Don't worry David, I know full well there's a difference between the calculated risk, for lack of a better term, and reckless behavior. I'm taking all the recommended precautions when I'm out in public, masks, social distancing, you name it.
Although the mask is a pain in the neck, steams my glasses up!
You know, the wife and I may have had the bug already without knowing it. There's no way to tell for certain, but the first week in March we both had a case of the sniffles, snoolies, headaches, body aches, congestion, you name it. Copious use of DayQuil, NyQuil, shots of bourbon in my case, and whatever we had was gone in a week.
That is, we MAY have had it, who knows what we had? What I DO know is whatever it was she gave it to me and wouldn't take it back!
Flintlock76You know, the wife and I may have had the bug already without knowing it.
I know quite a few people who feel the same way - going back into January, for that matter. At that time, of course, they weren't testing for COVID, so it was just a "bad bug," if one didn't test positive for the flu. I had a week of that - bad cough, night sweats, just miserable.
Testing has shown that upwards of 15% of the population already has antibodies - that's some 49 million people. The official count of cases stands at only 2.4 million. Testing has also shown that sixty percent of those who tested positive in several 100% testing situations are asymptomatic. I would opine that indicates that their bodies are dealing with the infection.
For the most part testing is focusing on finding the virus. Testing for those with antibodies might prove very revealing, but would not support the narrative.
If one factors in the potential infections based on antibody testing, the death rate drops to 0.2%, vs the commonly quoted 1%.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Flintlock76 You know, the wife and I may have had the bug already without knowing it. I know quite a few people who feel the same way - going back into January, for that matter. At that time, of course, they weren't testing for COVID, so it was just a "bad bug," if one didn't test positive for the flu. I had a week of that - bad cough, night sweats, just miserable. Testing has shown that upwards of 15% of the population already has antibodies - that's some 49 million people. The official count of cases stands at only 2.4 million. Testing has also shown that sixty percent of those who tested positive in several 100% testing situations are asymptomatic. I would opine that indicates that their bodies are dealing with the infection. For the most part testing is focusing on finding the virus. Testing for those with antibodies might prove very revealing, but would not support the narrative. If one factors in the potential infections based on antibody testing, the death rate drops to 0.2%, vs the commonly quoted 1%.
Flintlock76 You know, the wife and I may have had the bug already without knowing it.
Quest Diagnostics (which I think is nationwide) is offering antibody testing for $$$.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Right now it has been determined that the virus mutated. The G614 is mainly in western Europe and the USA, From D614 to G614. It is more infectious but not any more deadly. This strain has a different spike and that may mean that is why there are fewer cases in the far east?
Let us hope that a vaccine developed for D614 will work on G614 As well immunity for those who have recovered from D614.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/world-s-dominant-strain-of-coronavirus-is-10-times-more-infectious-than-the-one-that-jumped-to-humans-in-china-because-it-mutated-so-its-vital-spike-protein-doesn-t-snap-as-often-in-the-body-scientists-say/ar-BB167e7l
blue streak 1Right now it has been determined that the virus mutated. The G614 is mainly in western Europe and the USA, From D614 to G614. It is more infectious but not any more deadly. This strain has a different spike and that may mean that is why there are fewer cases in the far east?
We can hope that perhaps it will mutate again, into something essentially harmless to humans (and everything else, for that matter). As you note, we can only hope that a vaccine is effective on the mutations, and for that matter, that human immunity is also broad enough to fend off any mutations. Otherwise, herd immunity becomes a non-starter.
THE SECOND WAVE:
The current spike in Covid-19 cases proves that the decline has ended and a second wave is coming on strong. Or at least that is the emerging media message shaping up about the virus.
The premise is that our population has a much higher percentage of occurrences of new cases today than it had last March. The number of new cases developing day by day last March was deemed to be high enough to demand a lockdown of the country and a shutdown of the economy. Therefore, if the number of new cases developing day by day at this time is higher than it was last March, it stands to reason that we must have another lockdown today. This is the message coming at us now. Florida and Texas have reversed their phased reopenings and are placing new restrictions on their populations. I’ll bet Michigan is not far behind.
