All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

You guys just posted that tests are almost 40% false negatives positives whatever fits your agenda.

Keep moving the goal posts.

Our government leadership has failed to execute. Society is paying the price. If you have a complaint, vote the responsible people out of office instead of taking your anger out on lax fans. I know what I will be doing in the fall.

#ABT.
# Not Voting for Trump is a Choice

[Peter Brown]

We disagreed about "models" a month ago.

Lets go back to work. Obviously it can be done—we've had people working across multiple market segments since this all began.

South Carolina and Florida belie all the BS.

Its unavoidable to put two and two together and see that the keep things locked down crowd are the same Russia Russia Russia, Impeach Trump TDS crowd. And each day shows what a lie all that was.

Six -- so let's say you are the governor of your state and have TDS immunity. What exactly are you going to do?

Open all lower schools?

Open all upper schools?

Open all businesses? Or only some of them?

Open all parks?

Require any type of SD?

Just tell us what you'd actually do. And what level of incremental deaths you'd find acceptable in response to what you'd do.

I'm not asking for blah blah blah about TDS, the Rusher thing, etc.

FYI, the guys at Wharton aren't exactly a bleeding hearts club.

What level of incremental deaths from economic ruin and social isolation do YOU find acceptable in response to stay-at-home lockdowns?

I'm genuinely curious why Democrats seem unable to answer this rather straightforward observation.

[Peter Brown]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

You guys just posted that tests are almost 40% false negatives positives whatever fits your agenda.

Keep moving the goal posts.

Our government leadership has failed to execute. Society is paying the price. If you have a complaint, vote the responsible people out of office instead of taking your anger out on lax fans. I know what I will be doing in the fall.

#ABT.
# Not Voting for Trump is a Choice

Indeed. This happened last night in California. The people apparently don't like being told to shut down til at least August 1 (and likely til November 3).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Hill.html

[MDlaxfan76]

california state public universities close classes for fall on may 12. so much for letting science guide us.

Are you just saying that they could have or should have waited longer to make this call? More data?

a) do they have all the science they need, "we call it data", to make a decision now.
b) and/or is there a need to make a decision now.

they already had a dry run, have experience, and did it in the spur of the moment. mostly without incident.

is it possible there could be more substantial data in the interim, that would change their perspective, before a decision needed to be made?

of course everyone can have their own perspective on it, i know mine. this has very large implications and shouldn't happen with expediency because pressure, planning and execution would be hard(er).

Fair position.
Similar to where Hopkins is, though I'd say they certainly think that's where it's going, based upon the best, meaning most optimistic, predictions of test and trace and isolate capabilities. Which are inadequate, even with the promised 10-fold increase from where we were in April.

While they are thinking about how many students they could actually handle with singles only with dedicated bathroom capabilities...the big issue is staff and faculty protections, plus the reality of international students and the probability that they won't be able to travel to the US by then. while certainly student protection is not irrelevant, the concern is that close quarters translates to petrie dish spread, making it extremely difficult to protect surrounding community. Half of students live off campus, in the community, but also typically in congregate living, so difficult to truly isolate infections.

I'm not sure what will change this calculus over the next months other than confirmation of new blooms to the downside or the 'miracle' of this 'magically going away' without a vaccine to the upside. But the scientists are saying that even if summer helps, expect the second wave come fall. Only the partisans are suggesting otherwise.

But do you think there's something else that could change the calculus sufficiently?
Reducing death rate from infections will matter, but unless we're clear of serious long term health damage as well, not sure even therapies will help...unless its a quite miraculous drug. I don't think the scientists are putting much weight on that possibility before fall.

