OtherGround Forums Florida is doing it right

7/7/20 6:55 PM
4/3/20
Posts: 1080
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.

That remains to be seen. I don’t think it will become unmanageable at all.

Florida is absolutely more open than NY right now, but importantly, what is going on in NYC is irrelevant. Probably 40% or more of the people in NYC are now immune. That radically lowers the ceiling on R so that surges like they saw before are no longer possible.

Malls, I forgot about malls. In the rest of the state indoor dining, bars, elective procedures in all hospitals, recreation, etc all open. 
 

And, no, the number in NYC is not “probably” 40%, lol. Low 20s when measured. There certainly has not been double the infections since then. Because they have been very careful about limiting the spread, which has been evident in the hospitalization and death curve.

 

can you define what would be unmanageable?

7/7/20 7:28 PM
7/15/02
Posts: 12022
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.

That remains to be seen. I don’t think it will become unmanageable at all.

Florida is absolutely more open than NY right now, but importantly, what is going on in NYC is irrelevant. Probably 40% or more of the people in NYC are now immune. That radically lowers the ceiling on R so that surges like they saw before are no longer possible.

Malls, I forgot about malls. In the rest of the state indoor dining, bars, elective procedures in all hospitals, recreation, etc all open. 
 

And, no, the number in NYC is not “probably” 40%, lol. Low 20s when measured. There certainly has not been double the infections since then. Because they have been very careful about limiting the spread, which has been evident in the hospitalization and death curve.

 

can you define what would be unmanageable?

24% at the end of March/start of April! Not including t-cell-mediated immunity! 40% is probably conservative.

7/7/20 7:30 PM
7/15/02
Posts: 12023


Barely moved since that survey? You sure?
7/7/20 7:34 PM
7/15/02
Posts: 12024
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.

That remains to be seen. I don’t think it will become unmanageable at all.

Florida is absolutely more open than NY right now, but importantly, what is going on in NYC is irrelevant. Probably 40% or more of the people in NYC are now immune. That radically lowers the ceiling on R so that surges like they saw before are no longer possible.

Malls, I forgot about malls. In the rest of the state indoor dining, bars, elective procedures in all hospitals, recreation, etc all open. 
 

And, no, the number in NYC is not “probably” 40%, lol. Low 20s when measured. There certainly has not been double the infections since then. Because they have been very careful about limiting the spread, which has been evident in the hospitalization and death curve.

 

can you define what would be unmanageable?

Unmanageable would be having a measurable number of people who died because they were unable to receive ICU-level care because of others in front of them in the queue. So, it would be a situation that even NYC didn’t see at their peak since there lots of temporary facilities that were removed having never been used.

7/7/20 7:54 PM
11/10/18
Posts: 8460

I’d just like to say I’m on Marco Island this week and siesta key next week and it’s been wonderful. 

7/7/20 8:06 PM
4/1/10
Posts: 2516
Piyo -
Bad Monkey -

That is an excellent graph, as well as excellent results.

 

Is this graph available for all states?

Not that I can find. Florida and Minnesota seem to have good data.

If you squint, you can see they’re getting a few more cases in the old category, maybe 2x. It’ll probably depend on how many of those are in care homes or not, but I think 2x is a *ceiling* on the future shift in the death curve, which is pretty acceptable IMO.

I think FL will show very few, if any,  excess deaths for 2020 when it’s all over. 

Clearing up some Medicaid and social security costs in the process. Go Florida!! Haha jk

Edited: 7/8/20 12:09 AM
7/15/02
Posts: 12027
Peixes -
Piyo - 
EazyG -
Peixes -
Piyo - 
prof - Well, I will certainly take the view of the OP - one of the fine OG Scientists - over virtually all trained professionals.

Do you also do climate and economic forecasts, I hope?

