All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[njbill]

Another abomination of a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I wonder where in the Wisconsin state constitution it says that the courts are responsible for the health and safety of the citizens?

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt ... 17a50.html

How many people will get sick this time?

[RedFromMI]

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.
If we did pooling (test say five samples at once and only retest each if positive) as has been done in Nebraska, and now Germany you can multiply your test reach.
testing accuracy could be absolutely amazing down to what it is now. which would change its usefulness by many orders of magnitude.
Especially in antibody testing. 1-3% error rate for PCR tests is pretty good - not sure it can be improved that much. Abbott tests are known to have a bad error rate (may be the nature of how their tests work) - so if using need to understand those implications.
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?
This is where a concerted federal effort would help big time. If you have the current infection rate down low enough, test/trace/quarantine can work.
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.
It would help if we made sure this was a priority - from my viewpoint the current administration does not seem to want to push this like they should be. Spending too much time on magical thinking instead of doing what the original space program did - multiple designs and builds for competition to get the best fast.
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.
Flying blind here without better testing and more overt sharing of data.
who knows if we have immunity?
Short term initial research says yes, but biggest question is for how long?
who knows if the virus is/will morph into something worse or benign?
An open question, but so far the evolution is not that large.
who even knows how it saps oxygen?
My best guess is through the changes in clotting, but that is just a guess.
who happens to know if it's seasonal?
No data I have seen says it is truly seasonal, but given how big R_0 is not sure it makes as much difference as SD measures to tamp it down.
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!

How seasonal is a huge unknown - but given how it has spread to warm weather equitorial regions I suspect not nearly as seasonal as the flu.

[RedFromMI]

Doctors express glimmers of hope as they try out new approaches against coronavirus
There are no proven treatments, but knowledge about the pathogen — and how to help those infected — have increased over the past two months

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... reatments/

Really good article on various treatment options that both worked and did not. A lot on the unknowns.

[njbill]

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!

Most of the points you make are fair or accurate; however, if you are running a university, you have to make decisions about the fall either now or in the very near future. In three months or less, students will be showing up on campus (athletes, RAs, etc.). In a couple of weeks after that, the students, themselves, will arrive. You simply can’t wait until, say, August 1 to decide whether or not your school will have students on campus in the fall.

The people in charge must make the best decisions they can based on the best information they have at the time they need to make the decision, which as I said is around now. They can’t afford to wait until all of the issues you mentioned get resolved. They can’t assume all of the issues will be resolved favorably.

It is easy for you or me to sit back in our easy chair and question this decision or that. But these are the folks whose job it is to decide what is the best course for their university and students. If they are going to err on one side or the other, they need to err on the side of caution and safety. Obviously universities want to be fully up and running in the fall for a lot of reasons, including financial. If they are not open in the fall, they will take a financial hit.

BTW, a lot of colleges are going to do the same thing. Similar decisions will be cascading in the next few weeks.

[ardilla secreta]

Decoding COVID 19 on NOVA tonight.

or

The Facts of Life on MeTV

[Kismet]

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them

About the Author - Professor Erin Bromage

Thank you for visiting my blog. The attention it has received in the past several days has been incredible. Here is the backstory to the blog because I want to make sure those of you reading it know who I am and the limits of my expertise. I am a Comparative Immunologist and Professor of Biology (specializing in Immunology) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

His blog has over 13 million views and his view of transmissablity of this virus in enclosed spaces is very concerning especially in the context of a reopening.

I recommend everyone read this before opining on what should be done next.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Decoding COVID 19 on NOVA tonight.

or

The Facts of Life on MeTV

Or Politics on twitter?

[dislaxxic]

"I don't want those people getting off that boat. I like the numbers where they are. It wasn't our fault!"

~A Reprehensible Human Being.

..

[seacoaster]

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them

About the Author - Professor Erin Bromage

Thank you for visiting my blog. The attention it has received in the past several days has been incredible. Here is the backstory to the blog because I want to make sure those of you reading it know who I am and the limits of my expertise. I am a Comparative Immunologist and Professor of Biology (specializing in Immunology) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

His blog has over 13 million views and his view of transmissablity of this virus in enclosed spaces is very concerning especially in the context of a reopening.

I recommend everyone read this before opining on what should be done next.

Good read; thanks for posting.

[Carroll81]

Just to backup a minute, can someone help me with the leap that was made:

Back in March, we needed to flatten the curve. To me, flatten the curve did not mean reducing the number of deaths, or even infections for that matter. It meant spreading them out to reduce the burden on first responders and hospitals. 10th grade geometry shows the area under the curve has a different shape, but the area doesn't necessarily change. Area = number of deaths or number of infections.

Somewhere along the lines, the original models missed the estimated deaths and infections by quite bit bit, at least from the point of view of when they would happen. In my mind, that meant they screwed up the shape. The question is, when was it said/decides/inferred that they screwed up the area? Did I miss a discussion of this (Fanlax or public)?

I am not trying to make any political points or arguments, just looking for the info I missed. TIA.

[MDlaxfan76]

Just to backup a minute, can someone help me with the leap that was made:

Back in March, we needed to flatten the curve. To me, flatten the curve did not mean reducing the number of deaths, or even infections for that matter. It meant spreading them out to reduce the burden on first responders and hospitals. 10th grade geometry shows the area under the curve has a different shape, but the area doesn't necessarily change. Area = number of deaths or number of infections.

Somewhere along the lines, the original models missed the estimated deaths and infections by quite bit bit, at least from the point of view of when they would happen. In my mind, that meant they screwed up the shape. The question is, when was it said/decides/inferred that they screwed up the area? Did I miss a discussion of this (Fanlax or public)?

I am not trying to make any political points or arguments, just looking for the info I missed. TIA.

I think you're right, flatten didn't mean 'disappear', it meant longer period of time, protect the hospitals from being overwhelmed (which has cascading very negative impacts). Where there continues to be some hope about flattening also possibly reducing deaths in total is that the longer it takes for the #'s of people to be infected, the more chance there is of learning improved procedures, time for therapies, and eventually...much further out, a vaccine.

But that's much more than just an 60 days sprint. But that first 60 days of effort was enormously important, given that the virus had gotten so badly out of control in the prior 6 weeks.

I don't recall a discussion that suggested that the models were incorrect, per se. they are continuously updated with new data, new sets of assumptions based upon both observation of what is actually happening and the correlation with infections, hospitalization, and deaths, and announced public policy. Which isn't to say that the assumptions were necessarily right, or even that the algorithms had the right weightings of factors...just that they've been adjusted with more information.

But perhaps you're thinking of a particular point in time when "they scored up"?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them

About the Author - Professor Erin Bromage

Thank you for visiting my blog. The attention it has received in the past several days has been incredible. Here is the backstory to the blog because I want to make sure those of you reading it know who I am and the limits of my expertise. I am a Comparative Immunologist and Professor of Biology (specializing in Immunology) at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

His blog has over 13 million views and his view of transmissablity of this virus in enclosed spaces is very concerning especially in the context of a reopening.

I recommend everyone read this before opining on what should be done next.

Thanks. It doesn’t get much more straightforward than that.

[6ftstick]

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

One more time.

Compare us to the 5 largest governments in Europe to have an equivalent population to the US similar land mass and freedom of societal norms. We have fewer than half the number of deaths.

Tell us all again how we've failed.

[Carroll81]

Just to backup a minute, can someone help me with the leap that was made:

Back in March, we needed to flatten the curve. To me, flatten the curve did not mean reducing the number of deaths, or even infections for that matter. It meant spreading them out to reduce the burden on first responders and hospitals. 10th grade geometry shows the area under the curve has a different shape, but the area doesn't necessarily change. Area = number of deaths or number of infections.

Somewhere along the lines, the original models missed the estimated deaths and infections by quite bit bit, at least from the point of view of when they would happen. In my mind, that meant they screwed up the shape. The question is, when was it said/decides/inferred that they screwed up the area? Did I miss a discussion of this (Fanlax or public)?

I am not trying to make any political points or arguments, just looking for the info I missed. TIA.

I think you're right, flatten didn't mean 'disappear', it meant longer period of time, protect the hospitals from being overwhelmed (which has cascading very negative impacts). Where there continues to be some hope about flattening also possibly reducing deaths in total is that the longer it takes for the #'s of people to be infected, the more chance there is of learning improved procedures, time for therapies, and eventually...much further out, a vaccine.

But that's much more than just an 60 days sprint. But that first 60 days of effort was enormously important, given that the virus had gotten so badly out of control in the prior 6 weeks.

I don't recall a discussion that suggested that the models were incorrect, per se. they are continuously updated with new data, new sets of assumptions based upon both observation of what is actually happening and the correlation with infections, hospitalization, and deaths, and announced public policy. Which isn't to say that the assumptions were necessarily right, or even that the algorithms had the right weightings of factors...just that they've been adjusted with more information.

But perhaps you're thinking of a particular point in time when "they scored up"?

That's the thing. I don't have a particular point in time in mind. It seems somewhere along the line, when the cases/deaths were way below the models, everyone started questioning the models. As the mitigation efforts started to take hold they adjusted the models. The adjustment they made seemed to imply fewer cases/deaths.

I guess my question is, why did they adjust the models to reflect fewer cases/deaths overall, rather than showing the same number of cases/deaths just spread out over a longer period - the original purpose of "flatten the curve". Was it new knowledge of the characteristics of the virus? Was it new assumptions? Was it bad models? Or was it changing the message to fit what the public wanted/needed to hear? I didn't dig into the models enough as they were presented to offer an opinion and am hoping someone here can shed some light.

[CU88]

Another mediocre bureaucrat for the coronaclown car

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

Sounds like someone doing their job, no?

What else do you expect from a "county's health director"?????????????

"She said the county’s “hope is that by using the data, we’d be able to slowly lift restrictions over the next three months” but easing those restrictions depends on the likelihood of widespread testing.

The county has recorded more than 32,000 cases of Covid-19, including at least 1,569 deaths, as of 11 May, as California slowly began to emerge from pandemic closures with restrictive reopenings for some parts of the most populous state in the US."

What exactly is the problem with her statement, being the county health director?

[MDlaxfan76]

Just to backup a minute, can someone help me with the leap that was made:

Back in March, we needed to flatten the curve. To me, flatten the curve did not mean reducing the number of deaths, or even infections for that matter. It meant spreading them out to reduce the burden on first responders and hospitals. 10th grade geometry shows the area under the curve has a different shape, but the area doesn't necessarily change. Area = number of deaths or number of infections.

Somewhere along the lines, the original models missed the estimated deaths and infections by quite bit bit, at least from the point of view of when they would happen. In my mind, that meant they screwed up the shape. The question is, when was it said/decides/inferred that they screwed up the area? Did I miss a discussion of this (Fanlax or public)?

I am not trying to make any political points or arguments, just looking for the info I missed. TIA.

I think you're right, flatten didn't mean 'disappear', it meant longer period of time, protect the hospitals from being overwhelmed (which has cascading very negative impacts). Where there continues to be some hope about flattening also possibly reducing deaths in total is that the longer it takes for the #'s of people to be infected, the more chance there is of learning improved procedures, time for therapies, and eventually...much further out, a vaccine.

But that's much more than just an 60 days sprint. But that first 60 days of effort was enormously important, given that the virus had gotten so badly out of control in the prior 6 weeks.

I don't recall a discussion that suggested that the models were incorrect, per se. they are continuously updated with new data, new sets of assumptions based upon both observation of what is actually happening and the correlation with infections, hospitalization, and deaths, and announced public policy. Which isn't to say that the assumptions were necessarily right, or even that the algorithms had the right weightings of factors...just that they've been adjusted with more information.

But perhaps you're thinking of a particular point in time when "they scored up"?

That's the thing. I don't have a particular point in time in mind. It seems somewhere along the line, when the cases/deaths were way below the models, everyone started questioning the models. As the mitigation efforts started to take hold they adjusted the models. The adjustment they made seemed to imply fewer cases/deaths.

I guess my question is, why did they adjust the models to reflect fewer cases/deaths overall, rather than showing the same number of cases/deaths just spread out over a longer period - the original purpose of "flatten the curve". Was it new knowledge of the characteristics of the virus? Was it new assumptions? Was it bad models? Or was it changing the message to fit what the public wanted/needed to hear? I didn't dig into the models enough as they were presented to offer an opinion and am hoping someone here can shed some light.

Good question. I'm not sure I have a correct answer!

In looking at the models, it always seemed strange that they went to zero deaths in August, and ended there...which almost certainly is not going to happen. The virus will continue at some pace. It's not going to go, sustainably, to 'zero' until herd immunity, a vaccine, or the virus evolves to no longer kill.

I think I rationalized the drop in #'s infected, then dead, when they updated to include lots of states taking policy action and the inputs of data about how 'mobility' of the population was dropping precipitously. The model still ended in August, just less infections, less death, up to that point. The models assumed that these policies would remain in effect at least through May.

Likewise, when states began to announce opening, and mobility rates began to rise, the models recalculated the infection spread rate, thus deaths. There are other inputs, but these seem to be the big variables.

It would be easier to explain, I think, if the models which end in early August didn't actually go to 'zero' at that point. If infections and deaths were continuing to roll along at some pace, the curve would have simply extended. That would make sense.

Maybe someone much smarter or better informed can help us out on this?

EDIT. just looked at the model...it ends August, but now shows 108 deaths per day in early August...so the flattening is indeed pushing deaths out into future.

What I don't understand about the model right now is how much they think the lifting of restrictions will impact mobility and infection rate, whether there's a summer/sun factor being assumed and if so how much, etc.

[runrussellrun]

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.

The numbers aren't "embellished", in any way, shape or form/fashion?

A cousin died a few days ago. From "corona virus" . Nonsense. This man had alzeihmers. Anyone involved with this illness knows that it is a long struggle. For all. HOWEVER. He has been in a vegetative state since December. Remarkable that he lived this long.

Oh....btw, he NEVER got tested for V-19. Yet, this is what he died from...............

How many more of the 85k are the same? You willing to bet your investment portfolio that every single death REALLY died from V-19? carry on

So, EVENT 201's recommendations to NOT close everything down.......are they clown cars?

[runrussellrun]

Just to backup a minute, can someone help me with the leap that was made:

Back in March, we needed to flatten the curve. To me, flatten the curve did not mean reducing the number of deaths, or even infections for that matter. It meant spreading them out to reduce the burden on first responders and hospitals. 10th grade geometry shows the area under the curve has a different shape, but the area doesn't necessarily change. Area = number of deaths or number of infections.

Somewhere along the lines, the original models missed the estimated deaths and infections by quite bit bit, at least from the point of view of when they would happen. In my mind, that meant they screwed up the shape. The question is, when was it said/decides/inferred that they screwed up the area? Did I miss a discussion of this (Fanlax or public)?

I am not trying to make any political points or arguments, just looking for the info I missed. TIA.

Mostly....you came to the wrong place for that. (Information )

[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.

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

One more time.

Compare us to the 5 largest governments in Europe to have an equivalent population to the US similar land mass and freedom of societal norms. We have fewer than half the number of deaths.

Tell us all again how we've failed.

Which 5 countries do you want us to focus on, that actually have a land mass equivalent to the US ?

[seacoaster]

Pretty interesting. Fueling the reopen fervor from their home studios?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... otherwise/

"One of the uglier tricks employed by those pushing to reopen the country as fast as possible — regardless of the consequences — is to create the impression that social distancing restrictions have unleashed a widespread populist uprising that’s rolling across the land.

As MSNBC’s Chris Hayes noted, conservative media voices are posing as champions of working people by telling them it’s safe for them to return to work, in a tone of “faux populist ire.”

The insinuation is that elites in the “laptop class” can insist on maintaining restrictions, because their digitally-plugged-in livelihoods are largely undisturbed by those restrictions. They are blissfully out of touch with the suffering of working people chafing to get back to real-world jobs.

But new data from this week’s Post-University of Maryland poll shows that this narrative doesn’t capture the sentiments of the very people whose cause it purports to champion. The data suggests that there just aren’t meaningful divisions along class or education lines on these questions.

The new Post poll probes public attitudes toward restrictions and the coronavirus. I got a detailed breakdown of the numbers from the Post polling team, and here are some basic findings:

1. By 78 percent to 22 percent, Americans believe it is “necessary” for people in their communities to stay at home as much as possible.

The spread is very similar among those of incomes below $50,000 (82-18), those of incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 (77-23), and those of incomes over $100,000 (71-29).

It’s also much the same among rural voters (77-23) and non-college-educated whites (75-25), both demographics that tilt heavily towards supporting President Trump, and are supposed to thrill to the “populist” narratives that Hayes was criticizing.

2. Fifty-eight percent of Americans overall say current restrictions on businesses are “appropriate,” vs. only 21 percent who say they are “too restrictive.”

Here again, the spread is very similar among those of incomes below $50,000 (56-18), those of incomes of $50,000 to $100,00 (61-22), and those of incomes over $100,000 (60-25).

And again, it’s much the same among rural voters (64-20) and non-college whites (54-28).

3. What about wearing masks, which is supposed to be prompting the latest culture war? This war doesn’t really exist, either.

By 80 percent to 20 percent, Americans overall say it’s “necessary” for people in their communities to wear a mask when coming close to others.

And yet again, the spread is very similar among those of incomes below $50,000 (83-17), those of incomes of $50,000 to $100,00 (78-22), and those of incomes over $100,000 (74-25).

It’s also much the same among rural voters (73-27) and non-college whites (76-24).

David Frum argues that many Trump supporters may be reluctant to accept changes to their way of life — such as social distancing and mask-wearing — because it’s an implicit concession that Trump has failed to contain the virus, and admitting such a thing is unthinkable.

That may be true. Indeed, the biggest Trump booster in the country sees things this way. The president himself is reportedly reluctant to wear a mask in public because it sends a message that he’s overly preoccupied with the health crisis, and not with reopening the economy, which we know he sees as heralding his triumphant vanquishing of the disease.

But even if this is a real sentiment among the most vocal Trump supporters, it’s just not widely shared, and it’s not at all clear that it’s driving serious societal tensions, despite conservative media’s best efforts to imply otherwise.

As Frum notes, serious public health thinkers are raising the larger question of whether we are up to maintaining restrictions on ourselves as a “political-cultural challenge,” in the words of Stanford University professor Keith Humphreys. Might we end up accepting large numbers of preventable deaths instead?

I don’t know the answer to that, but if anything, it’s clear we’re seeing surprising unity and agreement — across lines that typically divide us politically — that we should shoulder serious inconveniences in the name of public health. One might even suggest large majorities are collectively engaged in a deeply civic act.

As I’ve noted, this crisis absolutely should force a transformation in how we view the plight of essential workers and other working people, one that continues to recognize their economic precarity and their centrality to our everyday well being — long after this is over.

Meanwhile, in the short term, hopefully those who profess populist worry about the impact of social distancing on working people will use their platforms to call for far more generous economic rescue packages."