Seems to me that we'll be doing elementary and middle school age kids back to school sooner than HS and college. Need to in order to let parents go back to work. There's going to be a ton of pressure on that, for sure.

i believe there will be additional information before decisions like this need to be made. i use as examples all the new info, directions, initiatives that have gone on since this started. and maybe increasingly so, given the now larger "market" for it.

maybe you (and others) are of the opinion that we have the playbook already, the path is clear other than a miracle. or you're just playing devil's advocate.

in either case, i'm far from convinced there is/was a need to make a call on it now. seems a lot more like making their job easier. as an example, and i have zero idea whether this is the case at all, it's conjecture... calif goes to online classes in july by need and all info gathered by then. 30% of students defer. no one there to take their place. do it today, students to take their place. don't have to work on other contingency plans. $ rolls in. less work to do. statue commissioned. bc it's about the kids.

A little cynical, but you could be correct about $.

Certainly could be part of the calculus.

I'm not sure it's necessarily about not wanting to do the work to do all the scenario planning that I described Hopkins as doing (I'm sure lots of schools must be doing) but sure, making the decision now means they can focus all their energies on the known path chosen. To do virtual really well requires some serious investments and training post haste, so I can see the appeal of having clarity.

I'm not playing devil's advocate when I say I think the really critical aspects are known well enough at this point to make a pretty darn rational call. Again, Hopkins hasn't made that call, but as we listened to them discuss the issues in detail, I can certainly see how someone could easily come to the conclusion that there's negligible chance of something breaking so well differently that you'd want 100% of students back on campus, dormed as usual etc. But that was my conclusion and that of some others, not necessarily the only way to interpret the trade-offs. Someone else might have heard them differently.

[Brooklyn]

What level of incremental deaths from economic ruin and social isolation do YOU find acceptable in response to stay-at-home lockdowns?

I'm genuinely curious why Democrats seem unable to answer this rather straightforward observation.

Just a few years ago your right wing delusionals coud not come up with an answer to this simple matter:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... -coverage/

How many more must before you people were willing to concede that this bloodletting is a social cost to society?




As for your inane question, Democrats have answered that a long time ago when they advocated safety net programs which protect the public against any jeopardy that may arise from the mess your party creates. Then it is your party that takes away these programs and blame Democrats for the consequences.

Simple enough answer right?

[MDlaxfan76]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

You guys just posted that tests are almost 40% false negatives positives whatever fits your agenda.

Keep moving the goal posts.

I must have missed the 40% false negatives positives claim.
The primary infection tests have 2-5% inaccuracy.
These Abbott fast tests apparently have 15% false negatives (possibly 25%). 15% being way too much. That means you have a false sense of security, yet 1/6 people who actually have it continue to spread it...

We need to get people identified, accurately, quickly, isolated and traced to others who don't know they actually may have it and are spreading it. Really the only way to tamp down potential outbreaks...until there's a vaccine.

Note this is the Trump Task Force's recommendations.

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Peter Brown]

What level of incremental deaths from economic ruin and social isolation do YOU find acceptable in response to stay-at-home lockdowns?

I'm genuinely curious why Democrats seem unable to answer this rather straightforward observation.

Just a few years ago your right wing delusionals coud not come up with an answer to this simple matter:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... -coverage/

How many more must before you people were willing to concede that this bloodletting is a social cost to society?

As for your inane question, Democrats have answered that a long time ago when they advocated safety net programs which protect the public against any jeopardy that may arise from the mess your party creates. Then it is your party that takes away these programs and blame Democrats for the consequences.

Simple enough answer right?

Not really, since among other notable Democrats, Joe Biden isn't for universal health care:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-s ... ealth.html

Is Joe a "right wing delusional"?

Also, you will soon see the real effects of a bs 'data-driven' economic slowdown which will eclipse Covid deaths, except this time the deaths will occur with the young and healthy. Great job, Dems! That should lead to a stupendous victory in November, just like last night! People love bs data and junk economics!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronaviru ... mic-75000/

[Brooklyn]

Not really, since among other notable Democrats, Joe Biden isn't for universal health care:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-s ... ealth.html

Is Joe a "right wing delusional"?

