Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 84

Thread: How does no sports in California until 2021 affect the Zags?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    644

    Default

    One could lead the world in # of tests, or tests per capita, but the real number we need to focus on is how many tests to we need to effectively re-open our country to minimize the risks associated with the virus. We could theoretically lead the world in testing, but if we fall short of this number, it doesn't mean a whole lot if it's not enough testing. I could brag I got the highest score on a test, but if my score was a 30%, that doesn't mean a whole lot, just that I failed less than the rest of the class. LOL

    Gov. Inslee said last night that we are currently doing about 4,000 tests per day in WA, but we have a need to do more, which is hampered by supply shortages. He said in order for us to successfully reopen we will need to be doing 20,000-30,000 a day in order to be able to track the virus more effectively. Couple this with more intensive contract tracing, it seems we're still a ways off. He did say they are on pace to bring on 1,500 workers to help with contract tracing, so that will help.

    In my mind, there are three main prongs to being able to successfully fully re-open. 1) extensive testing, 2) quick and extensive contract tracing with high self-quarantine compliance, and 3) effective treatments for those who are infected, especially the high risk groups. Ultimately, what will fix this long-term is a vaccine, but I don't see that until next summer for the masses....at the earliest. I wish I could say I see any one of these three happening in the near future, but I'm pretty pessimistic on that.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Valley Zag View Post
    FWIW, a few weeks ago my daughter's preschool teacher's husband tested positive. First test came back inconclusive. Second test came back positive. His wife, my daughter's teacher, had the same symptoms and she was not tested, but told to assume that she had it. Both have since recovered. Their three-year old did not develop any symptoms and was never tested. Our governor says there aren't enough for everyone to get one and that the proper treatment's usually the same anyway.
    This dynamic is why I never paid much attention to the flu before. The answer was usually, “Yup. You have the flu. Here’s a medication that costs a lot or maybe even isn’t covered by your insurance (Tamiflu) and will shorten the disease by 3 days if we caught it early enough.” Covid is a lot different, but it is still a virus with no accepted treatment other than targeting symptoms. When you do t have enough tests, you really do need to save them for the sickest persons, or ones that are very important to know about (eg a doctor or nurse).

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    I agree that how we use the testing is important. Brute force testing doesn’t do much if it is not with a purpose. 200,000 nasal swabs in New York May be less valuable than 2,000 antibody tests.

    ETA: with truly random/statistical sampling in mind.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    The prompt to this discussion is several people here seem to think getting tested is nearly impossible in this country. Using your worldometer stats, the US has tested nearly twice as many people as the closest to us. And that’s Russia whose credibility is very questionable. Most countries are nowhere near our numbers. If we are testing 150,000 a day, in a week of testing we will have tested more people than most countries have the entire time. Obviously we are ramping up testing and increasing that number of tests every day.

    We will have the most comprehensive testing from the most diverse geographical areas in the world very shortly.

    Would you agree?
    Yes, in total testing we are No. 1. We had been discussing per capita testing before.
    And, actually, the testing hasn't been ramping up. It's plateaued at about 150,000 the last two weeks.
    Agent provocateur

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    I agree that how we use the testing is important. Brute force testing doesn’t do much if it is not with a purpose. 200,000 nasal swabs in New York May be less valuable than 2,000 antibody tests.

    ETA: with truly random/statistical sampling in mind.
    Yes and no. A town in Italy tested everyone and the virus was totally neutralized in two weeks. Universal testing would be better, but it's not possible at scale.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...id-19-italy-vo
    Agent provocateur

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedster View Post
    One could lead the world in # of tests, or tests per capita, but the real number we need to focus on is how many tests to we need to effectively re-open our country to minimize the risks associated with the virus. We could theoretically lead the world in testing, but if we fall short of this number, it doesn't mean a whole lot if it's not enough testing. I could brag I got the highest score on a test, but if my score was a 30%, that doesn't mean a whole lot, just that I failed less than the rest of the class. LOL

    Gov. Inslee said last night that we are currently doing about 4,000 tests per day in WA, but we have a need to do more, which is hampered by supply shortages. He said in order for us to successfully reopen we will need to be doing 20,000-30,000 a day in order to be able to track the virus more effectively. Couple this with more intensive contract tracing, it seems we're still a ways off. He did say they are on pace to bring on 1,500 workers to help with contract tracing, so that will help.