LOL at virtually all trained professionals disagreeing. I have been correct on just about every prediction I’ve made in this thing. I predicted Japan would come out awesome when the NYT was predicting disaster. I was estimating a .3% population-weighted IFR for the US when morons like Fauci were still saying 1% or more. I said masks were incredibly effective from the very beginning, when the CDC, Fauci, the WHO, and the surgeon general were all letting the dumbest shit possible pour out their word holes.

Am I a genius epidemiologist? No. But I have a solid STEM background and read the counterpoints of a vast group of professional epidemiologists who were absolutely not fringe but weren’t following the clickbait mainstream. That group was internally consistent and better grounded in data than absolute fuckwits like Fauci, who as far as I can tell has never done anything of real substance. He’s just a peacetime general who was good at sucking enough dick to climb the political ladder.

I’m gonna be right again. We’ll see if you’ll admit it in two weeks when it’s undeniable. 

 

what, exactly, is your STEM background?

if you have one, you'll be able to readily and falsifiably cite your "vast group of professional epidemiologists" and exactly where they fall vs "the fringe" -- which you'll also define falsifiably.

given your attitude toward Fauci, it's obvious you either don't have a background in history or political science or you're willing to lie about principle issues that don't fit your preferred conclusion, which isn't very STEM-my of you, bro.

He has an emotional driven narrative that is, at best, orthogonal to the evidence 

Dont ruin it!

Orthogonal to evidence? What evidence are you talking about?

Even the CDC now says the best estimate IFR for people under 50 is .05%. For the median age of new cases in Florida, twenty-something, it’s gonna be even lower, pessimistically .006% or so.

Are you disagreeing with the CDC here?

You could argue you that it’s literally impossible to guard the aged while letting the virus spread among the young, but that runs counter to exactly what we’re seeing right now. Look at GA and CA, too. Even longer periods of case increase with no rise in deaths.

Please, show me some evidence I’m missing that isn’t the ranting of politicallt-minded pearl-clutchers on Twitter. 

 

indeed, what evidence ARE you talking about?

for instance, fauci led the united states' response to the aids crisis. he had to be an epidemiologist, virologist, statesman, and spokesperson. he won over dying populations, fearful reactionaries, and rolling administrations from both sides of the aisle in addition to general public sentiment.

i'd argue fauci has been in an unwinnable position given the administration's pressures  and non-compliance, but even if we agree for the sake of argument that he's utterly botched his responsibilites in the covid-19 response, you can't deny what he has accomplished or his general esteem in both medical and governmental circles -- the current administration and their followers notwithstanding.

i guess i'd be interested to see your professional epidemiologists who are somehow at once a minority consensus but also a vast group and outside the fringe. you're cutting these euler's circles pretty tight.

Fauci did unfathomable damage to the government’s credibility with this anti-mask bullshit before this flip-flop. And only a true moron could really look at the extant data on masks and URIs and come out literally making fun of people wearing them. He’s a fucking fool.

Why don’t you also look up his buffoonery during the AIDS appearance. He has a history of irresponsibily shooting stupid shit out his dick holster just for media attention.

Also, look at the shit job did during H1N1. Look at the US death toll versus Japan’s, despite Japan being older, denser, and right next to the virus outbreak.

The man is a fool. Just a politician. More polished than Trump but just as much of a blowhard.

7/8/20 12:41 AM
5/30/03
Posts: 42592
Piyo -
Peixes -
Piyo - 
EazyG -
Peixes -
Piyo - 
prof - Well, I will certainly take the view of the OP - one of the fine OG Scientists - over virtually all trained professionals.

Do you also do climate and economic forecasts, I hope?

LOL at virtually all trained professionals disagreeing. I have been correct on just about every prediction I’ve made in this thing. I predicted Japan would come out awesome when the NYT was predicting disaster. I was estimating a .3% population-weighted IFR for the US when morons like Fauci were still saying 1% or more. I said masks were incredibly effective from the very beginning, when the CDC, Fauci, the WHO, and the surgeon general were all letting the dumbest shit possible pour out their word holes.