Also, you will soon see the real effects of a bs 'data-driven' economic slowdown which will eclipse Covid deaths, except this time the deaths will occur with the young and healthy. Great job, Dems! That should lead to a stupendous victory in November, just like last night! People love bs data and junk economics!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronaviru ... mic-75000/

Homework time pal. Biden is Obamacare's # 1 supporter and pledges to expand it: https://joebiden.com/healthcare/

[Brooklyn]

The Lincoln Project: A Republican organization.

[RedFromMI]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

You guys just posted that tests are almost 40% false negatives positives whatever fits your agenda.

Keep moving the goal posts.

I must have missed the 40% false negatives positives claim.
The primary infection tests have 2-5% inaccuracy.
These Abbott fast tests apparently have 15% false negatives (possibly 25%). 15% being way too much. That means you have a false sense of security, yet 1/6 people who actually have it continue to spread it...

We need to get people identified, accurately, quickly, isolated and traced to others who don't know they actually may have it and are spreading it. Really the only way to tamp down potential outbreaks...until there's a vaccine.

Note this is the Trump Task Force's recommendations.

Some notes on tests:

1. Abbott tests seem to be particularly unreliable - a group from NYU reported 33% false negative rates (that were detected positive on Cepheid Expert Express) when the nasal swabs were transported in viral media and 48% false negative if transported dry. Abbott pushed back on report - and say their numbers say 22% false negative. Can be overcome by repeated testing, and as the WH for example is using this I believe, a good reason for the daily testing.

2. MD is probably referring to the PCR type tests that the big labs use for the small inaccuracy.

3. Another issue that will get bigger is the issue with antibody testing. Because at this point in time only a small fraction of the population in almost all areas has never had COVID-19, even fairly small error rates in detecting antibodies lead to really bad results. Say you have a 90% accurate test. But only 5% of the population is infected/recovered. So you detect 4.5% of the infected/recovered population as correctly so, and for the 95% of the population that are NOT infected, you get that as many as 10% of those have antibodies. Which is a larger number than the actual infected/recovered population. You end up with a true error rate in the limit that you are not testing a large fraction of the population of around 70%.

[Brooklyn]

yesterday and today:







yesterday:






caption reads: ''A New York city street sweeper wears a mask to help check the spread of the influenza epidemic, October 1918. In the view of one official of the New York Health Board, it is 'Better be ridiculous, than dead'.''









today:

[MDlaxfan76]

A for instance

Classes at California State University will remain virtual through the fall of 2020. Timothy P. White, chancellor for the system’s 23 campuses, told the board of trustees today that the risk of infection from the coronavirus was too great to return to live instruction.

Fauci said students might feel safest if there was a vaccine for coronavirus — but it's a "bridge too far" to think a vaccine or treatment will be ready by the time classes start this fall.

Faucci also says Even though more than 100 potential vaccines are under development, “there’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.

So when do the schools open.

When you have a robust testing and tracing regiment.

You guys just posted that tests are almost 40% false negatives positives whatever fits your agenda.

Keep moving the goal posts.

I must have missed the 40% false negatives positives claim.
The primary infection tests have 2-5% inaccuracy.
These Abbott fast tests apparently have 15% false negatives (possibly 25%). 15% being way too much. That means you have a false sense of security, yet 1/6 people who actually have it continue to spread it...

We need to get people identified, accurately, quickly, isolated and traced to others who don't know they actually may have it and are spreading it. Really the only way to tamp down potential outbreaks...until there's a vaccine.

Note this is the Trump Task Force's recommendations.

Some notes on tests:

1. Abbott tests seem to be particularly unreliable - a group from NYU reported 33% false negative rates (that were detected positive on Cepheid Expert Express) when the nasal swabs were transported in viral media and 48% false negative if transported dry. Abbott pushed back on report - and say their numbers say 22% false negative. Can be overcome by repeated testing, and as the WH for example is using this I believe, a good reason for the daily testing.