But there is a problem. While we know the total current number of new cases per day that is detected by testing a number of people each day; we do not know what the total number of new cases per day was last March. Without knowing that, we cannot conclude that we are now seeing a spike in new cases. Yet that conclusion is being shouted from the mountaintop.
Yet, it may very well be that the total number of new cases per day last march was far greater than it is today, but we have no way of knowing that because, at the time, and we had no way to count the cases that were asymptomatic. So the case count was not true. If the true new case rate was higher back in March, there is not a spike in new cases today.
It has been determined that a substantial number of people contract the virus, but never develop symptoms. At the beginning of last March, testing had just begun in very small numbers. So we counted new cases as people developed symptoms, but had no count of people having the virus without symptoms.
Today with massive testing, we are finding all the people having the virus with and without symptoms. Therefore, while today’s new case count may be accurate and relevant; we have no such reliable count from last March to compare it to. Furthermore, the count from last March had to be lower than the true count because it missed people having the virus without symptoms.
The reason we have to compare today to last March (or some other distant benchmark) is to filter out the effect of our current daily testing ramping up in numbers tested. Current testing shows more new cases every day, but we are testing more people every day. So we do not know if the increase in cases is due to a rising infection spread –or-- due to the rising number of people tested. Either factor could cause a rising number of new cases at this time. But without knowing the actual full number of cases per day last March, there is no way to conclude that we are seeing a spike in infection transmission today.
But, no matter the facts, there is just no stopping the narrative. And the narrative requires another shutdown of the economy. The news indiscriminately refers to “new cases” as if they are cases originated every day and their number per day exceeds the number per day last March. But there is nothing in the narrative that establishes that premise. All there is are newly discovered cases each day in this current timeframe.
I hear a lot of people reject the idea of a new spike in cases. They do so by saying that the new cases are only the result of testing. This cryptic explanation is not convincing anybody because it leaves the critical details unexplained.
EuclidI hear a lot of people reject the idea of a new spike in cases. They do so by saying that the new cases are only the result of testing. This cryptic explanation is not convincing anybody because it leaves the critical details unexplained.
The stupidity of the American population at this point in time can never be under estimated. The disavowal of science is spreading the contagion.
Testing in two specific cases (USS Roosevelt and a Boston homeless shelter) showed that some 60% of those who tested positive (the entire crew, and the entire population of the shelter were tested) were asymptomatic.
Given the scarcity of testing in the early days, when you had to be symptomatic to even be tested, that 60% of potentially infected would not have been tested. Thus one may conclude that the actual counts in the early days should have been much higher.
I suspect that the new increases are a function of both an increase in actual infections, and the increased testing, which is likely catching cases that would have passed unnoticed previously.
This virus will continue to spread until there is an effective vaccine, it mutates to the point of not affecting humans, or we reach herd immunity. Masks and physical distancing only go so far in stopping the spread.
From the CDC website:
The overall cumulative COVID-19 associated hospitalization rate is 98.4 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people 65 years of age and older (297.6 per 100,000) followed by people 50-64 years (148.6 per 100,000). Hospitalization rates are cumulative and will increase as the COVID-19 pandemic continues.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
BaltACD Euclid I hear a lot of people reject the idea of a new spike in cases. They do so by saying that the new cases are only the result of testing. This cryptic explanation is not convincing anybody because it leaves the critical details unexplained. The stupidity of the American population at this point in time can never be under estimated. The disavowal of science is spreading the contagion.
Euclid I hear a lot of people reject the idea of a new spike in cases. They do so by saying that the new cases are only the result of testing. This cryptic explanation is not convincing anybody because it leaves the critical details unexplained.
This stupidity came from the leader and his sheep. His explanation was driven by his frantic need to be seen as competent for reelection, not anything cryptic.
Charlie, if you will write Trump a letter expressing concern about making statements without facts provided by experts, I will also write such a letter. But I want to see yours first.
