The Covid-19 Info thread (keep politics out please)

[dantheman4248]

I just don't like it when people put words in my mouth and tell ME what I'm thinking.

And since you think you know everything tell me what I'm thinking right now?

If I said the sky was blue you would tell me I was talking like I said it was purple. And then tell me it was strawman AFTER I told you my intent and then insisted that wasn't my real intent.

I did not put words in your mouth. I asked you if you thought it was over and said your comment comes across as you think it's over. That was why I incredulously asked if you thought it was over. If you don't want people implying that you think it's over, then why are you trashing an endgame prediction this early? That's what vibe you gave off. That's why I ASKED you if you thought that way.

Again you want me to be the villain here so bad you've somehow contorted your perception of reality. Re-read this tangent from the start. You've somehow missed some key things.

[dantheman4248]

Name all the 17ing states that shut down weeks before us that are open. Not a 17ing one. So you're wrong again.

What the **** does that have **** all to do with **** here.

I think that having a president take this seriously at least two weeks before he did would greatly have changed the trajectory. He's the LEADER of the free world. This has nothing to do with states that are already shut down and what not. You either missed my point entirely or must have quoted the wrong person.

[confucius say]

What the **** does that have **** all to do with **** here.

I think that having a president take this seriously at least two weeks before he did would greatly have changed the trajectory. He's the LEADER of the free world. This has nothing to do with states that are already shut down and what not. You either missed my point entirely or must have quoted the wrong person.

Why do you think those two weeks would have greatly changed the trajectory?

[chef dixon]

It's not as bad because the initial predictions by Dr. Fauci were much much higher. One big reason why the hospitals are running at a lower capacity in general is because they were all trying to prepare for the worst.

And now we're starting to talk about re-opening states in phases.

I'm not privy to his exact projections so correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't he say 100-200k? To me we are well on our way to that if it's 2k per day now and we haven't even started reopening yet.

I definitely agree we need to start opening stuff slowly so not using my point to argue that. It just looks pretty clear to me that the number dead is going to be quite big when it's done.

[dantheman4248]

Why do you think those two weeks would have greatly changed the trajectory?

Is that serious question?

Moving our whole response up two weeks would have brought in less outside cases, slowed the spread earlier, and enabled us to have better isolation of cases as there would be a smaller amount.

Why do you think two weeks would NOT have greatly changed the trajectory?

[dawgday166]

Probably China.**

Probably so. Maybe in best case scenario upper Eastern seaboard state or California. They all think the Feds should provide free lunches in those places **

[BeardoMSU]

Probably so. Maybe in best case scenario upper Eastern seaboard state or California. They all think the Feds should provide free lunches in those places **

Speaking of "free shit"....you'd be shocked to learn that tax dollars from states like Massachusetts help bankroll the infrastructure in Mississippi.*

[Todd4State]

I did not put words in your mouth. I asked you if you thought it was over and said your comment comes across as you think it's over. That was why I incredulously asked if you thought it was over. If you don't want people implying that you think it's over, then why are you trashing an endgame prediction this early? That's what vibe you gave off. That's why I ASKED you if you thought that way.

Again you want me to be the villain here so bad you've somehow contorted your perception of reality. Re-read this tangent from the start. You've somehow missed some key things.

Speaking of missing "key things" it should be abundantly clear that I don't think it's over.

Do you think it's over since you are the one patting yourself on the back with your predictions before it's over which you did first?

I don't care if you're the villain or not. I just wanted to know why you called me out in the first place? Even though I knew it would digress to this because ironically YOU always have to be right.

[dawgday166]

Speaking of "free shit"....you'd be shocked to learn that tax dollars from states like Massachusetts help bankroll the infrastructure in Mississippi.*

True. Sip needs more of those northeastern tax dollars ****

[Todd4State]

I'm not privy to his exact projections so correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't he say 100-200k? To me we are well on our way to that if it's 2k per day now and we haven't even started reopening yet.

I definitely agree we need to start opening stuff slowly so not using my point to argue that. It just looks pretty clear to me that the number dead is going to be quite big when it's done.

Yeah- after he initially predicted millions would die.

[BeardoMSU]

True. Sip needs more of those northeastern tax dollars ****

I'm doing my best**

[dantheman4248]

That was as strong as a garlic milkshake.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Todd4State again.