2. MD is probably referring to the PCR type tests that the big labs use for the small inaccuracy.

3. Another issue that will get bigger is the issue with antibody testing. Because at this point in time only a small fraction of the population in almost all areas has never had COVID-19, even fairly small error rates in detecting antibodies lead to really bad results. Say you have a 90% accurate test. But only 5% of the population is infected/recovered. So you detect 4.5% of the infected/recovered population as correctly so, and for the 95% of the population that are NOT infected, you get that as many as 10% of those have antibodies. Which is a larger number than the actual infected/recovered population. You end up with a true error rate in the limit that you are not testing a large fraction of the population of around 70%.

Thanks, yes, I was referring to the standard tests having pretty good reliability. Problem is speed to get an answer.

Here's the problem with the 15% or 22% or 33% or 48% #...this test was imagined as the screen to gain access to a venue, let's say a cruise. Test everyone before they get on board, screen out the problems...but all you need is one mistake to get on board and after a week...big outbreak.

and daily tests are enormous #'s...

yes, the antibody testing is similarly being thought to a screen of some sort, the green light that you're safe...

Gotta get this more accurate, faster turnaround, and ubiquitously available.

[seacoaster]

More on testing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/opin ... e=Homepage

"Whether you think the country is reopening too fast or too slowly (or whether you think “it depends”), almost everyone agrees that testing should be critical to the next phase of our coronavirus existence. In particular, antibody tests that detect whether a person has developed immunity to the virus seem to offer a promising path forward.

But what does a positive antibody test mean? It means you should feel confident that you can work, shop and socialize without getting sick or infecting others, right?

Not so fast.

The confidence that we should have in antibody tests depends on a key factor that is often ignored: the base rate of the coronavirus. The base rate is the actual amount of infection in a known population. In the United States, that appears to be between 5 percent and 15 percent.

This simple fact is essential to understanding the accuracy of an antibody test. Yet overlooking this fact is also one of the most common decision-making errors made, so much so that it has its own name: the base rate fallacy.

Here’s an example. If you took an antibody test that was 90 percent accurate, and it determined that you had coronavirus antibodies, how confident should you be that you actually have those antibodies?

Most people say about 90 percent, with the average answer being above 50 percent. This makes sense. After all, 90 percent accuracy is pretty high.

But the predictive value of an antibody test with 90 percent accuracy could be as low as 32 percent if the base rate of infection in the population is 5 percent. Put another way, there is an almost 70 percent probability in that case that the test will falsely indicate a person has antibodies.

The reason for this is a simple matter of statistics. The lower prevalence there is of a trait in a studied population — here, coronavirus infection — the more likely that a test will return a false positive. While a more accurate test will help, it can’t change the statistical reality when the base rate of infection is very low.

If this shocks you, you’re not alone. The base rate fallacy is not only common, it’s also almost universal, even among those that should know better. Doctors themselves make these errors. In fact, one of the most referenced studies demonstrating the base rate fallacy took place among students at Harvard Medical School.

So what does this mean as the country begins to open?

Mostly it means we have to educate ourselves to safeguard our own health. And it means that we’re all at risk of getting infected and spreading the virus, even if we’ve had a positive antibody test.

So we have to be circumspect. Just because a test is highly accurate, that may not be as comforting as it first appears.

To be sure, antibody tests are important, and we should encourage greater access to these tests. But we should also view them with thoughtful reflection, informed predictions as to their accuracy and, at the very least, good decision-making."

Noise. All your doing is sowing confusion.

Testing Testing Testing. Well no testing won't blah blah blah

Vaccine Vaccine Vaccine. Well no a vaccine blah blah blah

Treatment treatment treatment. Nah this treatment blah blah blah

Doesn't matter whats put forth as a way out of quarantine you folks step on and cast doubts on IMMEDIATELY

You're wasting your anger or frustration (or whatever it is) on me. I just posted the article; it wasn't a jab at anyone or a suggestion about policy.