    In my mind, there are three main prongs to being able to successfully fully re-open. 1) extensive testing, 2) quick and extensive contract tracing with high self-quarantine compliance, and 3) effective treatments for those who are infected, especially the high risk groups. Ultimately, what will fix this long-term is a vaccine, but I don't see that until next summer for the masses....at the earliest. I wish I could say I see any one of these three happening in the near future, but I'm pretty pessimistic on that.
    And therein lies the problem. No amount of testing will be enough for some people and some politicians to proclaim it’s safe to reopen. Meanwhile, millions of lives are being destroyed emotionally, financially, etc. Businesses are failing at a catastrophic rate. Jobs are disappearing daily and won’t return no matter how much stimulus money is printed. Alcohol and drug consumption is up over 50% in this country. Kids are missing school.

    One unnecessary death is too many. I get it. I believe the risk of staying shut down outweighs the risk of reopening at this point. We weigh risks every day. My wife won’t drive on the freeway. I see the freeway as an acceptable risk to get where I’m going.

    I know most of you disagree. You weigh the risk of venturing outside differently than I do at this point. I’m just not willing to stand in line at Home Depot because they only let a limited number of people in at any one time. I’ll go to Lowe’s where they don’t do that and take the precautions I see fit for me. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be the only one there.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    Yes and no. A town in Italy tested everyone and the virus was totally neutralized in two weeks. Universal testing would be better, but it's not possible at scale.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...id-19-italy-vo
    I think we agree on both points.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedster View Post
    One could lead the world in # of tests, or tests per capita, but the real number we need to focus on is how many tests to we need to effectively re-open our country to minimize the risks associated with the virus. We could theoretically lead the world in testing, but if we fall short of this number, it doesn't mean a whole lot if it's not enough testing. I could brag I got the highest score on a test, but if my score was a 30%, that doesn't mean a whole lot, just that I failed less than the rest of the class. LOL

    Gov. Inslee said last night that we are currently doing about 4,000 tests per day in WA, but we have a need to do more, which is hampered by supply shortages. He said in order for us to successfully reopen we will need to be doing 20,000-30,000 a day in order to be able to track the virus more effectively. Couple this with more intensive contract tracing, it seems we're still a ways off. He did say they are on pace to bring on 1,500 workers to help with contract tracing, so that will help.

    In my mind, there are three main prongs to being able to successfully fully re-open. 1) extensive testing, 2) quick and extensive contract tracing with high self-quarantine compliance, and 3) effective treatments for those who are infected, especially the high risk groups. Ultimately, what will fix this long-term is a vaccine, but I don't see that until next summer for the masses....at the earliest. I wish I could say I see any one of these three happening in the near future, but I'm pretty pessimistic on that.
    A fourth prong, which is on the horizon but may be a mirage, is that this just isn’t as lethal as persons thought it was.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    And therein lies the problem. No amount of testing will be enough for some people and some politicians to proclaim it’s safe to reopen. Meanwhile, millions of lives are being destroyed emotionally, financially, etc. Businesses are failing at a catastrophic rate. Jobs are disappearing daily and won’t return no matter how much stimulus money is printed. Alcohol and drug consumption is up over 50% in this country. Kids are missing school.

    One unnecessary death is too many. I get it. I believe the risk of staying shut down outweighs the risk of reopening at this point. We weigh risks every day. My wife won’t drive on the freeway. I see the freeway as an acceptable risk to get where I’m going.

