All things CoronaVirus

[Bart]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

[seacoaster]

Predictable, and predicted:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... acker.html

Really tough choices for these institutions and the students.

[CU88]

186,000+ dead Americans thanks to tRUMP virus.

Donny Dunce's "success" remains unmatchable.

Worldmeter has us at 190,000+. We will be getting off the interstate sometime this month.

Yep. Over 191,000 dead now.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

200,000 is right around the corner.


But do any of the Trump supporters here express any sorrow or regret? Nah ....

Pathetic.

DocBarrister

Pro-Life Party!

[CU88]

"I don't take responsibility at all" - IMPOTUS o d

[seacoaster]

"I don't take responsibility at all" - IMPOTUS o d

Mannikin says “ responsibility for what?

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProjectLinco ... 5045902336

[wgdsr]

186,000+ dead Americans thanks to tRUMP virus.

Donny Dunce's "success" remains unmatchable.

Worldmeter has us at 190,000+. We will be getting off the interstate sometime this month.

Yep. Over 191,000 dead now.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

200,000 is right around the corner.


But do any of the Trump supporters here express any sorrow or regret? Nah ....

Pathetic.

DocBarrister

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/health/u ... index.html

looks like it will be over 420,000 by the end of the year. that's an additional 230k in just 4 months and 3,000 per day in december.

[Brooklyn]

Pro-Life Party!

Donald Dumpster said:


"We do have a plan"
"We have it under control"
U.S. experts "are on top of situation 24/7"
With warmer weather "virus hopefully becomes weaker with warmer weather, and then gone"
"The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA"
The 15 cases in U.S. "within a couple days is going to be down close to zero"
Virus will "disappear" one day "like a miracle"
"Just stay calm. It will go away"
Wants country and economy "raring to go by Easter" ... "We begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel"




It's all a "hoax"!

[CU88]

Pro-Life Party!

Donald Dumpster said:


"We do have a plan"
"We have it under control"
U.S. experts "are on top of situation 24/7"
With warmer weather "virus hopefully becomes weaker with warmer weather, and then gone"
"The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA"
The 15 cases in U.S. "within a couple days is going to be down close to zero"
Virus will "disappear" one day "like a miracle"
"Just stay calm. It will go away"
Wants country and economy "raring to go by Easter" ... "We begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel"




It's all a "hoax"!

After spending almost 20 years mourning the 2,700 lives lost on 9/11, we are being told that the 190,000 deaths from COVID-19 is honestly not a big deal.

Did you know that the CDC just released new data that shows that only 6% of the people killed on 9/11 were actually killed by planes? The rest were killed by shoddy building construction and 2-3 other pre-existing conditions, like susceptibility to gravity.

[Brooklyn]

After spending almost 20 years mourning the 2,700 lives lost on 9/11, we are being told that the 190,000 deaths from COVID-19 is honestly not a big deal.

Did you know that the CDC just released new data that shows that only 6% of the people killed on 9/11 were actually killed by planes? The rest were killed by shoddy building construction and 2-3 other pre-existing conditions, like susceptibility to gravity.

It will be recalled that in those days the right wing delusionals kept repeating that this was not Bush's fault. Instead it was all about "Blame Clinton, Blame Clinton!".

[njbill]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

Confirmation bias doesn’t affect an MRI result.

I do agree that an MRI wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered for an asymptomatic individual without any symptoms of myocarditis, but the fact that the NFL doctors are giving MRIs to all NFL positives is significant to me. It tells me they believe a legitimate basis exists for having that test run.

The test is non-invasive, but it is not a simple procedure like taking blood pressure. Some number of people don’t do too well in the tube. Don’t know if they have oversized tubes for larger people, but I would think some of the big NFL lineman might be quite cramped inside a conventional MRI tube.

Bottom line, it is not a test the NFL doctors would order without a pretty serious reason for doing so.

[youthathletics]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

Confirmation bias doesn’t affect an MRI result.

I do agree that an MRI wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered for an asymptomatic individual without any symptoms of myocarditis, but the fact that the NFL doctors are giving MRIs to all NFL positives is significant to me. It tells me they believe a legitimate basis exists for having that test run.

The test is non-invasive, but it is not a simple procedure like taking blood pressure. Some number of people don’t do too well in the tube. Don’t know if they have oversized tubes for larger people, but I would think some of the big NFL lineman might be quite cramped inside a conventional MRI tube.

Bottom line, it is not a test the NFL doctors would order without a pretty serious reason for doing so.

You can sure it is a CYA legal investment on their part. Also, google "open mri" heading into tube has advanced.

[CU88]

Florida tells health officials not to release coronavirus data about schools

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronav ... story.html

[njbill]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

Confirmation bias doesn’t affect an MRI result.