Speaking of missing "key things" it should be abundantly clear that I don't think it's over.

Do you think it's over since you are the one patting yourself on the back with your predictions before it's over which you did first?

I don't care if you're the villain or not. I just wanted to know why you called me out in the first place? Even though I knew it would digress to this because ironically YOU always have to be right.

It's clear NOW that you don't. Hence why I ASKED.

And no. I was showing. that my predictions where right around where that study in question would have us end up landing.

Not sure why you're patting yourself on the back here when you we're way off.

Were is past tense and implies something in the past.

Let's assume this Santa Clara testing is true and 2.5% - 4% of the population has had the virus. (I'm skeptical, but that's another story.)

We need about 60% of the population infected for herd immunity.

That is a range of 15 - 24 times more cases than we have now to reach herd immunity.

Assuming 2.5% - 4% infected and our current 38000 deaths, if we were to reach 60%, that would be 570,000 - 912,000 deaths.

That's shocking to me. Did I do the math wrong? Someone check it.

I really don't think we should be in a rush to try to obtain herd immunity.

And my initial prediction was 500k.

Does this clear it up? I'm clear on you not thinking it's over. We're past that. I don't think this is over. My point was my prediction would fall right in line with that Sabra Clara study. You made a comment like the predictions were way off, but they weren't.

[Dawgfan77]

Dan the commi man

Please go away

Hailstate

[Dawgology]

I think this is what is confusing everyone. Initial predictions for death related to Covid WITH social distancing was in the millions...then it moved to "we may keep it below 1 million", then it was 500,000, then it was 250,000, now it is 100,000-200,000 now it's "we hope to keep it below 100,000". So we started with millions of death in the USA alone to possibly under 100,000. It is impossible that "social distancing" has created such a flattening of the curve unless the initial R0 and mortality rates are completely wrong. That is a massive miscalculation. In fact, in most instancing a miscalculation of this sort would end your career in the scientific community. And now there is a lot of chatter about the initial model out of the UK being flawed. Your argument is that if the President had done something two weeks earlier (which he did when he suspended inbound flights from Asian countries and was CRUCIFIED by his opponents for being racist when the "Chinese Virus" wasn't a real threat) then we would have been under...what...50k deaths? 30k? 10k? 100?

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat but I've been watching the spin from both sides of this argument and it is ****ing hilarious.

[confucius say]

Is that serious question?

Moving our whole response up two weeks would have brought in less outside cases, slowed the spread earlier, and enabled us to have better isolation of cases as there would be a smaller amount.

Why do you think two weeks would NOT have greatly changed the trajectory?

I agree the two weeks would have helped with those things you listed In the second paragraph. But I don't think any of that would have "greatly changed the trajectory" of this worldwide pandemic.

[Todd4State]

It's clear NOW that you don't. Hence why I ASKED.

And no. I was showing. that my predictions where right around where that study in question would have us end up landing.


Were is past tense and implies something in the past.




And my initial prediction was 500k.

Does this clear it up? I'm clear on you not thinking it's over. We're past that. I don't think this is over. My point was my prediction would fall right in line with that Sabra Clara study. You made a comment like the predictions were way off, but they weren't.

Grammer smack belongs on sixpackspeak.com. I'll fix my phone.

[Todd4State]

I think this is what is confusing everyone. Initial predictions for death related to Covid WITH social distancing was in the millions...then it moved to "we may keep it below 1 million", then it was 500,000, then it was 250,000, now it is 100,000-200,000 now it's "we hope to keep it below 100,000". So we started with millions of death in the USA alone to possibly under 100,000. It is impossible that "social distancing" has created such a flattening of the curve unless the initial R0 and mortality rates are completely wrong. That is a massive miscalculation. In fact, in most instancing a miscalculation of this sort would end your career in the scientific community. And now there is a lot of chatter about the initial model out of the UK being flawed. Your argument is that if the President had done something two weeks earlier (which he did when he suspended inbound flights from Asian countries and was CRUCIFIED by his opponents for being racist when the "Chinese Virus" wasn't a real threat) then we would have been under...what...50k deaths? 30k? 10k? 100?