FTR, I'd very much like to be convinced that a full blown reopening can be done, without placing my mother (who is 96), brothers and sisters (who range from 72 down to me, 60), my wife and children and a lot of other people I love and like in some jeopardy. I know: they drive and walk on the street with everyday objective dangers. But the virus concerns me. I'm a lawyer; I much much much prefer a bustling economy. The narrative that Democrats want the economy to crater and stay that way until November 4, 2020 is just complete horsesh*t.

[holmes435]

A little look at the "Anti-Mask League" back during the Spanish Flu - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... california

Interesting parallels indeed.

[kramerica.inc]

Hogan announces he will begin re-opening Maryland on Friday.

Outdoor individual sport bans lifted, stay at home order replaced with stay at home "suggestion."
Essential businesses now allowed 50% capacity, Carwashes open again.

[ardilla secreta]

America, America
God shed his grace on thee
At a Red Lobster

brandon wenerd (@brandonwenerd) Tweeted:
The voice at the end of this Karen Gone Wild video at a Red Lobster in York, PA is the most Pennsylytucky thing I’ve ever heard https://t.co/ewkMsM91QM

[6ftstick]

Another mediocre bureaucrat for the coronaclown car:

https://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-neve ... 57348.html

Yesterday the county’s health director announced that stay-at-home efforts could possibly be extended for another three months.

Mr Garcetti confirmed that residents shouldn’t expect health orders on facemasks, social distancing and working from home to “disappear in a matter of weeks or even a few months.”

“I hope for our K through 12 schools we will have some sense of opening but it won’t be in the way we’ve known schools in the past,” he said.

This is the mayor confiscating hotels for the homeless and giving them free drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.

Now we have Andy Cuomo here saying wearing a mask is a SIGN OF RESPECT. Virtue signaling from a guy that ordered coronavirus positive people back into nursing homes.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Another mediocre bureaucrat for the coronaclown car:

https://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-neve ... 57348.html

Yesterday the county’s health director announced that stay-at-home efforts could possibly be extended for another three months.

Mr Garcetti confirmed that residents shouldn’t expect health orders on facemasks, social distancing and working from home to “disappear in a matter of weeks or even a few months.”

“I hope for our K through 12 schools we will have some sense of opening but it won’t be in the way we’ve known schools in the past,” he said.

This is the mayor confiscating hotels for the homeless and giving them free drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.

Now we have Andy Cuomo here saying wearing a mask is a SIGN OF RESPECT. Virtue signaling from a guy that ordered coronavirus positive people back into nursing homes.

We just stuffed over 85,000 people into the Corona Clown Car.

[wgdsr]

california state public universities close classes for fall on may 12. so much for letting science guide us.

Are you just saying that they could have or should have waited longer to make this call? More data?

a) do they have all the science they need, "we call it data", to make a decision now.
b) and/or is there a need to make a decision now.

they already had a dry run, have experience, and did it in the spur of the moment. mostly without incident.

is it possible there could be more substantial data in the interim, that would change their perspective, before a decision needed to be made?

of course everyone can have their own perspective on it, i know mine. this has very large implications and shouldn't happen with expediency because pressure, planning and execution would be hard(er).

Fair position.
Similar to where Hopkins is, though I'd say they certainly think that's where it's going, based upon the best, meaning most optimistic, predictions of test and trace and isolate capabilities. Which are inadequate, even with the promised 10-fold increase from where we were in April.

While they are thinking about how many students they could actually handle with singles only with dedicated bathroom capabilities...the big issue is staff and faculty protections, plus the reality of international students and the probability that they won't be able to travel to the US by then. while certainly student protection is not irrelevant, the concern is that close quarters translates to petrie dish spread, making it extremely difficult to protect surrounding community. Half of students live off campus, in the community, but also typically in congregate living, so difficult to truly isolate infections.

