling fear in the public, creating a massive health disaster, separate from a potential world poverty crisis with almost incalculable consequences. Half of neurosurgery patients still refuse to come in for treatment of diseases that if left untreated risk brain hemorrhage, paralysis and death, even when their doctors directly reassure them. That’s just one subset of the latest reports of skipping two-thirds to three-fourths of cancer screenings, most childhood vaccinations and treatment for new strokes and known cancer.

Here are specific and logical steps to end the lockdown and safely restore normal life:
First, let’s finally focus on protection for the most vulnerable — that means nursing home patients, who are already living under controlled access.

Second, those with mild symptoms of the illness should strictly self-isolate for two weeks. It’s not urgent to test them — simply assume they have the infection.

Third, open all K-12 schools. Children have nearly no risk of serious illness from COVID-19. Exceptions exist, as they do with virtually every other clinically encountered infection, but that should not outweigh the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Again, standards for consciously protecting elderly and other at-risk family members or friends would still be employed.

Fourth, open businesses, including restaurants and offices, but require new standards for hygiene, disinfection and sanitization via enforceable, more stringent regulations than in the past.

Fifth, public transportation, the lifeblood of much of the workforce in cities, should resume. In addition to new standards of cleanliness and hygiene that passengers would welcome, regional authorities could require barrier masks for passengers.

Sixth, parks and beaches should open. The closure policy was aiming to prevent social mingling. There is no scientific reason to insist that people remain indoors.

Finally, implement prioritized testing for three groups: Nursing home workers, health care workers and first responders, and patients in hospitals with respiratory symptoms or fever.

Total isolation must now end to limit the enormous harms accumulating from sacrificing vital health care and imposing economic lockdown. Smart re-entry cannot be delayed by fear or hypothetical projections, because we have direct data on risk and experience with managing it.

I agree with a lot of this but there are some really problematic things coming from a doctor right there, almost in line with those quacks that got exposed last week.

1-2--FULLY agree. I think most people would.

3--the problem with opening school ISNT the kids getting sick--it's the carrier transmission. A bunch of asymptomatic kids bringing the virus home turns every neighborhood into a potential hotspot. There needs to be more done here.

4--Abso-f***ing-lutely. Now.

5--good lord, NO. LOTS more needs to be done here. Worse than schools. Yet, they're necessary modes of transportation in urban centers--but we can't just open up and ignore the issue.

6--agree, with cautions. It's sort of like the schools thing, a bunch of kids on a playground apparatus are sharing germs. let's be smart about it.

 

[KINGS17]

I agree with a lot of this but there are some really problematic things coming from a doctor right there, almost in line with those quacks that got exposed last week.

1-2--FULLY agree. I think most people would.

3--the problem with opening school ISNT the kids getting sick--it's the carrier transmission. A bunch of asymptomatic kids bringing the virus home turns every neighborhood into a potential hotspot. There needs to be more done here.

4--Abso-f***ing-lutely. Now.

5--good lord, NO. LOTS more needs to be done here. Worse than schools. Yet, they're necessary modes of transportation in urban centers--but we can't just open up and ignore the issue.

6--agree, with cautions. It's sort of like the schools thing, a bunch of kids on a playground apparatus are sharing germs. let's be smart about it.

I think his point is if you do number six, the infections among school children do not matter. Until this blows over grandparents should not be seeing their grandchildren, if the goal is to be 100% safe from transmission by younger people to the elderly. This is a difficult proposition to be sure, especially in homes where there are multi-generations, but that is a small percentage of the total households in the U.S.