• Member Statistics

    15,883
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    WeatherArbordoctor
    Newest Member
    WeatherArbordoctor
    Joined
mappy

COVID-19 Talk

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, HighStakes said:

People like Fauci have no political agenda. His entire life and career is science and data based. His only objective is to save lives and protect the public. When a certain establishment hears information or facts they dont want to hear than they resort to attack methods. 

If you're ever unsure what to believe when watching or listening to the media all you have to do to know what the real truth is to listen to the doctors, nurses and health officials on the front line. 

His only agenda is to understand the virus and minimize deaths. That doesn’t mean his voice should carry weight above all others. A lockdown through December would greatly reduce virus deaths but kill countless others from hunger and delayed treatments for other ailments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like another 1500+ death day today.  Lower than last weeks average so hopefully we’re coming off the peak and it’s not just the weekend reporting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DCTeacherman said:

looks like another 1500+ death day today.  Lower than last weeks average so hopefully we’re coming off the peak and it’s not just the weekend reporting. 

Does the fact that reports are lower on the weekends say anything to you about the reliability of the stats or do you just assume the virus takes a break on the weekends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Does the fact that reports are lower on the weekends say anything to you about the reliability of the stats or do you just assume the virus takes a break on the weekends?

Hey, but like I said last night, in order to try to keep this thread a little more focused and less sloppy I’m going to reduce my back and forths with you.  Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PhineasC said:

His only agenda is to understand the virus and minimize deaths. That doesn’t mean his voice should carry weight above all others. A lockdown through December would greatly reduce virus deaths but kill countless others from hunger and delayed treatments for other ailments. 

Of course his voice should carry more weight than others . Somebody's has too. There is a reason why he is the director of infectious diseases and leading authority. Most other officials except his lead anyway and are fine with him as the front man. I have not  heard anybody in his field unsupportive of his lead. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You understand darn well why his voice carry more weight.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HighStakes said:

Of course his voice should carry more weight than others . Somebody's has too. There is a reason why he is the director of infectious diseases and leading authority. Most other officials except his lead anyway and are fine with him as the front man. I have not  heard anybody in his field unsupportive of his lead. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You understand darn well why his voice carry more weight.

OK, so lock down until we hit zero deaths is your call? Or should other voices be able to weigh in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HighStakes said:

Of course his voice should carry more weight than others . Somebody's has too. There is a reason why he is the director of infectious diseases and leading authority. Most other officials except his lead anyway and are fine with him as the front man. I have not  heard anybody in his field unsupportive of his lead. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You understand darn well why his voice carry more weight.

Don’t question him he stayed at a holiday inn express last night. I stopped going down his rabbit holes days ago. It’s apparent he is trolling. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

OK, so lock down until we hit zero deaths is your call? Or should other voices be able to weigh in?

Once again you know very well that other voices do weigh and are heavily considered and who said anything about a lock down until December or zero deaths. I never heard Fauci day anything like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, HighStakes said:

Of course his voice should carry more weight than others . Somebody's has too. There is a reason why he is the director of infectious diseases and leading authority. Most other officials except his lead anyway and are fine with him as the front man. I have not  heard anybody in his field unsupportive of his lead. At this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You understand darn well why his voice carry more weight.

 

34 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

OK, so lock down until we hit zero deaths is your call? Or should other voices be able to weigh in?

Did Highstakes or Fauci say lockdown until there are zero deaths?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Fauci has said the same thing the President is saying... glad we are on the same page here.

What? You’ve lost me. 
 

I was wondering who said lockdown until there are zero deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

Nah, I think you are reading me loud and clear.

Ok. But I’m really not. I have no idea what I’m missing.

Eta:  No.big deal. I miss a lot in real life too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holding under 25k new cases for the day and NY with only around 6k, one of the lowest new case count days I can remember.  Hopefully this continues through the week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Baltimorewx said:

Go have sex with your wife, play ball with your boy, let your dog lick peanut butter off your balls, sheesh. Give it a rest some of y’all 

ESPN2's primetime Sunday night programming has China's Grand Prix racing.. which is apparently open.. hmmm :whistle: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good sign I’ve been noticing is case counts and deaths seem to have fallen off a cliff in Louisiana and Michigan.  Glad to see a big downswing in those places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania seem to be a little behind NYC/NJ/MICH/LA in terms of peak.  Hopefully after those two places peak that will be the last major hot spots where we see 100+ deaths per day.  Still possible our region has a later peak I guess but maybe our social distancing has smoothed it enough we’re just less severe plateau.  Either way encouraging signs all around!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaydreb said:

What are we supposed to use?  We can’t use total deaths, for obvious reasons.  And we can’t use per capita either.  