I'm not sure what will change this calculus over the next months other than confirmation of new blooms to the downside or the 'miracle' of this 'magically going away' without a vaccine to the upside. But the scientists are saying that even if summer helps, expect the second wave come fall. Only the partisans are suggesting otherwise.

But do you think there's something else that could change the calculus sufficiently?
Reducing death rate from infections will matter, but unless we're clear of serious long term health damage as well, not sure even therapies will help...unless its a quite miraculous drug. I don't think the scientists are putting much weight on that possibility before fall.

Seems to me that we'll be doing elementary and middle school age kids back to school sooner than HS and college. Need to in order to let parents go back to work. There's going to be a ton of pressure on that, for sure.

i believe there will be additional information before decisions like this need to be made. i use as examples all the new info, directions, initiatives that have gone on since this started. and maybe increasingly so, given the now larger "market" for it.

maybe you (and others) are of the opinion that we have the playbook already, the path is clear other than a miracle. or you're just playing devil's advocate.

in either case, i'm far from convinced there is/was a need to make a call on it now. seems a lot more like making their job easier. as an example, and i have zero idea whether this is the case at all, it's conjecture... calif goes to online classes in july by need and all info gathered by then. 30% of students defer. no one there to take their place. do it today, students to take their place. don't have to work on other contingency plans. $ rolls in. less work to do. statue commissioned. bc it's about the kids.

A little cynical, but you could be correct about $.

Certainly could be part of the calculus.

I'm not sure it's necessarily about not wanting to do the work to do all the scenario planning that I described Hopkins as doing (I'm sure lots of schools must be doing) but sure, making the decision now means they can focus all their energies on the known path chosen. To do virtual really well requires some serious investments and training post haste, so I can see the appeal of having clarity.

I'm not playing devil's advocate when I say I think the really critical aspects are known well enough at this point to make a pretty darn rational call. Again, Hopkins hasn't made that call, but as we listened to them discuss the issues in detail, I can certainly see how someone could easily come to the conclusion that there's negligible chance of something breaking so well differently that you'd want 100% of students back on campus, dormed as usual etc. But that was my conclusion and that of some others, not necessarily the only way to interpret the trade-offs. Someone else might have heard them differently.

i do find it utterly amazing that anyone thinks they have some crystal ball for how this thing falls over the next 100+ days.
testing could be in any of a 100 fold window from lower bound to upper bound.
testing accuracy could be absolutely amazing down to what it is now. which would change its usefulness by many orders of magnitude.
what testing/protocols will be in place at that time for the schools that may want to operate, as there may be some? someone knows that?
we have global initiatives to have a treatment targeted by the biotech/medical field in their greatest/largest effort in our world's history. i'm not even sure if 10% of the trials and studies that have been underway already are out yet.
who knows what happens to us and the virus as a society, in many respects we haven't been out of our houses while it's really been here and we're "opening up" now.
who knows if we have immunity?
who knows if the virus is/will morph into something worse or benign?
who even knows how it saps oxygen?
who happens to know if it's seasonal?
who happens to know if it dies in the summer? comes back in the fall? what research did they use for that? last year's covid 19?
here's the original covid moniker... sars:
https://www.who.int/csr/sars/epicurve/e ... ndex1.html
here is the typical flu season:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season.htm
the mers (other covid) cases over the years seemed to be in the summer and died in the fall, you can get a chart pretty easily.

if anything, for many of respiratory viruses, it seems they take the fall off. maybe there's just as many instances/other examples of fall=virus season, but they certainly don't fit a for sure pattern or anything close to it.

just pretty amazing to me for anyone to believe they now know how this will run for us, given what has happened, and continues to happen on an almost daily basis. and the stakes and projects involved. that's not a shot at you... mdlax, you're allowed the takeaway from the academics you heard from and the info you digest... just pretty flabbergasted!