And I will posr mine.
And this is beyonld politics, since it concerns the health of many people, many American citizens. At least that is my opinion.
My point, as detailed a few posts up on this page, is that I see no evidence of a "spike" in infection rate, which is the so-called second wave. Testing is most definitely NOT proving this second wave premise. All testing is proving is a growing number total of cases since the beginning.
A second wave requires proving that the RATE of materialization of new cases is rising. The basis of the "spike" is in the RATE, and it has nothing do do with the total case number increasing over time, which is all that testing is telling us.
So the growing belief that the more cases per day are materializing today than at any previous time is completely unfounded. It discredits the science.
daveklepperCharlie, if you will write Trump a letter expressing concern about making statements without facts provided by experts, I will also write such a letter. But I want to see yours first.
What exactly are you referring to? What "facts" do you think are missing?
I will let Charliel answer the qiestion before I comment unless he specificzlly wants to defer to me. OK? I do have more than one answer to your question, but I'd like to see Charlie's first.
daveklepperI will leet Charliel answer the qiestion before I comment unless he specificzlly wants to defer to me. OK?
EuclidDid you read what I said in post #6 down from the top of this page? There should be no mystery about what I said. So now we take off on an entirely different track, and it is all secret to boot.
Overmod Euclid Did you read what I said in post #6 down from the top of this page? There should be no mystery about what I said. So now we take off on an entirely different track, and it is all secret to boot. It is pretty amusing that Euclid keeps getting more and more frantic about making his points... apparently completely ignorant of the fact that he isn't part of the discussion between charlie hebdo and Mr. Klepper at all.
Euclid Did you read what I said in post #6 down from the top of this page? There should be no mystery about what I said. So now we take off on an entirely different track, and it is all secret to boot.
It is pretty amusing that Euclid keeps getting more and more frantic about making his points... apparently completely ignorant of the fact that he isn't part of the discussion between charlie hebdo and Mr. Klepper at all.
Johnny
EuclidI think you miss the point.
(BTW: do me a favor and quote posts by date and time in thread. I have posts sorted 'last first' and both the page numbering and post sequence on a given page are wildly different.)
The letter argument appears to be to castigate Trump for not paying more heed to 'scientists'; it has nothing to do with an emergent "second wave" of anything in particular. Let them go to it, and keep your eye on concluding better paradigms.
Incidentally for anyone wanting the actual basis for the MSN article, here is the actual paper to download as a PDF. Be prepared to read critically as this is so far not formally peer-reviewed to my knowledge:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.12.148726v1.full.pdf
I remain quite convinced that second or further waves are likely. (I think it would still be wiser to call them 'outbreaks' as a sensible response would track and address emergent loci before they become more 'pandemic' in either geography or particular cohorts (e.g. some illegal Latino communities here, or sects in Israel). I have seen little that indicates scientifically that any substantial part of the population has actually acquired persistent immunity, let alone been exposed to a clone of the virus in sufficient quantity to induce COVID-19. We have effectively slowed the transmission rate through the effective part of social distancing, mask use, better sanitizing practice, etc., but some measures I've come to think essential, like shouting or talking in public face to face unmasked, remain for some reason unexplored in public policy even as feel-good explanations of transmission and infection are still present. To the extent the measures that are effective continue to work we can expect a delay in any 'epidemic' geometric increase in outbreak-style incidence based on typical induction mechanisms -- but what is chronically and alarmingly missing is any real idea of how actual outbreaks leading to increased ARDS incidence would be handled. Recognition of the disease by 'high fever' continues to be days late for most meaningful preventive responses to work, and we apparently learned almost nothing about how to prevent progression to ARDS during the whole of the open-ward open-source-homemade-ventilator fiasco.