    I know most of you disagree. You weigh the risk of venturing outside differently than I do at this point. I’m just not willing to stand in line at Home Depot because they only let a limited number of people in at any one time. I’ll go to Lowe’s where they don’t do that and take the precautions I see fit for me. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be the only one there.
    I think we all agree, this isn't an either/or argument, but rather, where on the continuum do the powers that be see the risk-reward of loosening restrictions? With so much unknown about the virus still (I just watched on the news talk of a new antibody test that's close to 100% accurate, but they still cautioned we don't know how much or how long that immunity with give us), there is some prudence in moving forward.

    I highlighted that last part of your post to highlight the issue I see with that thinking. That line of thinking would be great, if the results of our actions didn't impact others. Unfortunately, the potentially riskier actions (like going into places without capacity controls) don't happen in a vacuum and affect others. If it was a simple as "I can't transmit the virus until I'm obviously sick and then I stay home", that's one thing, but people are asymptomatic for a fair amount of time while potentially spreading the virus. So, that means that taking on more risk in your life, because you see it as fit for yourself, raises the risk for all of us, and there should be some personal responsibility in that. Of course we all don't mean to want to infect others, but the more risky we act, even if we're willing to accept the responsibility for ourselves, we are risking others lives.

    I remember a few years ago the WA State Traffic Commission had an ad highlighting traffic deaths and asked people what an acceptable number of traffic fatalities in WA would be. People would say a certain number, and then they'd ask them how many of their own family members would be an acceptable number of deaths and of course that answer is zero. I bring this up because it highlights, that in the abstract, we are willing to take more risk, but if it's closer to home and affects us more personally, that answer obviously changes. I keep hearing cavalier statements in the news where they acknowledge a higher death toll is acceptable as a byproduct of getting the economy back on track, but if you asked them how many of their family members they would sacrifice for that, I would bet the answer would be different.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedster View Post
    I think we all agree, this isn't an either/or argument, but rather, where on the continuum do the powers that be see the risk-reward of loosening restrictions? With so much unknown about the virus still (I just watched on the news talk of a new antibody test that's close to 100% accurate, but they still cautioned we don't know how much or how long that immunity with give us), there is some prudence in moving forward.

    I highlighted that last part of your post to highlight the issue I see with that thinking. That line of thinking would be great, if the results of our actions didn't impact others. Unfortunately, the potentially riskier actions (like going into places without capacity controls) don't happen in a vacuum and affect others. If it was a simple as "I can't transmit the virus until I'm obviously sick and then I stay home", that's one thing, but people are asymptomatic for a fair amount of time while potentially spreading the virus. So, that means that taking on more risk in your life, because you see it as fit for yourself, raises the risk for all of us, and there should be some personal responsibility in that. Of course we all don't mean to want to infect others, but the more risky we act, even if we're willing to accept the responsibility for ourselves, we are risking others lives.

    I remember a few years ago the WA State Traffic Commission had an ad highlighting traffic deaths and asked people what an acceptable number of traffic fatalities in WA would be. People would say a certain number, and then they'd ask them how many of their own family members would be an acceptable number of deaths and of course that answer is zero. I bring this up because it highlights, that in the abstract, we are willing to take more risk, but if it's closer to home and affects us more personally, that answer obviously changes. I keep hearing cavalier statements in the news where they acknowledge a higher death toll is acceptable as a byproduct of getting the economy back on track, but if you asked them how many of their family members they would sacrifice for that, I would bet the answer would be different.
    Here’s the thing. If you personally don’t want to take the risk, you have every right to stay home. Just as my wife has the right to avoid the freeway.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    Here’s the thing. If you personally don’t want to take the risk, you have every right to stay home. Just as my wife has the right to avoid the freeway.
    This thinking has limits. Hopefully, you don't think someone who knows they have the virus should be doing anything but staying in isolation, right?
    Agent provocateur

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Fat City
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    Here’s the thing. If you personally don’t want to take the risk, you have every right to stay home. Just as my wife has the right to avoid the freeway.
    I strongly agree that you should be able to do whatever you want if the risks and harms are all internal, but some risks are externalized.