Just because it makes us look better doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it.  Can we only use things that make us look worse?

I was being somewhat facetious.  I'd say we should look at the data both ways.  But per capita tends to be used more in the social sciences, such as economics or politics.

Whether your country is 330 million people (like us) or 60 million people (like Italy), a virus has plenty of places to go.  So looking at it per capita gives you a distorted picture if you're trying to evaluate the growth rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Inverted_Trough said:

I was being somewhat facetious.  I'd say we should look at the data both ways.  But per capita tends to be used more in the social sciences, such as economics or politics.

Whether your country is 330 million people (like us) or 60 million people (like Italy), a virus has plenty of places to go.  So looking at it per capita gives you a distorted picture if you're trying to evaluate the growth rate.

Yes, very true.  If you look at China, they obviously have way more big cities than anyone but that didn’t preclude them from keeping it confined to one province. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PhineasC said:

China literally makes people disappear if they speak out about COVID-19... but we believe them when they say they have this contained?

It's certainly possible (or likely) that they under-reported at the very beginning.  But it appears they have it under control now.  Starbucks has re-opened 95% of the stores that they shuttered in January.  There was an article recently that described their process for re-opening.  It was quite methodical and they used the data from the local public health authorities there.

Our numbers will never get as low as theirs has (or allegedly has).  We can't do what China did.  It looks like our new strategy will be to get the numbers down to a more manageable level, and play whack-a-mole with new clusters as they arise.  It'll be a smouldering fire but hopefully no second inferno.  It's pretty apparent that's what our strategy has evolved into

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Inverted_Trough said:

It's certainly possible (or likely) that they under-reported at the very beginning.  But it appears they have it under control now.  Starbucks has re-opened 95% of the stores that they shuttered in January.  There was an article recently that described their process for re-opening.  It was quite methodical and they used the data from the local public health authorities there.

Our numbers will never get as low as theirs has (or allegedly has).  We can't do what China did.  It looks like our new strategy will be to get the numbers down to a more manageable level, and play whack-a-mole with new clusters as they arise.  It'll be a smouldering fire but hopefully no second inferno.  It's pretty apparent that's what our strategy has evolved into

I don't believe a single thing coming from China on this, and info from the Chinese branch of a megacorp like Starbucks is no exception. It's certain Starbucks would not even be allowed to do business in China if they spoke out about COVID there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I don't believe a single thing coming from China on this, and info from the Chinese branch of a megacorp like Starbucks is no exception. It's certain Starbucks would not even be allowed to do business in China if they spoke out about COVID there. 

You're entitled to your beliefs.  There's plenty of ancillary evidence that shows it's contained there.  They also had a two month head-start:  While we were busy chasing snowstorms that never materialized, they were basically in the midst of dealing with this - like we are now.  So it makes sense their counts are much lower than ours currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Inverted_Trough said:

It's certainly possible (or likely) that they under-reported at the very beginning.  But it appears they have it under control now.  Starbucks has re-opened 95% of the stores that they shuttered in January.  There was an article recently that described their process for re-opening.  It was quite methodical and they used the data from the local public health authorities there.

Our numbers will never get as low as theirs has (or allegedly has).  We can't do what China did.  It looks like our new strategy will be to get the numbers down to a more manageable level, and play whack-a-mole with new clusters as they arise.  It'll be a smouldering fire but hopefully no second inferno.  It's pretty apparent that's what our strategy has evolved into

Yeah, exactly.  Their numbers probably aren't accurate, but the broad strokes of what happened in terms of where the virus spread seem to be accurate.  International observers like the WHO and others confirmed this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of guessing about how COVID-19 will affect certain industries long-term.  I'm wondering if people here have already made conscious decisions to change their spending habits, even if it just seems like a minor thing.

For my part:

  • I had been toying with it for years and I finally buzzed my hair.  Yeah, I'm never going back to Great Clips.  
  • I was never interested in ocean cruises, but would have contemplated a river cruise.  Not a chance any longer.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss the days when Phineas didn't post, this thread was much easier to read and nothing was ever reported

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.