I do agree that an MRI wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered for an asymptomatic individual without any symptoms of myocarditis, but the fact that the NFL doctors are giving MRIs to all NFL positives is significant to me. It tells me they believe a legitimate basis exists for having that test run.

The test is non-invasive, but it is not a simple procedure like taking blood pressure. Some number of people don’t do too well in the tube. Don’t know if they have oversized tubes for larger people, but I would think some of the big NFL lineman might be quite cramped inside a conventional MRI tube.

Bottom line, it is not a test the NFL doctors would order without a pretty serious reason for doing so.

You can sure it is a CYA legal investment on their part. Also, google "open mri" heading into tube has advanced.

Agree re CYA.

Did Google. Saw something that said an open MRI can’t be used for all areas of the body. Didn’t specifically mention whether that included the heart. Also it says the results from open MRIs are not as high-quality as closed.

I am well out over my skis at this point, though, and really don’t know whether an open MRI would be something the NFL could use for diagnosing myocarditis in oversized football players. But from pictures it certainly looks like they would be more comfortable for a 350 pound lineman then would the tube.

[a fan]

After spending almost 20 years mourning the 2,700 lives lost on 9/11, we are being told that the 190,000 deaths from COVID-19 is honestly not a big deal.

Did you know that the CDC just released new data that shows that only 6% of the people killed on 9/11 were actually killed by planes? The rest were killed by shoddy building construction and 2-3 other pre-existing conditions, like susceptibility to gravity.

Bravo! This is a point I've been thinking about for months when you hear stupid claims of "pre-existing conditions".....or "life is dangerous".

Where was this awesome attitude before we invaded Iraq? You don't care about 150K+ American deaths, but you think it make sense to blow several trillion dollars "because" Saddam might be a threat to Americans if you use Disney-level imagination?

There's zero point to our troops anywhere in the ME if 150K American deaths is no big deal, move on.

We're insane. Mixed in with boatloads of stupid.

[Bart]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

Confirmation bias doesn’t affect an MRI result.

I do agree that an MRI wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered for an asymptomatic individual without any symptoms of myocarditis, but the fact that the NFL doctors are giving MRIs to all NFL positives is significant to me. It tells me they believe a legitimate basis exists for having that test run.

The test is non-invasive, but it is not a simple procedure like taking blood pressure. Some number of people don’t do too well in the tube. Don’t know if they have oversized tubes for larger people, but I would think some of the big NFL lineman might be quite cramped inside a conventional MRI tube.

Bottom line, it is not a test the NFL doctors would order without a pretty serious reason for doing so.

If they are looking for a result in individuals who are not showing clinical manifestations of myocarditis they certainly are.

[youthathletics]

Florida tells health officials not to release coronavirus data about schools

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronav ... story.html

Yea. I saw some ex-Orange County Employee on Coumo the other night, she built a CV-19 statistical website for school aged kids. She claims the data is not HIPAA infringement and appears to arguing she is being shunned. Probably a bit of both.

[njbill]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

Confirmation bias doesn’t affect an MRI result.

I do agree that an MRI wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered for an asymptomatic individual without any symptoms of myocarditis, but the fact that the NFL doctors are giving MRIs to all NFL positives is significant to me. It tells me they believe a legitimate basis exists for having that test run.

The test is non-invasive, but it is not a simple procedure like taking blood pressure. Some number of people don’t do too well in the tube. Don’t know if they have oversized tubes for larger people, but I would think some of the big NFL lineman might be quite cramped inside a conventional MRI tube.

Bottom line, it is not a test the NFL doctors would order without a pretty serious reason for doing so.

If they are looking for a result in individuals who are not showing clinical manifestations of myocarditis they certainly are.

I may be missing what you are saying, but if you are saying the reason doctors are finding myocarditis when they are checking to see if the players have the condition is simply due to “confirmation bias,” I disagree.

To back up, I assume the doctors are checking for myocarditis because of the reports (concedely few and not scientifically proven) of people with Covid having the condition. And because it is medically proven that large men with the condition who vigorously exercise could well be placing their health in serious jeopardy. In short, the doctors are taking precautions in ordering the test. I think they are doing exactly the right thing.

The films are being read by radiologists who, I think, are almost certainly not NFL employees. The doctors who ordered the MRIs may also look at the film (or whatever the modern-day equivalent is), but they certainly rely heavily on the radiologists’ reports.

I would have full confidence that the radiologists are simply reporting what they see on film. If the player has myocarditis, they report that. If he doesn’t, they report that. I think it is highly unlikely that a radiologist is going to “confirm” a diagnosis when the MRI doesn’t back that up. I also think it is highly unlikely that a doctor will conclude a player has myocarditis if the radiologist’s report says he doesn’t.

[Bart]

Yes, some cleanup on this report is definitely needed.

Not sure if there is accurate reporting across the board of results of testing of Big Ten athletes. From what I know, I think it is quite likely that all athletes have been tested this fall. What I don’t know is what percentage tested positive. But it is multiples more than 10 individuals, I am sure, from the many anecdotal reports I have heard and read.

What struck me as not necessarily credible from the initial report is that all athletes who tested positive were given MRIs of the heart. Again anecdotally, I have not heard that. That seems to not be true.

From what I’ve heard and read, however, it is simply not true that cardiologists in general are brushing this off as inconsequential. It is simply too early to say. It is a well-known heart condition which usually resolves fully in time, or it may cause long-term damage to the heart. It is a condition that absolutely requires monitoring.

These are young kids who hope to live another 50, 60, or 70 years. Care needs to be taken to be sure that their hearts aren’t damaged even if only temporarily. If someone does have myocarditis, they may not be able to exercise vigorously or participate in their sport until the condition resolves. This is something that obviously needs to be doped out.

And there is the very small study from Germany which shows an alarmingly high percentage of infected individuals with the condition.

Is this a problem that should be a major concern? We simply don’t know yet. But it is yet another reason why minimizing the spread of the disease is in the best interest of everybody.

Those who continue to minimize the virus are doing society in general no good.

I think there is a high degree of potential confirmation bias in all this. How often are cardiac MRI's ordered to asymptomatic individuals who are showing no signs of cardiac issues? (that observation is not mine but came from a professional in the field that I had a conversation with....) We have very little to compare this to. I know from a person I know very well that in order for a cardiac MRI to be ordered there were other less costly options that had to be exhausted prior to its order and the individual still showing symptoms.

Should it be contemplated and looked at? I would think yes, especially after personal experience but we have to have a better understanding of what we are comparing this to.

Confirmation bias doesn’t affect an MRI result.

I do agree that an MRI wouldn’t ordinarily be ordered for an asymptomatic individual without any symptoms of myocarditis, but the fact that the NFL doctors are giving MRIs to all NFL positives is significant to me. It tells me they believe a legitimate basis exists for having that test run.

The test is non-invasive, but it is not a simple procedure like taking blood pressure. Some number of people don’t do too well in the tube. Don’t know if they have oversized tubes for larger people, but I would think some of the big NFL lineman might be quite cramped inside a conventional MRI tube.

Bottom line, it is not a test the NFL doctors would order without a pretty serious reason for doing so.

If they are looking for a result in individuals who are not showing clinical manifestations of myocarditis they certainly are.

I may be missing what you are saying, but if you are saying the reason doctors are finding myocarditis when they are checking to see if the players have the condition is simply due to “confirmation bias,” I disagree.

To back up, I assume the doctors are checking for myocarditis because of the reports (concedely few and not scientifically proven) of people with Covid having the condition. And because it is medically proven that large men with the condition who vigorously exercise could well be placing their health in serious jeopardy. In short, the doctors are taking precautions in ordering the test. I think they are doing exactly the right thing.

The films are being read by radiologists who, I think, are almost certainly not NFL employees. The doctors who ordered the MRIs may also look at the film (or whatever the modern-day equivalent is), but they certainly rely heavily on the radiologists’ reports.

I would have full confidence that the radiologists are simply reporting what they see on film. If the player has myocarditis, they report that. If he doesn’t, they report that. I think it is highly unlikely that a radiologist is going to “confirm” a diagnosis when the MRI doesn’t back that up. I also think it is highly unlikely that a doctor will conclude a player has myocarditis if the radiologist’s report says he doesn’t.

Not in the reading of the MRI's but in looking for it in cardiac asymptomatic individuals to begin with. They think there is the potential for myocarditis so they are looking to see if it is true in asymptomatic individuals for heart problems. They are looking for data to support their conclusion. IF they start doing the same thing for the flu, coxsackievirus, and any number of others viruses known to cause myocarditis but for individuals who show no cardiac symptoms and see a difference in myocarditis then we certainly have something. There is no baseline to compare to.

[njbill]

I think we may be talking about some different things.

I don’t disagree with you in terms of the general population, but I was mainly talking about NFL players. Given their size, weight lifting, strenuous activity, etc., I think it is a good idea that they look for myocarditis in the players who test positive for Covid even if asymptomatic. I don’t think they are looking to confirm or not confirm anything in general, but simply to see if the players have the condition.

[ggait]

looks like it will be over 420,000 by the end of the year. that's an additional 230k in just 4 months and 3,000 per day in december.

Remember the good old days when the projections were just 60-70k deaths?

It's just a projection, but IHME UW base case is now 410k deaths by New Years. Back over 2k daily deaths by November 1 and close to 3k daily deaths in early December. FYI the prior peak was 2,300 at 4/16.

Even more depressing, they predict we will have to start locking down again beginning in October and in December we'll be locked down as much as we were back in April.

Petey and Trump say the virus is dying out. The virus says Petey and Trump are morons.