No I didn't, but I doubt that your reading comprehension will improve in time to comprehend my explanation.
Univ. of Alabama with 1200 positive cases.
- Thread starter Waste Management Consultant
- Start date
No I didn't, but I doubt that your reading comprehension will improve in time to comprehend my explanation.
Facts:
1) Covid is far more virulent/contagious than the flu.
2) More people will die from Covid than the flu by a wide margin.
3) Every year the US sees between 15 and 45 Million cases of the flu - wait for it.....
4) These numbers include the factor that we have annual effective vaccines given to more than 160 Million people each year.
5) Between 30% and 80% of the population by various age groups get annual Flu vaccines.
6) Despite decades of operational and scientific development the flu vaccine offers between 30-60% protection at best.
7) Flu vaccines offer only short term protection
Opinions:
1) By what delusion does anyone think the government can control nature at a microscopic level?
2) Eventually/inevitably, despite whatever draconian measures are taken, we will see similar infection rates from Covid vs the Flu
3) The shutdowns have largely only extended the crisis, delaying the inevitable for most
4) Millions of otherwise young healthy lives will be altered forever, with more long term damage done by shutdowns than the small delta these measures delivered in measurable benefits
5) Deaths will come overwhelmingly from very high risk, unhealthy populations
6) A decade from now, the global response will go down as one of the biggest mistakes ever made by governments.
Let's try this scholar: do you know the difference between "can" and "did?" For example: "I can shoot you in the head" has a distinctly different meaning from "I did shoot you in the head.
So my quote, from which you eagerly hang your scrotum:
"Do you mean that hospitals can profit by falsifying medical records? Don't know how that has changed with Covid 19."
means that hospitals have the capability to profit from falsifying records, but does not mean that I allege that they do.
Good post overall. Isn't it accurate to say Covid is less lethal for younger people, specifically aged 1-15?
If this was true, then why are there nearly the same amount of projected covid cases nationwide than a typical year of projected flu cases? Since there's no vaccine and still green treatment protocols for covid, shouldn't hundreds of millions have it if it was so virulent/contagious?
Here's the statistic that you can't hand wave away. Based on facts with no special guessing about what caused what required:
The USA has (as of the best current data which if adjusted would only go upward) over 213,500 deaths greater than average from March 1 to August 1 of 2020. This is based on the prior 5 year average for that period. The previous 5 years hardly show any deviation over that period when compared to each other.
So, the simple fact is there is something very different about this year than 2015-2019 causing a lot more people to die.
Only about 160,000 of the deaths in that period are attributed to Covid. So what caused the rest??? The medical researchers who publish in JAMA suggest the cause for all of it is likely Covid.
These deaths would not have happened without Covid and they are not due to suicide or violent over-reaction to society. Murder and suicide are not hard to count (and cannot account for anywhere near that number).
Of course some things like lack of medical services during the pandemic might be a contributing factor and cannot be ignored. This is the thing that hits the poor hardest since they usually don't get medical treatment anyway. They are already more likely to not get care until it is too late.
Art tries to be cute with his answers but he clearly has a "shut down" bias.
Right now a positive test means 10 days quarantine.
Exposure means a 14 day quarantine.
I expect a lot of re-scheduled/cancelled SEC football games.
Yes, because you have to wait long enough to ensure you do not have it.
If you get tested on day 2 after exposure and have it, then you have 10 days (12 total)
If you get tested at day 12 and have it, then you have 10 days (22 total)
etc
I don't make the rules, but I would expect the colleges would be following them with respect to their student athletes (well, would not shock me at all to find out SEC teams do not)
Not really, the difference is because the timelines are from different starting points. The 10 days for positive COVID test begins from either start of symptoms or when you were tested (if asymptomatic). The 14 days if exposed is from the time of exposure. Generally, it takes multiple days from exposure to develop symptoms and get test results, so the 10 days from symptoms will usually be 14+ days from exposure.
Somewhat true, but only if you never develop symptoms. Otherwise your 10 days starts then and not from date of test. If you are exposed but never test positive or develop symptoms then it remains 14 days from exposure.
The example you give is for exposure that results in a confirmed positive. If your test results or symptoms are within 4 days from exposure than you could be cleared sooner that just an exposure (assuming your symptoms have ended). If it takes more than 4 days then a quarantine for exposure is quicker (assuming you never test positive or have symptoms).
...and I have some friends of my cousin's brother-in-law who are doing some partial on line and in person teaching of a high school in Alabama they say it's not a cluster f in Alabama. So, I guess that settles it.
My daughter just got moved to a hotel from her dorm yesterday because she was exposed to the virus. She’s being quarantined there for 14 days. It’s been quite a run for her. Senior track season canceled, no prom, no graduation, now freshman year at college being spent isolated in a hotel room. For all the talk about how soft this generation is they’re being handed some things to handle and grow from.
So apparently 1200 cases at u of A is not a cluster f. Both have to do on line, she is also teaching ROTC which is on hold because there are so many positives cases.
Some day we'll look back and see what a huge mistake quarantining was
Interesting article in the NY Times regarding how much we amplify samples in PCR testing. Hint: It is more than any other country. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
This should be getting more exposure and it, most likely, is why the CDC doesn't want to test asymptomatic people that test positive.
This should be getting more exposure and it, most likely, is why the CDC doesn't want to test asymptomatic people that test positive.
The problem is that the technology to implement the suggestions in the article doesn't exist. The recently rolled out rapid-result test by Abbott moves in that direction, but it's not there. Until that happens, we're stuck with what we've got.
How many of these positive tests required hospitalizations, ICU's, ventilators, and ultimately resulted in death?
I'll wait for the answer.
So labs ramp up the threshold and 2-4 days later the individual receives a negative result. That person has had Covid19 all along, but goes along his merry way. A day or two later his viral load increases to a point where he becomes a spreader. Got it now?
Isn't the point of testing to track and prevent the spread?
If everyone were happy with a million or two deaths of the most vulnerable, we would let the virus spread and reach de facto herd immunity. The best estimates of herd immunity are 65-70% immunity levels by the way.
many scientists say that you do not need anywhere near 65-70% to get some sort of herd immunity. Dr leavitt a Nobel prize winner strongly believes that COVID burns our at some point between 20-30%. That seems to be demonstrated by New York State where cases are much much lower than they were from March through June-ish
The thing to know about predictions of herd immunity is that you are talking about predictions based on models. No one has a clinical trial proving their model is correct.
All the ones predicting a really low value all (if they are actual scientists and not hucksters) admit a very large uncertainty, like they could easily be low by 50%. The ones predicting a higher number are much more confident that their number is a safe prediction. The statistics suggest they may be overly conservative but they are very confident that if over 70% of the population has immunity, the spread will be essentially stopped.
And there are many reasons being guessed at as to why NY has reduced the spread, immunity just being one of them. Most of NY's cases were in the NYC area. The whole state, especially in NYC area has been very diligent in social distancing, wearing masks, etc. since at least mid-March. That is also a factor.
Sorry, but folks like you lost the "move the goalposts" claim a long time ago when we went from 2 weeks to flatten the curve to shut everything down til there are 0 cases.
Why such a smart ass? If we all only had your vast knowledge from finance to medicine.
not sure who ever made that argument- my guess is nobody, ever- but it certainly wasn't me
California is pretty much in "shut down until there are zero cases" mode. Same with Rhode Island