Am I a genius epidemiologist? No. But I have a solid STEM background and read the counterpoints of a vast group of professional epidemiologists who were absolutely not fringe but weren’t following the clickbait mainstream. That group was internally consistent and better grounded in data than absolute fuckwits like Fauci, who as far as I can tell has never done anything of real substance. He’s just a peacetime general who was good at sucking enough dick to climb the political ladder.

I’m gonna be right again. We’ll see if you’ll admit it in two weeks when it’s undeniable. 

 

what, exactly, is your STEM background?

if you have one, you'll be able to readily and falsifiably cite your "vast group of professional epidemiologists" and exactly where they fall vs "the fringe" -- which you'll also define falsifiably.

given your attitude toward Fauci, it's obvious you either don't have a background in history or political science or you're willing to lie about principle issues that don't fit your preferred conclusion, which isn't very STEM-my of you, bro.

He has an emotional driven narrative that is, at best, orthogonal to the evidence 

Dont ruin it!

Orthogonal to evidence? What evidence are you talking about?

Even the CDC now says the best estimate IFR for people under 50 is .05%. For the median age of new cases in Florida, twenty-something, it’s gonna be even lower, pessimistically .006% or so.

Are you disagreeing with the CDC here?

You could argue you that it’s literally impossible to guard the aged while letting the virus spread among the young, but that runs counter to exactly what we’re seeing right now. Look at GA and CA, too. Even longer periods of case increase with no rise in deaths.

Please, show me some evidence I’m missing that isn’t the ranting of politicallt-minded pearl-clutchers on Twitter. 

 

indeed, what evidence ARE you talking about?

for instance, fauci led the united states' response to the aids crisis. he had to be an epidemiologist, virologist, statesman, and spokesperson. he won over dying populations, fearful reactionaries, and rolling administrations from both sides of the aisle in addition to general public sentiment.

i'd argue fauci has been in an unwinnable position given the administration's pressures  and non-compliance, but even if we agree for the sake of argument that he's utterly botched his responsibilites in the covid-19 response, you can't deny what he has accomplished or his general esteem in both medical and governmental circles -- the current administration and their followers notwithstanding.

i guess i'd be interested to see your professional epidemiologists who are somehow at once a minority consensus but also a vast group and outside the fringe. you're cutting these euler's circles pretty tight.

Fauci did unfathomable damage to the government’s credibility with this anti-mask bullshit before this flip-flop. And only a true moron could really look at the extant data on masks and URIs and come out literally making fun of people wearing them. He’s a fucking fool.

Why don’t you also look up his buffoonery during the AIDS appearance. He has a history of irresponsibily shooting stupid shit out his dick holster just for media attention.

Also, look at the shit job did during H1N1. Look at the US death toll versus Japan’s, despite Japan being older, denser, and right next to the virus outbreak.

The man is a fool. Just a politician. More polished than Trump but just as much of a blowhard.

Spot on 

Edited: 7/8/20 5:36 AM
5/3/01
Posts: 29901
The Maestro - 
Piyo -
Peixes -
Piyo - 
EazyG -
Peixes -
Piyo - 
prof - Well, I will certainly take the view of the OP - one of the fine OG Scientists - over virtually all trained professionals.

Do you also do climate and economic forecasts, I hope?

LOL at virtually all trained professionals disagreeing. I have been correct on just about every prediction I’ve made in this thing. I predicted Japan would come out awesome when the NYT was predicting disaster. I was estimating a .3% population-weighted IFR for the US when morons like Fauci were still saying 1% or more. I said masks were incredibly effective from the very beginning, when the CDC, Fauci, the WHO, and the surgeon general were all letting the dumbest shit possible pour out their word holes.

Am I a genius epidemiologist? No. But I have a solid STEM background and read the counterpoints of a vast group of professional epidemiologists who were absolutely not fringe but weren’t following the clickbait mainstream. That group was internally consistent and better grounded in data than absolute fuckwits like Fauci, who as far as I can tell has never done anything of real substance. He’s just a peacetime general who was good at sucking enough dick to climb the political ladder.