    You don't want to wear a seat belt or a helmet? Fine, the risk is all yours.
    You want to drive drunk? No, other people are bearing the risk of your activity.

    It's inescapable, on some things we must decide together which risks are acceptable and which are not.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    A fourth prong, which is on the horizon but may be a mirage, is that this just isn’t as lethal as persons thought it was.
    I've expressed my doubts, but I really want to be wrong and you be right about this.
    Agent provocateur

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonuvazag View Post
    I've expressed my doubts, but I really want to be wrong and you be right about this.
    Testing for infection is for the most part a reactionary measure. I could be tested today but contract it tomorrow. Testing helps to address outbreaks and provide useful statisitics, but again, is defensive or reactionary.

    what will make the most difference (until we have a serviceable vaccine and excellent mutation tracking) is the antibody tests. IF, we can show that having the COVID-19 antibodies provides a reasonable amount of long-term immunity AND that we have acceptable herd immunity, we will then begin bringing back life as we knew it as far as large groups being allowed to be held.

    If the blood clotting issues spoken to by the CDC and the Washington Post are legitimate, then this virus could be much worse and still has the ability to become much worse.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EEzag View Post
    Testing for infection is for the most part a reactionary measure. I could be tested today but contract it tomorrow. Testing helps to address outbreaks and provide useful statisitics, but again, is defensive or reactionary.

    what will make the most difference (until we have a serviceable vaccine and excellent mutation tracking) is the antibody tests. IF, we can show that having the COVID-19 antibodies provides a reasonable amount of long-term immunity AND that we have acceptable herd immunity, we will then begin bringing back life as we knew it as far as large groups being allowed to be held.

    If the blood clotting issues spoken to by the CDC and the Washington Post are legitimate, then this virus could be much worse and still has the ability to become much worse.
    Zero argument with this. I was referring to a discussion we had previously about the Stanford studies, where I had my doubts about what they indicate about infection fatality rate, if that wasn't clear.
    Agent provocateur

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    Regarding Covid-19 blood clotting/thinning issues, there is a well-known phenomenon in severe trauma/infection called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). It seems very reasonable to me that Covid-19 could cause this.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Valley Zag View Post
    I strongly agree that you should be able to do whatever you want if the risks and harms are all internal, but some risks are externalized.

    You don't want to wear a seat belt or a helmet? Fine, the risk is all yours.
    You want to drive drunk? No, other people are bearing the risk of your activity.

    It's inescapable, on some things we must decide together which risks are acceptable and which are not.
    Totally agreem GCZ. Your closing comment brought to mind a note we recently received from another quarantined couple: "Can everyone please just follow the government instructions so we can knock out this corona virus and be done?! I feel like a kindergartner who keeps losing more recess time because one or two kids won’t follow directions."
    SLOZag
    "Kids come here to better their own lives, not ours. If you take a player’s failures as a personal affront…. check yourself." - Chick-Stratino'sUrDaddy

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,586

    Default

    data and science?....really.....

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Valley Zag View Post
    I strongly agree that you should be able to do whatever you want if the risks and harms are all internal, but some risks are externalized.

    You don't want to wear a seat belt or a helmet? Fine, the risk is all yours.
    You want to drive drunk? No, other people are bearing the risk of your activity.

    It's inescapable, on some things we must decide together which risks are acceptable and which are not.
    Completely agree...

    We were was at Sam's Club Tuesday and where about 50% of the people were not wearing masks (btw the wife and I were wearing surgical masks) of any kind. I stopped and asked a middle aged (mid-30's to mid-40's) woman why she wasn't wearing a mask and her response was that if I get a cold, then I will wear one...