With proper care there is little reason to keep a great deal of the economy 'quarantined' -- although of course it is probably weeks if not months too late to recover huge chunks of it effectively, or keep it out of the hands of the usual saprophytes and profiteers who traditionally exploit 'economic corrections'. I have already seen five fraudulent unemployment claims from people who never worked for the company... the disturbing thing being the State did not check any shred of documentation, but has the statutory ability to demand we pay the unemployment whether or not subsequently determined false if we don't respond within a week... of the claim filing date, not the notice received date... and the notice is not sent certified, so is easily lost.
Opening up large gatherings is dangerous until either we have responsible self-policing or much better general PPE. My daughter's school decided to hold a socially-distanced mass graduation ... and two girls who did not wear masks turned out to know they were COVID-19 positive but came and cheered anyway. Any one event if that type might lead to accelerated transmission -- you'd be surprised at how many people were in the 'potentially affected' pool (based on real close talking or personal contact, not just voodoo association proximity) by the time this was actually disclosed to the school community.
daveklepper Charlie, if you will write Trump a letter expressing concern about making statements without facts provided by experts, I will also write such a letter. But I want to see yours first. And I will posr mine. And this is beyonld politics, since it concerns the health of many people, many American citizens. At least that is my opinion.
I was answering/commenting on prior posts, not by David K. I'm not going to waste my time writing a letter, since Trump does not even skim his daily national security briefings. But if you wish to do so, that is your choice.
Nothing cryptic in the point I commented upon, namely the motivation for Trump and his supporters to blame increases in reported covid cases on testing.
I agree vwith you on that point. I will write a letter but it will include some confidential information that just might get the kletter read.
Part of Michigan just legally regressed to the reopening phase they were in prior to Memorial Day because the state had 12 new cases yesterday. When this pandemic first exploded into Detroit, number of new cases per day quickly ramped up from zero to over to 1,000 new cases per day. The graph “curve” was steeply inclined upward. It was not a “flat curve.”
The original purpose of the lockdown was to slow the spread to the extent of “flattening the curve.” That means to stop the rate of new cases per day from increasing. If say you had 50 new cases originate every day, the curve would be flat.
Therefore, it appears that the purpose of the lockdowns has now been changed. The purpose is no longer to flatten the curve. We have accomplished that.
But now the purpose has been changed to preventing transmission until the virus transmission disappears and no new cases are occurring. This objective is far more difficult than the original objective of simply flattening the curve. This new objective leads back into indefinite shutdown of the economy.
I think you need to look more carefully at the mathematical factors that govern the shape of the "curve" you're so cavalierly invoking.
I would find it fairly obvious that effective transmission rate would be part of the kinetics affecting an 'outbreak curve', as would the relative tendency for multiple people to become infected at a single event or window of time. Both these things are affected by practical non-shelter-in-place precautions.
You should further distinguish between measures that 'flatten the curve' objectively, like face masking or more effective frequent hand and fingertip sanitizing, vs. those with higher impact on 'societal recovery' including an arbitrary 6' social-distancing requirement in any public situation.
We will have to 'wait and see' to gauge the problems that cause actual new outbreaks. Some of these reflect ethnic or social aggravating factors. An event at my daughter's school's graduation would have produced severe geometric spread had the virus been infectious H1N1 instead of SARS-CoV-2.
Euclid Part of Michigan just legally regressed to the reopening phase they were in prior to Memorial Day because the state had 12 new cases yesterday. When this pandemic first exploded into Detroit, number of new cases per day quickly ramped up from zero to over to 1,000 new cases per day. The graph “curve” was steeply inclined upward. It was not a “flat curve.” The original purpose of the lockdown was to slow the spread to the extent of “flattening the curve.” That means to stop the rate of new cases per day from increasing. If say you had 50 new cases originate every day, the curve would be flat. Therefore, it appears that the purpose of the lockdowns has now been changed. The purpose is no longer to flatten the curve. We have accomplished that. But now the purpose has been changed to preventing transmission until the virus transmission disappears and no new cases are occurring. This objective is far more difficult than the original objective of simply flattening the curve. This new objective leads back into indefinite shutdown of the economy.