I’m gonna be right again. We’ll see if you’ll admit it in two weeks when it’s undeniable. 

 

what, exactly, is your STEM background?

if you have one, you'll be able to readily and falsifiably cite your "vast group of professional epidemiologists" and exactly where they fall vs "the fringe" -- which you'll also define falsifiably.

given your attitude toward Fauci, it's obvious you either don't have a background in history or political science or you're willing to lie about principle issues that don't fit your preferred conclusion, which isn't very STEM-my of you, bro.

He has an emotional driven narrative that is, at best, orthogonal to the evidence 

Dont ruin it!

 

 

indeed, what evidence ARE you talking about?

for instance, fauci led the united states' response to the aids crisis. he had to be an epidemiologist, virologist, statesman, and spokesperson. he won over dying populations, fearful reactionaries, and rolling administrations from both sides of the aisle in addition to general public sentiment.

i'd argue fauci has been in an unwinnable position given the administration's pressures  and non-compliance, but even if we agree for the sake of argument that he's utterly botched his responsibilites in the covid-19 response, you can't deny what he has accomplished or his general esteem in both medical and governmental circles -- the current administration and their followers notwithstanding.

i guess i'd be interested to see your professional epidemiologists who are somehow at once a minority consensus but also a vast group and outside the fringe. you're cutting these euler's circles pretty tight.

Fauci did unfathomable damage to the government’s credibility with this anti-mask bullshit before this flip-flop. And only a true moron could really look at the extant data on masks and URIs and come out literally making fun of people wearing them. He’s a fucking fool.

Why don’t you also look up his buffoonery during the AIDS appearance. He has a history of irresponsibily shooting stupid shit out his dick holster just for media attention.

Also, look at the shit job did during H1N1. Look at the US death toll versus Japan’s, despite Japan being older, denser, and right next to the virus outbreak.

The man is a fool. Just a politician. More polished than Trump but just as much of a blowhard.

 

 

as it happens, i was an adjunct professor for a while after college. among other courses, i taught medical ethics to nursing students. there was plenty said about fauci in the material. this was 2007-2008.

so, i don't really need to look up his handling of the aids crisis. i distinctly remember teaching dr fauci's history of outreach to the communities affected by aids/hiv, the successes he had imparting knowledge on resistant and panicked populations, and his noteworthy ground gained bringing politicians to heel during that crisis. specifically, his strongest and most vocal counterpart in the gay community made a point to lionize fauci as a hero.

again, speficically and verifiably, where are you getting this? i'm not saying you're wrong. i'm not even claiming to be an expert on the topic -- after all, i was just teaching material for a professor who was out that year. but it was sourced and independently falsifiable.

similarly, the only thing i've ever seen fauci faulted for in the H1N1 pandemic was being too relaxed. which is interesting, because most of his criticism at this point is from sentiment that he moves to quickly ahead of the president and undermines the executive authority. of course, H1N1 was an entirely different scenario and existed when agencies and response teams that have since been dissolved were brought to bear. under fauci's counsel, the obama administration declared H1N1 a pandemic 6 weeks after its discover and before any known deaths from the virus were recorded. frankly, the only "sources" i can find that criticize fauci regarding H1N1 are right wing "news" sites and repost blogs painting fauci in precisely the same light you are.

you're just throwing out claims. was japan's response better? less than a minute of googling and i'm finding independently supported sources that show japan's infection rate at 20% (https://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/kekkaku-kansenshou04/rireki/100331-03.html) and the usa's significantly less at around 17.%, respectively (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35367744#.XwWRq5NKh24 | https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade.html | https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/LPR%20Population%20Estimates%202010.pdf)

can you produce numbers that support your argument?

7/8/20 5:42 AM
2/20/09
Posts: 17986
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

Oh hey someones alt. account!  Keep keepin’ on dipshit.

