Reply With Quote
Wonder why Trump would trust him....
The world may never know....
At least people are getting tested. That's an improvement.
Wonder why Trump would trust him....
The world may never know....
CDC said it must do all testing for the entire country WTF, and its reagents were tainted so the test were useless.
Trump isn’t doing press conferences, he’s doing campaign speeches. He gets a legimate question to clear something up and all he does is say “that’s a nasty question” or “
You’re a terrible reporter”. the d- bag. Let him and Fox news jerk each other off on air.
lol rest of the world, we've taken the lead! you China! Murica!
called it
china prob. has double that though
UK pandemic response policy turned on a dime. From zero social distancing to punitive lockdown.
Perhaps that might account for the difference. The original study, btw, estimated deaths as low as 20,000, presuming aggressive countermeasures.
Inside the Story of How H-E-B Planned for the Pandemic
The grocer started communicating with Chinese counterparts in January and was running tabletop simulations a few weeks later. (But nothing prepared it for the rush on toilet paper.)
https://www.texasmonthly.com/food/he...irus-pandemic/
Epidemiology study from researchers at Oxford:
https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-...f-41bea055720bThe new coronavirus may already have infected far more people in the UK than scientists had previously estimated — perhaps as much as half the population — according to modelling by researchers at the University of Oxford. If the results are confirmed, they imply that fewer than one in a thousand of those infected with Covid-19 become ill enough to need hospital treatment, said Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology, who led the study. The vast majority develop very mild symptoms or none at all.
I tend to side with this study over the "omg 2 million dead" in the US projections. I just don't understand how California isn't getting absolutely hammered right now when they were host to the 2nd and 3rd cases in the country nearly two months ago? As I've said, it was business as usually for a month and half after. Everything packed as it usually is.
Studies have shown the median time until an infected patient shows symptoms is 3.0 days https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....06.20020974v1
So let's assume it starts with a mild cough at day 3 and then ramps to severe (for those prone) over the next 5-7 days. If that is the case, why wasn't there a rush on Los Angeles hospitals in early March. From the arrival of patient zero on Jan. 27, definitely enough time for case rate to exponentially grow. What I think is happening is that an untold hundreds of thousands to millions of people have already had it and quietly recovered. We're starting to see the consequences of the virus moving around freely for months with these sudden explosions of cases, so yeah, expect some nasty peaks. The bright side of this, though, is that virus can't infect new people indefinitely until we reach some truly godawful number because so many people have already had it.
Btw, the UK has 1/6th the US population. 20,000 excess deaths in one year is a lot.
We're lucky if we only have double our total.
100,000 excess deaths only sounds attractive next to one million excess deaths. In point of fact, 100,000 deaths would make it COVID-19 of the deadliest pandemics ever in the US.
Man I don't know what you don't understand about the California response being really good early on. You keep talking about your local anecdotes, but Santa Clara did a lot of work early on that prevented it from getting like NY. Yet everyday you're like wow CA is low I don't get it. Also you're still focused on patient zero when I've already explained to you why it not nearly as important to look at a start date as opposed to a date when you reach critical mass for community spread.
I understand you want to be optimistic about things, but JFC dude.
midnightpulp is wishcasting, so he overlooks facts that disagree and even makes stuff up to conform with his bias, like SoCal's "late response."
Santa Clara's emergency declaration was the first in the country.
Just FYI, Santa Clara county declared a health emergency on Feb 10. FEB 10!!!! That's a month before most places in the US took anything seriously. WA and CA were the first to react, and its clear to see from their curves this has paid off even though they had early cases. Places that have to react are just going to be fare extremely poorly.
Or maybe the Oxford study is actually correct? Everyone accepts the Imperial study because of the doomsday factor without question, because doomsday sells, but the Oxford study makes a lot of sense.
Northern California's response was good early. Southern California's wasn't. These are practically two different states. My local anecdotes are worth something here because I have many friends who work at the local Casinos (and we have like a half a dozen in a rather small region). They are always packed, and the patrons don't exactly practice great hygiene, sneezing on the machines, coughing everywhere, etc, etc. Perfect spreading environments. They all remained open until two weeks ago. So where was the "explosion" beforehand?The research presents a very different view of the epidemic to the modelling at Imperial College London, which has strongly influenced government policy. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” said Prof Gupta.
The Oxford study is based on a what is known as a “susceptibility-infected-recovered model” of Covid-19, built up from case and death reports from the UK and Italy. The researchers made what they regard as the most plausible assumptions about the behaviour of the virus.
Note, I'm not being an "armchair epidemiologist" here. Citing a study from one of the most prestigious universities in the world that seems to make a lot of sense.
Exactly. They reacted extremely well. And honestly I wouldn't be too happy about SoCal right now. They are still doubling in less than 4 days which isn't exactly amazing. But we can see that the early NoCal outbreak was stemmed quite a bit by early action.
THere's plenty to be optimistic about that because it shows taht actually taking proper and timely action has a real effect that can be seen in the data. Of course this also mens that not taking sufficient action means you are simply at the mercy of a virus that has none.
For the record, I hope midnightpulp is right. Sure hope COVID-19 doesn't e again in the fall/winter, and I sure hope it turns out to be no worse than the pandemics of 1957 and 1968 -- which, excepting the Spanish flu, are among the worst recorded in the US.
During each of those years, about 100,000 people died of the flu.
Your citing a study because it conforms to your world view and ignoring the rest of the literature. You're cherry picking. We don't get to go through and pick out what we want from the data as scientists and then say BUT LOOK THE INFORMATION BACKS ME UP! Ok, but what about the data that doesn't? Its about holistic context.
. I'm doing no such thing. I cited another study that doesn't get press because it doesn't have the sexy doomsday factor. Yes, our response was late. SoCal casino's industry probably turns over the most people on a per week basis out of any industry in the state. Always jammed with 1500-3000 people coming and going. Buffets. Bars. Clubs exist in all these casinos. Lots of close contact. Local area casinos didn't completely shutdown until two weeks ago. I would call them letting operate until mid-March as the virus was locking down Northern California "a late response." Just because Newsom was the first to issue a stay-at-home order, doesn't mean all of California's response was ideal.
^^^strawmanning it up, must've struck a nerve
some posts are not aging well
my bad ma nig Phx u a good poster
I mean I hope that too, and I understand wanting it to be true, but considering the talk of reopening the country I am extremely annoyed at overly optimistic outlooks right now when the lionshare of the data says that we're in some deep right now.
I've asked this before, but once again: If there is actual reason for optimism, why are none of the epidemiologists echoing those sentiments? Its some law professor here, or some statistician there, but the actual experts in pandemics are all ting themselves right now. And honestly, they have been for months.
There's no doubt that I see strong parallels with climate denialism here and that also annoys the out of me.
Just listen to the experts.
lol looking for studies in the interwebs that help your case
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)
Posting Permissions