    As we all know, people are walking around that are contagious but not showing symptoms and they can infect anyone! The scary thought is people just don't understand the seriousness of this virus and appear ignorant to the many ways the virus can be transmitted. Until this ignorance is eliminated then the virus will continue to be passed from person to person to person...
    We live in a senior community (Sun City Hilton Head) with over 15k people...ages range from 55 to over 100, in fact we might be the largest community of centarians in the country, so thousands of us have diabetes, heart disease, lung disease and countless other wonderful ailments. One would think that in this community we would be cognizant of this virus and how it is or can be transmitted; therefore, wearing protective masks would be a no brainer BUT when going to Food Lion - a grocery store just off campus - you can see just how many of our residents chose NOT to wear masks in public and not maintain a good social distance. I believe the main reason is that members of the Federal Government publicly state they will not wear a mask! My daddy always said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!"

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chattaroy (20 mi N of GU)
    Posts
    3,746

    Default

    Think back a bit to the 19-20 season ..... We felt pretty lousy when Killian couldn't play, when Ravet left GU, Watson hurt his shoulder, Ballo had to sit out the season .... That was before C19. With C19 the season came to an abrupt end right after the WCC Tourney. Without high quality frequent testing of athletes there simply won't be a 20-21 season - there may not even be one with testing (if a team or staff member tests positive the chances that they've exposed others on the team/staff is very likely). Then what happens? Whole team quarantined?

    We all want to get back to normal. But, what's going to be 'normal' with C19 around? "Pandemic" = "prevalent over a whole country or the world." We've got to knock C19 out if we want to get back to normal. To do that each one of us has to do what is best (stay home, wear PPE, socialize less, improve our working conditions, etc., etc.) and it would sure help most if we had the best, unwavering government support as possible (scientifically based). Obviously we can't all stay at home. Work supporting a society needs to get done. Starvation kills too.

    Back to the Zags - I have great sympathy for anyone who's #1 goal and enjoyment in life is doing something that involves close physical contact with others - like team sports, and especially basketball. Team sport athletes are really going to suffer in a C19 world - and so are their fans - for who knows how long of a period of time. That time will be shorter the more we all can take effective measures in how we conduct our own lives. Doing what we can that's right for all of us boils down to being what's right for each of us individually.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zagger View Post
    Think back a bit to the 19-20 season ..... We felt pretty lousy when Killian couldn't play, when Ravet left GU, Watson hurt his shoulder, Ballo had to sit out the season .... That was before C19. With C19 the season came to an abrupt end right after the WCC Tourney. Without high quality frequent testing of athletes there simply won't be a 20-21 season - there may not even be one with testing (if a team or staff member tests positive the chances that they've exposed others on the team/staff is very likely). Then what happens? Whole team quarantined?

    We all want to get back to normal. But, what's going to be 'normal' with C19 around? "Pandemic" = "prevalent over a whole country or the world." We've got to knock C19 out if we want to get back to normal. To do that each one of us has to do what is best (stay home, wear PPE, socialize less, improve our working conditions, etc., etc.) and it would sure help most if we had the best, unwavering government support as possible (scientifically based). Obviously we can't all stay at home. Work supporting a society needs to get done. Starvation kills too.

    Back to the Zags - I have great sympathy for anyone who's #1 goal and enjoyment in life is doing something that involves close physical contact with others - like team sports, and especially basketball. Team sport athletes are really going to suffer in a C19 world - and so are their fans - for who knows how long of a period of time. That time will be shorter the more we all can take effective measures in how we conduct our own lives. Doing what we can that's right for all of us boils down to being what's right for each of us individually.
    Here is a comment made by Dr. Fauci that is very concerning...

    "We will have coronavirus in the fall," he said. "I am convinced of that because of the degree of transmissibility that it has, the global nature. What happens with that will depend on how we’re able to contain it when it occurs."

    Not trying to be a pessimist but if his statement comes to fruition, then any sport in the 20-21 season is suspect...very sad and scary too!

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    And therein lies the problem. No amount of testing will be enough for some people and some politicians to proclaim it’s safe to reopen. Meanwhile, millions of lives are being destroyed emotionally, financially, etc. Businesses are failing at a catastrophic rate. Jobs are disappearing daily and won’t return no matter how much stimulus money is printed. Alcohol and drug consumption is up over 50% in this country. Kids are missing school.