7/8/20 6:04 AM
2/9/09
Posts: 12251

How is anyone immune when you can get it more than once?

7/8/20 6:15 AM
5/3/01
Posts: 29902
Bend The Knee - 

How is anyone immune when you can get it more than once?


https://abcnews.go.com/US/vaccine-reach-herd-immunity-scientists/story?id=71662733

7/8/20 8:08 AM
4/3/20
Posts: 1081
Trust -
VirusHoax - 
Trust -
VirusHoax - 
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.


Are you suggesting we will end up with a similar total number of deaths as NY has?  Right now FL has never had a day over 100 deaths (83 is the record), and the death rate is about 1/10th that of NY.  

Yeah, if we had had as many people get sick and die as NY did, then maybe now we would not be seeing a rise in cases either.  

Of course not. 
 

I am talking about the opening that started in May for all. It is a fact the NY opened in a phased manner in accordance with CDC guidelines, and Florida did not. And now much of NY is open yet new cases are at a minimum. This is not an accident, imo.


So NY followed CDC guidelines, and yet had a massive death toll.  But that's not the reason they aren't seeing a resurgence now, it's because all those surviving people who are allegedly just as susceptible to infection as everyone in FL (according to Tomato Can) followed CDC guidelines in reopening.  They fooled the virus!!   

But the dummies in FL did not hide long enough to fool the virus, even though their infection rates were FAR below that of NY.  The fact that NY has had more than double the rate of cases has nothing to do with it.  

NY's stay at home order expired May 28; they had a seven day rolling average of over 1600 cases per day on May 28.  

FL had a seven day rolling average of 660 cases per day on May 28.  Almost 1000/day less than NY. 

FL opened up in less populous counties starting May 4, when the rolling average was 680 (NY was 4200).    

FL didn't have a general reopening until early June, and S. FL (about 25% of the state population) didn't open generally until after that even. I still have not eaten in a restaurant since early March.  

CDC guidelines call for a 14 day downward trajectory of new cases.  We had that from Apr 2 to Apr 24, then it flat lined around 700/day until May 29.  It took a huge jump up from June 2 (617) to June 3 (1317), which was one week after George Floyd's death.  But that was just a coincidence, of course. It's also just a coincidence that the new infections since early June were heavily in the younger age brackets.  It had nothing to do with protests.  It's definitely not that people in FL have had a much lower exposure rate than people in NY, either. 

Ok, sorry for being sarcastic. It's friendly sarcasm, trust me. I'm tired. 

 

obviously i am talking about the CDC guidelines for opening. by the time there were any CDC guidelines for prevention that would have helped NYC, it was too late and many thousands were infected. and also, obviously, there is no fooling the virus. rather, it is creating policy based on what we know *about* the virus. which is what NY is doing and Florida is not. i don't know how any honest assessment could lead to any different conclusion.

 

- NY didn't have a stay at home order, not sure where you got that from.

- the point is not that Florida was wrong to start opening, it was that it was wrong to not follow the guidelines to continue opening, which was more than just about cases staying flat. the guidance, (which is common sense) is for cases and various hospitalization metrics to REMAIN on a downward trajectory *AS* you increase activity among people *AND* with suitable contract tracing in place. florida continued to open up in areas even as cases were increasing. predictable result is predictable.

- i'm sure the protests have also had an impact. but you only need to look in various areas of the country to see increases where there wasn't much protesting, and other areas where there was protesting and not much of a related spike to realize that hoping for this politically expedient single cause boogeyman just isn't going to pan out

7/8/20 8:11 AM
4/3/20
Posts: 1082
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.

That remains to be seen. I don’t think it will become unmanageable at all.

Florida is absolutely more open than NY right now, but importantly, what is going on in NYC is irrelevant. Probably 40% or more of the people in NYC are now immune. That radically lowers the ceiling on R so that surges like they saw before are no longer possible.

Malls, I forgot about malls. In the rest of the state indoor dining, bars, elective procedures in all hospitals, recreation, etc all open. 
 

And, no, the number in NYC is not “probably” 40%, lol. Low 20s when measured. There certainly has not been double the infections since then. Because they have been very careful about limiting the spread, which has been evident in the hospitalization and death curve.

 

can you define what would be unmanageable?

24% at the end of March/start of April! Not including t-cell-mediated immunity! 40% is probably conservative.

yeah, no. the original antibody screening done at the end of april was 20% for all of NYC. this was redone just last month and it was 21.6%. and that rate of increase is going to continue to drop as fewer and fewer NYers have COVID-19 as time going on

 

New York’s latest COVID antibody survey shows a rise in the Bronx and minority communities

 

making up facts is going to lead to faulty conclusions. just so you know.

7/8/20 8:12 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 101401
Peixes - 
Bend The Knee - 

How is anyone immune when you can get it more than once?


https://abcnews.go.com/US/vaccine-reach-herd-immunity-scientists/story?id=71662733


Well no shit they don't "know." The standards for a medical researcher to say they "know" something and have such an extreme level of confidence is usually based on decades of evidence including scientifically valid studies that take years to complete and peer review. There is a reason why it's called a medical "opinion." 

The current US healthcare system has not been treating patients or tracking the numbers in a manner truly beneficial to researchers. We created a system that eliminated red tape in the event we had nationwide medical emergency on our hands. We didn't, and the acccounting system is unchanged. 

Covid-19 is most closely related to SARS, which hit the world around 2003. There still isn't a SARS vaccine. A CV vaccine could be much further off than the people in charge would want you to believe. 

7/8/20 8:14 AM
5/3/01
Posts: 29905

lol. are you angry at the article but also coming to the same conclusion? i legit don't understand the tone of your post.

7/8/20 8:22 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 101402
Peixes - 

lol. are you angry at the article but also coming to the same conclusion? i legit don't understand the tone of your post.


I think the article is deliberately misleading. 

That is the subheadline. 

"Allowing the virus to grow unchecked would create unthinkable loss of life."

It's clear emotional manipulation to get people to make a dry ambiguous article into fear porn. 

"When you're feeling, you're not thinking." 

7/8/20 8:24 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 101403

7-8 billion people dead. Yep, there I thought it. Everyone during the Cold War thought it for decades from the MAD principle. It's not so "unthinkable." 

7/8/20 8:30 AM
5/3/01
Posts: 29906

lol at going so far as to literalize such a common and rote expression. 

7/8/20 8:43 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 101405

Just because something is a ubiquitious cliche doesn't mean it isn't any less deliberately manipulative. 

For almost half my life, I've had to comb through the news in some manner professionally. One job had me checking everything from Fox to AL Jazeera for world wide news contstantly for years. 

OSint is the military term for deriving useable (highly scrutinized and validated_ military intelligence from open source information (main stream (news, web forums, etc.) 

I understand why everyone in the media does it and continues to do it more often and more intensely. I don't blame them. 

But conflating critical thinking and defining soft language as "being upset" is mischaracterizing my arguement.

I don't know what else to tell you other than I am not talking out of my ass and Ive kept the lights on doing right now on the OG for free. 

7/8/20 9:31 AM
7/15/02
Posts: 12030
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.

That remains to be seen. I don’t think it will become unmanageable at all.

Florida is absolutely more open than NY right now, but importantly, what is going on in NYC is irrelevant. Probably 40% or more of the people in NYC are now immune. That radically lowers the ceiling on R so that surges like they saw before are no longer possible.

Malls, I forgot about malls. In the rest of the state indoor dining, bars, elective procedures in all hospitals, recreation, etc all open. 
 

And, no, the number in NYC is not “probably” 40%, lol. Low 20s when measured. There certainly has not been double the infections since then. Because they have been very careful about limiting the spread, which has been evident in the hospitalization and death curve.

 

can you define what would be unmanageable?

24% at the end of March/start of April! Not including t-cell-mediated immunity! 40% is probably conservative.

yeah, no. the original antibody screening done at the end of april was 20% for all of NYC. this was redone just last month and it was 21.6%. and that rate of increase is going to continue to drop as fewer and fewer NYers have COVID-19 as time going on

 

New York’s latest COVID antibody survey shows a rise in the Bronx and minority communities

 

making up facts is going to lead to faulty conclusions. just so you know.

I did misremember the dates. My bad. It was end of April, but NYC was 22.7% at that time,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279720302015

And again, this ignores t-cell-mediated immunity.

Finally, even if it were still only a quarter of the population, that is *still* enough to radically mitigate spread.

7/8/20 9:39 AM
5/3/01
Posts: 29907
DaveFu -

Just because something is a ubiquitious cliche doesn't mean it isn't any less deliberately manipulative. 

For almost half my life, I've had to comb through the news in some manner professionally. One job had me checking everything from Fox to AL Jazeera for world wide news contstantly for years. 

OSint is the military term for deriving useable (highly scrutinized and validated_ military intelligence from open source information (main stream (news, web forums, etc.) 

I understand why everyone in the media does it and continues to do it more often and more intensely. I don't blame them. 

But conflating critical thinking and defining soft language as "being upset" is mischaracterizing my arguement.

I don't know what else to tell you other than I am not talking out of my ass and Ive kept the lights on doing right now on the OG for free. 

oh, dude, preaching to the choir... but you do read as heated

7/8/20 9:42 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 101423
Peixes - 
DaveFu -

Just because something is a ubiquitious cliche doesn't mean it isn't any less deliberately manipulative. 

For almost half my life, I've had to comb through the news in some manner professionally. One job had me checking everything from Fox to AL Jazeera for world wide news contstantly for years. 

OSint is the military term for deriving useable (highly scrutinized and validated_ military intelligence from open source information (main stream (news, web forums, etc.) 

I understand why everyone in the media does it and continues to do it more often and more intensely. I don't blame them. 

But conflating critical thinking and defining soft language as "being upset" is mischaracterizing my arguement.

I don't know what else to tell you other than I am not talking out of my ass and Ive kept the lights on doing right now on the OG for free. 

oh, dude, preaching to the choir... but you do read as heated


I always sound like a cranky old bastard. Someone thought I was in my mid-50s on another thread. lol 

7/8/20 9:44 AM
7/21/10
Posts: 2601
prof -

Well, I will certainly take the view of the OP - one of the fine OG Scientists - over virtually all trained professionals.

Do you also do climate and economic forecasts, I hope?

For the last fucken time! No one says he or she is smarter than the scientists. We don't trust the scientists because they have an agenda. Just like the journalists, they killed their own credibility with their bullshit. 

7/8/20 9:57 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 99603
VirusHoax - 
Trust -
VirusHoax - 
Trust -
VirusHoax - 
Piyo -
VirusHoax -
VinegarStrokes -

The lower the average age of positives the better. That means a much higher chance of recovery and we are effectively protecting the more vulnerable populations. The idea we can fully stop the virus by closing things down again is insane, we can’t. The number of people being tested now is exponentially higher than when things first started. Now everyone is getting tested symptomatic or not. Before you could only get tested if you had symptoms AND direct contact with a known positive person. The more testing is a good thing. But it’s also spreading fear. 
 

If you live with or regularly interact with vulnerable people then you should exercise extreme caution. Do everything possible to mitigate the risk to you and them. If not you should still exercise caution but going to work isn’t as concerning. 

no, that's not what this means. consider...if we increase the infection among 20 year olds by 10 times, and only double it among those 65+. the average age might go down, however all of the "bad" effects of COVID (hospitalizations and deaths) still occur. they aren't somehow canceled out just because lots and lots of young people have it and they will largely be fine.

 

this is what you are seeing in florida, and other states where the spread is not under control. focus on average age or death rate is just a game for those states to pat themselves on the back for having uncontrolled spread among the young. it is not an accomplishment.

And that is exactly what I said. It looks like the infection rate of those 65+ has approximately doubled, which is why I put about a 2x ceiling on the future mortality curve. It may be less if fewer of those 65+ are in care homes and/or treatment has improved.

But so what? Florida’s deaths have been so tiny so far that it’s not even showing up in excess mortality. Double a very small number is still very small. If they can open up the state, get people to work, kids back in school, etc., while keeping deaths at that level, that’s a win.

except for the hospital situation getting worse with each week. right? that's the downside.

 

the framing of this as just the cost of opening up is fallacious. there really isn't much difference of what is open in florida and what is open in NY now (except indoor dining in NYC). the only major difference i can think of is gyms. yet, in ny with each phase of opening the rate of infection continued to go down.


Are you suggesting we will end up with a similar total number of deaths as NY has?  Right now FL has never had a day over 100 deaths (83 is the record), and the death rate is about 1/10th that of NY.  

Yeah, if we had had as many people get sick and die as NY did, then maybe now we would not be seeing a rise in cases either.  

Of course not. 
 

I am talking about the opening that started in May for all. It is a fact the NY opened in a phased manner in accordance with CDC guidelines, and Florida did not. And now much of NY is open yet new cases are at a minimum. This is not an accident, imo.


So NY followed CDC guidelines, and yet had a massive death toll.  But that's not the reason they aren't seeing a resurgence now, it's because all those surviving people who are allegedly just as susceptible to infection as everyone in FL (according to Tomato Can) followed CDC guidelines in reopening.  They fooled the virus!!   

But the dummies in FL did not hide long enough to fool the virus, even though their infection rates were FAR below that of NY.  The fact that NY has had more than double the rate of cases has nothing to do with it.  

NY's stay at home order expired May 28; they had a seven day rolling average of over 1600 cases per day on May 28.  

FL had a seven day rolling average of 660 cases per day on May 28.  Almost 1000/day less than NY. 

FL opened up in less populous counties starting May 4, when the rolling average was 680 (NY was 4200).    

FL didn't have a general reopening until early June, and S. FL (about 25% of the state population) didn't open generally until after that even. I still have not eaten in a restaurant since early March.  

CDC guidelines call for a 14 day downward trajectory of new cases.  We had that from Apr 2 to Apr 24, then it flat lined around 700/day until May 29.  It took a huge jump up from June 2 (617) to June 3 (1317), which was one week after George Floyd's death.  But that was just a coincidence, of course. It's also just a coincidence that the new infections since early June were heavily in the younger age brackets.  It had nothing to do with protests.  It's definitely not that people in FL have had a much lower exposure rate than people in NY, either. 

Ok, sorry for being sarcastic. It's friendly sarcasm, trust me. I'm tired. 

 

obviously i am talking about the CDC guidelines for opening. by the time there were any CDC guidelines for prevention that would have helped NYC, it was too late and many thousands were infected. and also, obviously, there is no fooling the virus. rather, it is creating policy based on what we know *about* the virus. which is what NY is doing and Florida is not. i don't know how any honest assessment could lead to any different conclusion.

 

- NY didn't have a stay at home order, not sure where you got that from.

- the point is not that Florida was wrong to start opening, it was that it was wrong to not follow the guidelines to continue opening, which was more than just about cases staying flat. the guidance, (which is common sense) is for cases and various hospitalization metrics to REMAIN on a downward trajectory *AS* you increase activity among people *AND* with suitable contract tracing in place. florida continued to open up in areas even as cases were increasing. predictable result is predictable.

- i'm sure the protests have also had an impact. but you only need to look in various areas of the country to see increases where there wasn't much protesting, and other areas where there was protesting and not much of a related spike to realize that hoping for this politically expedient single cause boogeyman just isn't going to pan out


https://nypost.com/2020/05/15/cuomo-extends-new-yorks-stay-at-home-order-until-june-13/