OT: Coronavirus

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:

@JimmyinSD said:

@A1Janitor said:
Interesting edit Jimmy.  I have read varying opinions on this.  I have read they can’t lower drinking age ... but also have read counties can decriminalize marijuana.  

Some time when I have more time - I will research this. 

Typically local authorities can make restrictions greater...think HOAs,  but they cant ease them from the intent of the law.

I was told in NYS, counties can decriminalize pot that is illegal.  This is making restrictions less not greater in NY. 

Have never heard that,  but I suppose its similar to states making it legal while the fed still has it illegal.  It becomes a roll the dice situation that the state wont step in and enforce their laws which superceded the local leniency. 

[Guest]

@purplefaithful said:

@Havoc1649 said:
Personally, I think contact tracing off of positive tests is a fools errand. The two main reasons for this are the high false negatives as well as the rapid spread with long latency to detection. Early on or in reference to a small area or location it may have some value, but not much on a larger scale. 

In my opinion, the majority of testing resources should be put towards antibody testing and ensuring a person becomes immune after having it. A person found to have recovered can return to work and/or help the vulnerable. There’s all this discussion about phasing the economy back into operation and this is how you do it in my opinion. At the same time, we keep the vulnerable locked down as herd immunity builds. 

Haven't some of the newer testing (the 15 or 5 minute ones) lowered the error rates? I hope so. 

Overall I agree with what you're saying. I think its spot on if testing is not accurate enough. 

The million $$ question will be how quickly can they roll out anti-body testing vs nasal swab? I read where Mayo and UofM are already doing this but to what degree? Scale?

Good question. The tests, even the slower ones are actually very accurate - if there’s genetic material at the swab site. That’s been one of the reasons for false negatives. Doc here told me they think they’ve been seeing as high as 30% false negatives. People are showing negative in their nose or throat, but are walking around with it in their lungs. 
I read one report, I believe this one was out fo New York, where they were sure this guy had it but couldn’t get a positive test. Eventually, they did a wash in his lungs and tested the liquid and finally got a positive. This virus presents unique difficulties with testing where it appears to be heavily reliant on timing to detect it. 

[Guest]

@Havoc1649 said:

@purplefaithful said:

@Havoc1649 said:
Personally, I think contact tracing off of positive tests is a fools errand. The two main reasons for this are the high false negatives as well as the rapid spread with long latency to detection. Early on or in reference to a small area or location it may have some value, but not much on a larger scale. 

In my opinion, the majority of testing resources should be put towards antibody testing and ensuring a person becomes immune after having it. A person found to have recovered can return to work and/or help the vulnerable. There’s all this discussion about phasing the economy back into operation and this is how you do it in my opinion. At the same time, we keep the vulnerable locked down as herd immunity builds. 

Haven't some of the newer testing (the 15 or 5 minute ones) lowered the error rates? I hope so. 

Overall I agree with what you're saying. I think its spot on if testing is not accurate enough. 

The million $$ question will be how quickly can they roll out anti-body testing vs nasal swab? I read where Mayo and UofM are already doing this but to what degree? Scale?

Good question. The tests, even the slower ones are actually very accurate - if there’s genetic material at the swab site. That’s been one of the reasons for false negatives. Doc here told me they think they’ve been seeing as high as 30% false negatives. People are showing negative in their nose or throat, but are walking around with it in their lungs. 
I read one report, I believe this one was out fo New York, where they were sure this guy had it but couldn’t get a positive test. Eventually, they did a wash in his lungs and tested the liquid and finally got a positive. This virus presents unique difficulties with testing where it appears to be heavily reliant on timing to detect it. 

The 30% false negative is the same ratio my girlfriend has heard from the hospital she works for. Based on that, she was denied a test. 

[Guest]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-deaths.html

N.Y.C. Death Toll Soars Past 10,000 in Revised Virus CountThe city has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive.

A triage tent at Elmhurst Hospital Medical Center in Queens, which has been inundated with patients during the coronavirus outbreak. Credit...James Estrin/The New York Times

By J. David Goodman and William K. Rashbaum

• April 14, 2020Updated 6:58 p.m. ET

New York City, already a world epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, sharply increased its death toll by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday, after officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it.
The new figures, released by the city’s Health Department, drove up the number of people killed in New York City to more than 10,000, and appeared to increase the overall United States death count by 17 percent to more than 26,000.

[Guest]

BarrNone55™

@BarrNone55

Ok, I'm down with social distancing, but...

[Guest]

@Hidalgo said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-deaths.html

N.Y.C. Death Toll Soars Past 10,000 in Revised Virus CountThe city has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive.

A triage tent at Elmhurst Hospital Medical Center in Queens, which has been inundated with patients during the coronavirus outbreak. Credit...James Estrin/The New York Times

By J. David Goodman and William K. Rashbaum

• April 14, 2020Updated 6:58 p.m. ET

New York City, already a world epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, sharply increased its death toll by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday, after officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it.
The new figures, released by the city’s Health Department, drove up the number of people killed in New York City to more than 10,000, and appeared to increase the overall United States death count by 17 percent to more than 26,000.

It's the effect and cause definition.  If a person is told they have terminal disease and have two weeks to live, then steps into a crosswalk and is hit by a bread truck.  Who is responsible for the payout, liability or life insurance.  Bread-truck always looses, ask the bank.

[Guest]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1250228871892545537

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
The models assumed social distancing and proper hygiene practices already.  

This is not at all accurate. If the models did not specifically state they accounted for social distancing, proper hygiene and shelter in place then they did not. At least not any model the government or those of us in healthcare were using. The respected models displayed breakdowns on possible outcomes for various scenarios. No action, social distancing, stay at home order, shelter in place and are updated daily. The models that were touting massive numbers were models to forecast what MAY happen if people didn't take this serious.  Basically to scare people. 

[Guest]

@bigbone62 said:

@A1Janitor said:
The models assumed social distancing and proper hygiene practices already.  

This is not at all accurate. If the models did not specifically state they accounted for social distancing, proper hygiene and shelter in place then they did not. At least not any model the government or those of us in healthcare were using. The respected models displayed breakdowns on possible outcomes for various scenarios. No action, social distancing, stay at home order, shelter in place and are updated daily. The models that were touting massive numbers were models to forecast what MAY happen if people didn't take this serious.  Basically to scare people. 

The models that said over a million assumed nothing.

The models that assumed 200k ... revised down to 100k ... revised down to 60k assumed social distancing.  

Per Dr. Birx.  

We did not need 40k ventilators in NY.  We were not in need of beds.  More reports are coming out in at least three states that they put down coronavirus as the cause of death without knowing it. 

The projections were faulty.  They never knew the denominator.  
I was shocked to see that 50k per year die of pneumonia per year and up to 60k for the flu. It will be interesting to see how these deaths compare to prior years.  

[Guest]

https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1248228439791931392?s=20

If the above twitter doesn’t show, hopefully this link does:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-pandemic-projection-models-proving-unreliable/