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat but I've been watching the spin from both sides of this argument and it is ****ing hilarious.

Yep.

[Commercecomet24]

I think this is what is confusing everyone. Initial predictions for death related to Covid WITH social distancing was in the millions...then it moved to "we may keep it below 1 million", then it was 500,000, then it was 250,000, now it is 100,000-200,000 now it's "we hope to keep it below 100,000". So we started with millions of death in the USA alone to possibly under 100,000. It is impossible that "social distancing" has created such a flattening of the curve unless the initial R0 and mortality rates are completely wrong. That is a massive miscalculation. In fact, in most instancing a miscalculation of this sort would end your career in the scientific community. And now there is a lot of chatter about the initial model out of the UK being flawed. Your argument is that if the President had done something two weeks earlier (which he did when he suspended inbound flights from Asian countries and was CRUCIFIED by his opponents for being racist when the "Chinese Virus" wasn't a real threat) then we would have been under...what...50k deaths? 30k? 10k? 100?

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat but I've been watching the spin from both sides of this argument and it is ****ing hilarious.

This guy gets it!

[hacker]

I think this is what is confusing everyone. Initial predictions for death related to Covid WITH social distancing was in the millions...then it moved to "we may keep it below 1 million", then it was 500,000, then it was 250,000, now it is 100,000-200,000 now it's "we hope to keep it below 100,000". So we started with millions of death in the USA alone to possibly under 100,000. It is impossible that "social distancing" has created such a flattening of the curve unless the initial R0 and mortality rates are completely wrong. That is a massive miscalculation. In fact, in most instancing a miscalculation of this sort would end your career in the scientific community. And now there is a lot of chatter about the initial model out of the UK being flawed. Your argument is that if the President had done something two weeks earlier (which he did when he suspended inbound flights from Asian countries and was CRUCIFIED by his opponents for being racist when the "Chinese Virus" wasn't a real threat) then we would have been under...what...50k deaths? 30k? 10k? 100?

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat but I've been watching the spin from both sides of this argument and it is ****ing hilarious.

1. The initial projections were in the millions WITHOUT social distancing. The numbers Fauci and Birx were quoting a few weeks ago were from the Imperial College model. That model provides a few scenarios. The scenario without any action was 1-2 million deaths. The scenario with strong social distancing / lockdowns was 100-200k.

You can read the paper here: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf

2. Trump did not "suspend inbound flights from China." It was not a full travel ban. Thousands of people came into the country from China after his "ban."

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/u...trictions.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/th...-restrictions/
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-tr...deb1ce0b3.html

3. Two weeks would've made a big difference. We might have even been able to go into containment mode instead of mitigation.

https://thehill.com/changing-america...-may-have-been

4. This is only my opinion but the biggest thing Trump could've done from the beginning is take the threat seriously. He had a chance to get all Americans on the same page. People from Mississippi and the South in general wouldn't have trusted Obama or somebody like that in this scenario, but they do trust Trump. He could've had the entire country pulling in the same direction.

Instead he called it a "democratic hoax" and compared it to the flu among a litany of other nonsense.

[dawgday166]

1. The initial projections were in the millions WITHOUT social distancing. The numbers Fauci and Birx were quoting a few weeks ago were from the Imperial College model. That model provides a few scenarios. The scenario without any action was 1-2 million deaths. The scenario with strong social distancing / lockdowns was 100-200k.

You can read the paper here: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf

2. Trump did not "suspend inbound flights from China." It was not a full travel ban. Thousands of people came into the country from China after his "ban."

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/u...trictions.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/th...-restrictions/
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-tr...deb1ce0b3.html

3. Two weeks would've made a big difference. We might have even been able to go into containment mode instead of mitigation.

https://thehill.com/changing-america...-may-have-been

4. This is only my opinion but the biggest thing Trump could've done from the beginning is take the threat seriously. He had a chance to get all Americans on the same page. People from Mississippi and the South in general wouldn't have trusted Obama or somebody like that in this scenario, but they do trust Trump. He could've had the entire country pulling in the same direction.

Instead he called it a "democratic hoax" and compared it to the flu among a litany of other nonsense.

Which democrats took it seriously back in January? Can you name the 1st one that came out and said this shit is serious, and when that was?

Cause I cain't find any.