Testing positivity rates and hospitalization numbers are increasing in most of the new hot spots. Take off the tinfoil hat.
What I cannot understand, for the life of me, is people's refusal to wear masks in public in the name of individual liberty. How about common sense, regard for one's fellow man, and enlightened self-interest? Unfortunately, there are a few of these non-mask wearers who are very closely related to me--and, not surprisingly, they're all Trump supporters.
While I'm also not involved in the conversation and am quite late to this party, this is too good not to share:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaFSH0K4BdQ
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeWhile I'm also not involved in the conversation and am quite late to this party, this is too good not to share:
Those people vote. And breed. I don't know which is worse.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
SD70DudeWhile I'm also not involved in the conversation and am quite late to this party, this is too good not to share: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaFSH0K4BdQ
Butch is an American Idiot not patriot!
SD70Dude While I'm also not involved in the conversation and am quite late to this party, this is too good not to share: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaFSH0K4BdQ
Well, it proves there's just as many flakes on the right as there are on the left, although personally I find it hard to argue with the point the gunshop owner made. Back when I was working in a gunshop if someone walked in wearing a mask we'd have been all over each other trying to push "The Panic Button!"
It went straight to the police department.
Trust me, you want to see who's coming in. The cops who worked there part time caught a number of bad guys that way.
A lot of those "I don't want to wear a mask!" arguments remind me of the "I can't wear a seatbelt!" arguments I heard 40 years ago when mandatory seatbelt wearing laws went on the books.
However, and in the interest of fairness, I do have to wonder how many people were reasonable in their anti-mask arguments. By this I mean was the video edited so we only saw the flakes? Don't discount the possibility.
Myself? I wear a mask where I'm required to and don't where I don't have to. It's not a big deal, although it does steam my glasses up a bit! Drives me nuts!
PS: I gave serious thought to wearing a World War One gas mask I've got in my militaria collection but I didn't think anyone would get the joke. Most would probably assume I was a "Star Wars" cosplayer!
What I said above has nothing to do with wearing a mask.
zugmann SD70Dude While I'm also not involved in the conversation and am quite late to this party, this is too good not to share: Those people vote. And breed. I don't know which is worse.
SD70Dude While I'm also not involved in the conversation and am quite late to this party, this is too good not to share:
Maybe the anarchists taking over the city streets? Or the elected officials who don't know how to deal with them?
Addendum: I just learned this morning that after a shooting death there the mayor of Seattle had enough and had the CHOP district broken up.
The efficacy of most masks in use for COVID is a a matter of debate. Most statements about the use of masks include "may." Not "will," "may."
The only mask that will definitively block the movement of the coronavirus is the N95. But there's a problem with that - the N95 vents your exhalations directly to the atmosphere, with no filtering. If you sneeze wearing an N95, you're just blowing all the "stuff" in one direction instead of all over the place.
The cloth masks will not block the virus. They will reduce the range of your sneeze.
Surgical masks also do not filter your exhalations. Your breath escapes around the edges of the mask. If you're contagious, you are still spreading your germs.
Hospitalizations are on the order of 98 per 100,000 (CDC numbers). And as more and more asymptomatic cases are found, the death rate continues to drop.
We only have three hopes for ending this virus - a vaccine, which no one seems to think is coming any time soon, the virus mutating into something that doesn't affect humans (it has apparently already mutated at least once, but I would bet the farm on it happening), or herd immunity. And we can't achieve herd immunity unless people catch the virus.
It's not often I agree with Euclid - but if Michigan is regressing over just 12 cases, it's definitely no longer about flattening the curve.
That said, I wear a mask when required. It's a 30+ year old dust mask that doesn't really do any more that serve to show I'm wearing a mask. On the other hand, if you tell me I need to be wearing a mask just because I'm in a public place (ie, walking my dog down a deserted sidewalk with no one in sight), I'm likely to tell you where you can put that mask.
My county has had a total of just 87 confirmed cases since Day One. People here don't perceive the virus to be a significant issue. Physical distancing is generally practiced.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.