    One unnecessary death is too many. I get it. I believe the risk of staying shut down outweighs the risk of reopening at this point. We weigh risks every day. My wife won’t drive on the freeway. I see the freeway as an acceptable risk to get where I’m going.

    I know most of you disagree. You weigh the risk of venturing outside differently than I do at this point. I’m just not willing to stand in line at Home Depot because they only let a limited number of people in at any one time. I’ll go to Lowe’s where they don’t do that and take the precautions I see fit for me. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be the only one there.


    I think there's a big error which is foundational to your thinking (we'll call it the "open up now" camp) and it's the same error that foundation to the "shut down more" camp.

    That error is to imagine, perhaps subconsciously, that society can/will/would be similar to the PRE-COVID world of Jan 2020 if only government would allow it to be.

    The "open up now" camp overestimates how much reduction in employment and overall economic/social/religious life was cause by government enforcement. As the data from restaurant reservations, miles drives per day, and the following graphs show, individuals and businesses and churches were already massively scaling back public events and interactions before it was mandated, and will continue to largely do so, after such mandates are lifted.


    The "shut down more" camp makes the same error, founding their thinking on an idea that government and only government is required to massively reduce human interactions (and disease spread) from its PRE-COVID level. That's wrong as well. There was (and will be) innumerable examples of private businesses changing their hours, allowed crowd sizes, plexiglass panels installs, waiting line spacings, etc etc. Others (movie theaters, college auditoriums) simply closed down on their own or stopped being attended to the point where they became de-facto closed. All of this has happened (and will remain) without any related government mandates.

    Both sides overestimate the importance of government-enforced and declared measured for social distancing and economic disruption.

    One "side" overestimate how much damage was done to the economy by government lockdown. We're in for a massive recession even without any gov shutdown.
    The "other side" overestimates how much damages was/is done to pandemic spread by government lockdown. We're going to see falling R-naught (contagiousness) even w/o gov shutdown.


    Graphs from Lyman Stone






    Last edited by LTownZag; 04-23-2020 at 08:44 AM.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,085

    Default

    The news today is that 13.9% of New Yorkers (statewide) and 21% in NY city may have Covid-19 antibodies. This would drop the death rate down to 0.6% (from 6%). This would be huge. They are cautioning that this doesn’t say whether or not persons have immunity to the disease but this doesn’t matter as much as knowing that the disease is (potentially) much less lethal than we were told.

    Dr. Ioannidis has said previously that values like this would put the risk similar to that of driving to work every day.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richland, Washington
    Posts
    6,482

    Default

    Amazing how quickly that history can be rewritten.

    I give it a decade and then.....COVID never happened.

    I have such little faith that the American people will do the right thing, all while lending credibility and voice to the imposing ill informed in a spirit of political fairness. Balanced reporting simply means that the idiots get a platform. Public health has nothing to do with a "Don't tread on me" flag and the unwitting equivalency of freely spreading pandemic disease as a constitutional right is the American politic gone insane.
    I miss Mike Hart

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Opportunity, WA
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    The news today is that 13.9% of New Yorkers (statewide) and 21% in NY city may have Covid-19 antibodies. This would drop the death rate down to 0.6% (from 6%). This would be huge. They are cautioning that this doesn’t say whether or not persons have immunity to the disease but this doesn’t matter as much as knowing that the disease is (potentially) much less lethal than we were told.

    Dr. Ioannidis has said previously that values like this would put the risk similar to that of driving to work every day.
    I believe it would be closer to 0.9% if you count the probable deaths, which gives you a number not far from the 1% Fauci presented last month.

    And 0.9% or 0.6% is not good. If 50 million Americans were infected you get between 300,000 and 450,000 deaths.

    38,800 traffic fatalities last year in the US. We passed that figure in a 45-day stretch with COVID-19. Something in that comparison just doesn't add up for me.
    Agent provocateur

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •