Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 244

Thread: Covid Discussion

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default Covid Discussion

    It stands to reason that if the goal truly is herd immunity then people actually need to, well... you know... be around each other and get the virus.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    It stands to reason that if the goal truly is herd immunity then people actually need to, well... you know... be around each other and get the virus.
    Or hopefully get vaccinated.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    Or hopefully get vaccinated.
    The original claim is that we won’t have a vaccine by then. It doesn’t make sense to bemoan the lack of herd immunity while simultaneously warning that cases are still increasing. I shouldn’t have even said anything, then or now.... but we do have the opinion by LTown lingering above that shouldn’t be there, either.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    The original claim is that we won’t have a vaccine by then. It doesn’t make sense to bemoan the lack of herd immunity while simultaneously warning that cases are still increasing. I shouldn’t have even said anything, then or now.... but we do have the opinion by LTown lingering above that shouldn’t be there, either.
    JPtheBeasta, Your inbox is full.

    --

    Hi JPtheBeasta,

    My post has been posted for too many days for me to be able to delete or edit it at this point. Can you let me know (via private message) what part of the post you feel is an opinion which ought to be deleted? I would have been happy to do so to preserve the discussion.

    Thanks

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    JPtheBeasta, Your inbox is full.

    --

    Hi JPtheBeasta,

    My post has been posted for too many days for me to be able to delete or edit it at this point. Can you let me know (via private message) what part of the post you feel is an opinion which ought to be deleted? I would have been happy to do so to preserve the discussion.

    Thanks
    Since I made my issue public I will just tell you here and hopefully that is ok, because any feedback would be beneficial to me. In my opinion, the stuff after “Things to consider:” is of the variety that has been getting posts shut down lately and doesn’t directly. I don’t want to be a hypocrite because I have also been vocal about my opinion here and have had lengthy discussions about Covid-19 of my own. I admit that I have a problem of my own to deal with because I have a hard time not responding, which exacerbates the issue. If you and others feel that it is something I am off base on I will work on solving this issue on my end.

    That said, I will clean out my inbox...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    If you let me know which specific opinion/prediction you disagree with, and why, in private or in the “foo” forum, I’d love to respectfully discuss.

    In the meantime, I’m not sure why COVID related discussion is considered off topic for basketball and moderated as such. It’s obviously incredibly related to the immediate future of GU and the sport.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    If you let me know which specific opinion/prediction you disagree with, and why, in private or in the “foo” forum, I’d love to respectfully discuss.

    In the meantime, I’m not sure why COVID related discussion is considered off topic for basketball and moderated as such. It’s obviously incredibly related to the immediate future of GU and the sport.
    It’s all good, as far as I’m concerned, and hopefully much ado about nothing. I hope you feel the same. I think my patience with the Covid-19 response has “socially distanced” itself from the rest of my brain at this point. I don’t think I actually disagreed with anything you said but with the (as I see it) catch 22 that was highlighted in which people are worried that we don’t have enough herd immunity to open up the country, yet can’t get herd immunity without opening up the country.

    I do think that the Covid discussion is interesting and agree that it is pertinent to sports, and it is one of the few things left to talk about at this stage. I have wanted to respond more at times (not to you specifically) and either the post got shut down or I worry that what I say will get it shut down— like right now.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    If you let me know which specific opinion/prediction you disagree with, and why, in private or in the “foo” forum, I’d love to respectfully discuss.

    In the meantime, I’m not sure why COVID related discussion is considered off topic for basketball and moderated as such. It’s obviously incredibly related to the immediate future of GU and the sport.
    Because LTown, no one wants to discuss. They just want to shout.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kitzbuel View Post
    Because LTown, no one wants to discuss. They just want to shout.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm always happy to have non-shout discussion with anyone! (in this forum if the mods OK it, or in my private messages or the other off-topic forums)

    I've had some for sure. MarkBurn has disagreed with me and not shouted. LongIslandZagFan has agreed and not shouted.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,583

    Default

    in NYC they went back last week and reclassified deaths as covid deaths, even without testing.....to the tune of 3700 people...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego, Ca.
    Posts
    7,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylean View Post
    in NYC they went back last week and reclassified deaths as covid deaths, even without testing.....to the tune of 3700 people...
    Maybe they get more money that way. Who knows..... I will be glad when we get to watch sports again.

    Quick question. Do you guys think if we don’t have NCAA Football this year, will we have NCAA Basketball?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sylean View Post
    in NYC they went back last week and reclassified deaths as covid deaths, even without testing.....to the tune of 3700 people...
    This will probably be called shouting, but have you seen the charts showing the difference in deaths this year vs average, and how it exceeds the number of covid deaths reported?

    "More than 27,000 New Yorkers have died since March 11 — 20,900 more than would be expected over this period and thousands more than have been captured by official coronavirus death statistics. As of Sunday, the city had attributed 16,673 deaths to coronavirus, either because people had tested positive for the virus, or because the circumstances of their death meant that city health officials believed the virus to be the most likely cause of death. But there remains a large gap between the 16,673 figure and the total deaths above typical levels in the last six and a half weeks: more than 4,200 people whose deaths are not captured by the official coronavirus toll."

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...york-city.html

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scrooner View Post
    This will probably be called shouting, but have you seen the charts showing the difference in deaths this year vs average, and how it exceeds the number of covid deaths reported?

    "More than 27,000 New Yorkers have died since March 11 — 20,900 more than would be expected over this period and thousands more than have been captured by official coronavirus death statistics. As of Sunday, the city had attributed 16,673 deaths to coronavirus, either because people had tested positive for the virus, or because the circumstances of their death meant that city health officials believed the virus to be the most likely cause of death. But there remains a large gap between the 16,673 figure and the total deaths above typical levels in the last six and a half weeks: more than 4,200 people whose deaths are not captured by the official coronavirus toll."

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...york-city.html
    This (some say inflated) method of calculating COVID deaths is similar to how the CDC has counted seasonal Flu deaths for years. Here's more.

    If you use official annual CDC flu deaths stats to make a comparison with COVID-19, it's logically inconsistent to use numbers for one virus calculated in this way, but oppose similar calculations for the other.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    I think that our Covid-19 data, despite the flaws, is better than the influenza estimates. When the claims started that Covid-19 was just like a bad flu season, one of the first things I did was see what we know about the flu. It left me with the impression that we need to do better with the data. The CDC web page is an eye opener in this regard. States are not required to report influenza deaths in anyone over 18. I saw an article that talked about 80,000 flu deaths in one year and the CDC page ultimately revised that number to 60,000. There's a large degree of uncertainty there.

    Do you potentially make the Covid-19 data just as bad by throwing in models and estimates? Do you revise the numbers in one year from now when all of the data shakes out? Do you suck it up and say that we just have a certain degree of uncertainty about the influenza and Covid-19 data and call it a day?

    I'd prefer leaving well enough alone with the understanding that we can't fix the influenza numbers now and that if we adjust the Covid-19 numbers to make it more like the influenza numbers we risk making our understanding worse, not better.

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Sometimes we want hard data to base our actions on. Sometimes we want models that have guesswork involved. Sometimes we want to create numbers that match an agenda. A lot of times there are some people that use all of the above to affirm preconceived endgames. Go figure. Everyone seems to be.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markburn1 View Post
    Sometimes we want hard data to base our actions on. Sometimes we want models that have guesswork involved. Sometimes we want to create numbers that match an agenda. A lot of times there are some people that use all of the above to affirm preconceived endgames. Go figure. Everyone seems to be.
    In my line of work we use machine learning which uses historical data to "train" analytical models to improve predictive accuracy. The analyses run continual, multiple scenarios against historical data and compare against actual results, identifying what factors cause variations from the correct outcome. The models continually adjust and improve in accuracy over time as historical data grows and the number of analyses increase, providing the model with greater fidelity. Until we can get adequate or complete data, we frequently use statistical analysis to create 'synthetic' data that fits within the predicted model results, but can be replaced with actual data as i increases in availability and reliability. The approach is a fundamental component of Artificial Intelligence.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,848

    Default

    Well, so much for this thread. That's why I said in my post, I wasn't going to touch the last half of the post made by LTown. This thread is supposed to be about the dates as they are scheduled yet it has turned into a COVID discussion again. Sad...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    "New cases dropping fast" is an interesting interpretation of this data:







  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    One key ban this fool. Wrong data d he blows up every conversation. An editable fool who know jack cht. Every time we begin a thoughtful thing redaction bee appears and Nunez the conversation. A fake person with fake data unconfirmed . This is his 7th time. Somebody throw this fool out!
    MDABE80,

    I posted graphs from Time Magazine and Our World in Data. The data for the TIME graph comes from Johns Hopkins, which you have repeatedly suggested people use, and said you use.

    You are making an empirical claim, not a subjective one, about changes in new case numbers. You give no evidence, then you insult me personally and describe my 2 charts as being the "fake data" when evidence to the contrary is presented. I'd love to see evidence of a fast drop in new cases.



    WillandI,

    Thanks for posting those links! I hope Basketball and Baseball can restart soon! I'm hoping those sports, plus fall sports, help ready the public and iron out the bumps on the road to a college Bball season.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    https://www.evaluate.com/covid-19-daily-update

    Too bad Ltown. you've been BS from the start. Read the text and begone. And stay gone till you decide to stop blowing up threads.. This is not a public health board,..it's a Gonzaga basketball and sports board. You have continued to doom threads by inserting garbage.. You have interrupted multiple threads . As you can see ( if you might understand) death rate is dropping as are new cases. There will be blips but the trend is downward. Just compare to two weeks ago and then one week ago......you might get the picture.
    " You are making an empirical claim, not a subjective one, about changes in new case numbers"....sorry these facts are not "empirical"..go look up the word. Time magazine is always political and is to be disregarded. You might know that. While I've tried to lay low on insults.....you deserve many. I've tried to minimize. When someone is a pretender but has false fakes.....it's time to step up. I did.

    All this said, will you kindly stop interrupting threads? Every one has to be stopped because your incessant crazy comments that have only tangential meaing to the topic at hand. I suppose I could swallow some of the BS if it was correct. but BS it is. And yes, TIME magazine is simply NOT a source to be believed.

    You night go to Kitzbuel's short explanation on modeling which completely debunked yours from a few days ago. And yet you've continued and I hope you'll end.

    '

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    https://www.evaluate.com/covid-19-daily-update

    Too bad Ltown. you've been BS from the start. Read the text and begone. And stay gone till you decide to stop blowing up threads.. This is not a public health board,..it's a Gonzaga basketball and sports board. You have continued to doom threads by inserting garbage.. You have interrupted multiple threads . As you can see ( if you might understand) death rate is dropping as are new cases. There will be blips but the trend is downward. Just compare to two weeks ago and then one week ago......you might get the picture.
    " You are making an empirical claim, not a subjective one, about changes in new case numbers"....sorry these facts are not "empirical"..go look up the word. Time magazine is always political and is to be disregarded. You might know that. While I've tried to lay low on insults.....you deserve many. I've tried to minimize. When someone is a pretender but has false fakes.....it's time to step up. I did.

    All this said, will you kindly stop interrupting threads? Every one has to be stopped because your incessant crazy comments that have only tangential meaing to the topic at hand. I suppose I could swallow some of the BS if it was correct. but BS it is. And yes, TIME magazine is simply NOT a source to be believed.

    '
    Thanks for the link, MDABE80. I appreciate it!

    Here's the chart of daily new cases in north america from your source. It looks like the charts I posted above, which used data from Johns Hopkins, a source you call the gold standard. Your source didn't have an option to separate the USA from the rest of north america. I'm not going to offer any spin on this trend line or say "new cases dropping fast" - I'll simply paste the chart from your linked source. If one interprets "dropping fast" that's up to them.


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    The national percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at public health, clinical and commercial laboratories decreased from week 17 to week 18. Percentages by type of laboratory:
    •Public health laboratories – decreased from 17.7% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18;
    •Clinical laboratories – decreased from 10.3% during week 17 to 9.0% during week 18;
    •Commercial laboratories – decreased from 15.9% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18

    MOST RECENT CDC DATA ( Data from this past week)...you want more LTown??

    It's a basketball Board.not an infectious disease board....too many threads nuked because you didn't seem to get that. Please stop.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    The national percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at public health, clinical and commercial laboratories decreased from week 17 to week 18. Percentages by type of laboratory:
    •Public health laboratories – decreased from 17.7% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18;
    •Clinical laboratories – decreased from 10.3% during week 17 to 9.0% during week 18;
    •Commercial laboratories – decreased from 15.9% during week 17 to 13.2% during week 18

    MOST RECENT CDC DATA ( Data from this past week)...you want more LTown??

    It's a basketball Board.not an infectious disease board....too many threads nuked because you didn't seem to get that. Please stop.
    Thanks, MDABE80! It's great to see that the percent of positive tests is falling, as we are gradually testing more people nationally.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,160

    Default

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...-mlb-employees
    'Sixty of the 5,754 people in a study of the Major League Baseball employee population tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, a rate lower than what similar studies run in California found, the studies' authors said Sunday.

    "I was expecting a larger number," said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, which ran the study. "It shows the value of doing the science as opposed to guessing."

    The results of the study, which was held in mid-April, revealed a prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in the MLB employee population of 0.7% -- a number adjusted to reflect testing accuracy. The survey showed that about 70% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies had been asymptomatic.'
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,711

    Default

    As follows is some data I pulled together. It is sorted by the ordered shelter in place date from earliest to latest.
    I classified those states that sheltered in place by March 24 as early. Those that sheltered in place at (or not at all) by April 1 as late.

    The early states have an average infection level of .6% of their population. For the late states, the average infection level is .3% of their population.
    Overall, the average infection level of all 50 states and DC is .4%.

    The average infection rate for the 5 states with no shelter in place order is .3%

    The rate of infected people dying in the early states was 5.9%. For the late states it was 3.9%. For the non shelter states it was 1.8%. Overall it was 4.3%.

    The population density of the early states on average is roughly twice that of the late states. Controlling for population density, the infection rates for the early states and late/not at all states would be roughly the same.

    Here are a couple of apples to apples comparisons based on population density:

    State Cases Population SQ Miles Pop Den Inf Lev Death Death Rate Shelter Date
    Florida 41923 21477737 53997 398 0.2% 1782 4.3% 4/3/2020
    New York 348633 19453561 47224 412 1.8% 27170 7.8% 3/22/2020

    State Cases Population SQ Miles Pop Den Inf Lev Death Death Rate Shelter Date
    South Carolina 7927 5148714 30111 171 0.2% 355 4.5% 4/7/2020
    Michigan 48021 9986857 56539 177 0.5% 4674 9.7% 3/24/2020


    Data source for cases and deaths is worldometer.com ... Population levels I pulled off of Wikipedia.... Shelter dates I pulled from the New York Times.



    State Cases population Infection Level Deaths Rate Shelter date
    California 70637 39512223 0.2% 2891 4.1% 3/19/2020
    New Jersey 142046 8882190 1.6% 9532 6.7% 3/21/2020
    Illinois 83021 12671821 0.7% 3601 4.3% 3/21/2020
    New York 348633 19453561 1.8% 27170 7.8% 3/22/2020
    Louisiana 32050 4648794 0.7% 2347 7.3% 3/23/2020
    Connecticut 34333 3565287 1.0% 3041 8.9% 3/23/2020
    Ohio 25250 11689100 0.2% 1436 5.7% 3/23/2020
    Washington 17890 7614893 0.2% 953 5.3% 3/23/2020
    Oregon 3358 4217737 0.1% 130 3.9% 3/23/2020
    Massachusetts 79332 6949503 1.1% 5141 6.5% 3/24/2020
    Michigan 48021 9986857 0.5% 4674 9.7% 3/24/2020
    Indiana 25127 6732219 0.4% 1578 6.3% 3/24/2020
    Delaware 6741 973764 0.7% 237 3.5% 3/24/2020
    New Mexico 5069 2096829 0.2% 208 4.1% 3/24/2020
    West Virginia 1378 1792147 0.1% 58 4.2% 3/24/2020
    Wisconsin 10611 5822434 0.2% 418 3.9% 3/25/2020
    Idaho 2260 1787065 0.1% 70 3.1% 3/25/2020
    Vermont 927 623989 0.1% 53 5.7% 3/25/2020
    Hawaii 634 1415872 0.0% 17 2.7% 3/25/2020
    Colorado 19879 5758736 0.3% 987 5.0% 3/26/2020
    Kentucky 6677 4467673 0.1% 311 4.7% 3/26/2020
    Minnesota 12494 5639632 0.2% 614 4.9% 3/27/2020
    New Hampshire 3160 1359711 0.2% 133 4.2% 3/27/2020
    Rhode Island 11614 1059361 1.1% 444 3.8% 3/28/2020
    Wyoming 675 578759 0.1% 7 1.0% 3/28/2020
    Montana 461 1068778 0.0% 16 3.5% 3/28/2020
    Alaska 383 731545 0.1% 10 2.6% 3/28/2020
    Maryland 34061 6045680 0.6% 1756 5.2% 3/30/2020
    Virginia 25800 8535519 0.3% 891 3.5% 3/30/2020
    North Carolina 15591 10488084 0.1% 596 3.8% 3/30/2020
    Utah 6432 3205958 0.2% 73 1.1% 3/30/2020
    Kansas 7195 2913314 0.2% 184 2.6% 3/30/2020
    Tennessee 16111 6833174 0.2% 265 1.6% 3/31/2020
    Arizona 11736 7278717 0.2% 562 4.8% 3/31/2020
    Pennsylvania 61346 12801989 0.5% 3917 6.4% 4/1/2020
    Nevada 6311 3080156 0.2% 312 4.9% 4/1/2020
    DC 6485 705749 0.9% 336 5.2% 4/1/2020
    Texas 41149 28995881 0.1% 1158 2.8% 4/2/2020
    Maine 1477 1344212 0.1% 65 4.4% 4/2/2020
    Florida 41923 21477737 0.2% 1782 4.3% 4/3/2020
    Georgia 34737 10617423 0.3% 1465 4.2% 4/3/2020
    Mississippi 9908 2976149 0.3% 457 4.6% 4/3/2020
    Alabama 10310 4903185 0.2% 429 4.2% 4/5/2020
    Missouri 10232 6137428 0.2% 531 5.2% 4/6/2020
    Oklahoma 4732 3956971 0.1% 278 5.9% 4/6/2020
    South Carolina 7927 5148714 0.2% 355 4.5% 4/7/2020
    Iowa 12912 3155070 0.4% 289 2.2% na
    Nebraska 8572 1934408 0.4% 100 1.2% na
    Arkansas 4043 3017825 0.1% 94 2.3% na
    South Dakota 3663 884659 0.4% 39 1.1% na
    North Dakota 1571 762062 0.2% 38 2.4% na
    Last edited by former1dog; 05-12-2020 at 02:56 PM.

Posting Permissions

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