Jump to content
caulfield12

COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

Recommended Posts

I think it's relevant when you joined a White Sox message board exclusively to discuss a pandemic. Thanks for responding

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DisneyTaxDad said:

A children's hospital in Canada appears to be advocating for a largely normal return to school with very basic precautions:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sickkids-doctors-expect-safe-return-to-school-for-ontario-students-in-the-fall-1.5616344

I get how you say kids probably won't die from it, so go to school, but what about teachers, and librarians, and custodians, and bus drivers, and lunch ladies,  and administrative staff.? What about kids bringing it home to their parents and grandparents? 

You said JB has done a terrible job protecting our most vulnerable.  I disagree. He actually followed the science and was one of the few who actually met Trump's and Pence's task force requirement for re-opening.  How is just acting like it isn't here protecting the most vulnerable? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see my post on page 214 where I presented evidence that not only are children relatively unaffected by Covid, they have also been found to be extremely low transmitters of the disease.  This research was also cited in the guidance provided by the Canadian hospital.

At this point, the data has been mostly clear that Covid disproportionately causes catastrophic impact to those of greater age, and in many cases those with other comorbidities.  The vast majority of the population responds very well.  Although influenza is a completely different disease, it's impact on those of younger ages appears to be far less.  Therefore, I'd propose a more targeted approach to protect those in the at-risk groups.  This is where Sweden failed, they did a poor job of protecting those in LTC facilities, however, the remainder of their population has done well.  Similarly, Illinois is unfortunately among the leaders in deaths/population in the US.  These deaths have largely been slanted towards those in LTC facilities.  Therefore, similar to Sweden, I believe Illinois may have had better results in focusing on those in LTC facilities with less focus on the larger population.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more nuanced than that. What Texas Governor Abbott did was make it impossible for local governments to make a law requiring individuals to wear a mask. What local governments can do, and the governor agreed, is make laws requiring businesses to require masks for customers and employees in their stores. He gets to keep his personal choice GOP street cred while allowing local mayors to run their cities. Best of both worlds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose Abreu said:

I think it's relevant when you joined a White Sox message board exclusively to discuss a pandemic. Thanks for responding

We're big in Russia! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DisneyTaxDad said:

Please see my post on page 214 where I presented evidence that not only are children relatively unaffected by Covid, they have also been found to be extremely low transmitters of the disease.  This research was also cited in the guidance provided by the Canadian hospital.

At this point, the data has been mostly clear that Covid disproportionately causes catastrophic impact to those of greater age, and in many cases those with other comorbidities.  The vast majority of the population responds very well.  Although influenza is a completely different disease, it's impact on those of younger ages appears to be far less.  Therefore, I'd propose a more targeted approach to protect those in the at-risk groups.  This is where Sweden failed, they did a poor job of protecting those in LTC facilities, however, the remainder of their population has done well.  Similarly, Illinois is unfortunately among the leaders in deaths/population in the US.  These deaths have largely been slanted towards those in LTC facilities.  Therefore, similar to Sweden, I believe Illinois may have had better results in focusing on those in LTC facilities with less focus on the larger population.

 

I would think at this point it would be impossible to say they are extremely low transmitters of the disease, since so few have been tested and for the longest time you had to look like death warmed over to get a test. Especially when the kids were in school. 

 A recent German study, which compared the viral load of nearly 4,000 people aged from one to 100 years old, added weight to this idea. It found that regardless of age, people appeared to shed a similar level of virus, suggesting they could be equally infectious

 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

It is more nuanced than that. What Texas Governor Abbott did was make it impossible for local governments to make a law requiring individuals to wear a mask. What local governments can do, and the governor agreed, is make laws requiring businesses to require masks for customers and employees in their stores. He gets to keep his personal choice GOP street cred while allowing local mayors to run their cities. Best of both worlds. 

It's going to result in less enforcement, fewer requirements and lower compliance though. Not the best of both worlds for anyone but Abbott, it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know more now than we did in February and March. Whatever restrictive measures may be necessary in outbreak areas/second waves going forward can and should be adjusted based on new information. That doesn't mean the initial reaction, when we didn't and couldn't know the efficacy of a variety of different options, was bad or overblown.

Things are still bad out there in a lot of parts of the country, and they're getting worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

It's going to result in less enforcement, fewer requirements and lower compliance though. Not the best of both worlds for anyone but Abbott, it seems.

I disagree. Fining one business a $1000 per incident for not having customers wearing masks is easier and less confrontational than fining individuals. Our major grocery chain received a petition with other 200,000 signatures wanting them to require masks so the public seems behind it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It's going to result in less enforcement, fewer requirements and lower compliance though. Not the best of both worlds for anyone but Abbott, it seems.

I actually agree with the idea that going after businesses is much better than going after individuals, when it comes to the mask and distancing rules. Many fewer targets to monitor for authorities, and the rules can then filter down. I think it is the better way to go (can't believe I am agreeing with Abbott on something but here we are).

 

12 hours ago, greg775 said:

This is just another example of how we all hate each other in America. It's doomed. My guess is the violence will be the new normal. We hate each other, let's face it. (You are not going to get consensus on a topic like masks when politics rules the country 24/7).

I have no plans on being violent with anyone. Do you? If not, then just stop, "greg".

Masks are not political. They are common sense. They are simply made to seem political by a portion of the conservative wing, who are so desperate to turn ANYTHING governmental into an attack of some kind that they will twist themselves into unfounded and cartoonish logic pretzels trying to make  face masks into some kind of evil hoax.

And by the way, I do thank you for following the rules despite not liking them. That is appreciated. Really.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbott's approach is certainly better than Ricketts, I'll give him that.

 

But who's responsible if Bob's Hamburger Stand has a mask requirement that a customer flagrantly violates? Now you're just breaking some business's rules, not an actual ordinance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2020 at 3:20 PM, DisneyTaxDad said:

I'm sorry, but I'm very aware of the nature.com article and it has been roundly criticized, aged, and is somewhat of a statistical disaster.  Some, of many issues with it:

  • Paper was received on March 22, 2020:  basically before the epidemic had gained steam in the United States or social distancing had been in place for a particularly long period outside of China.
  • The authors somewhat admit their data is limited and they lack "sufficient data for detailed estimates of changes over time in any other country."
  • The authors make no attempt to at comparing Covid spread in countries that did use various forms of "lockdowns" with those that did not.  They only tracked the infection rate by day and assume any changes resulted from "lockdowns".
  • Their own analysis demonstrated that "lockdowns" reduced the speed of spread by less than 40%.  This means spread was still very rapid post-"lockdown".
  • They find almost no correlation between individual "lockdown" policies and any meaningful change in growth.
  • They did not disclosure the fatality rate but it is clearly greater than 1.00%.  This is at least 4x the CDC's current rate.
  • Best one:  They estimate the "lockdowns" reduced deaths in Sweden by 90%.  It is well known that Sweden imposed minimal restrictions.

Unfortunately, this study is somewhat laughable.

I'm still curious what article you copy-pasted these bullet points for since the Nature paper Balta links doesn't contain the phrase in the quotation marks, doesn't mention Sweden at all and states their IFR as 0.75%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DisneyTaxDad said:

I believe this is irrelevant to the discussion, however, if necessary, I could obviously point to the 2005 World Series.  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to share something more unique:

How about in September 1993, when I was fairly young and my parents put me to bed before most White Sox games had concluded.  I remember laying in bed, awake, and hearing the TV on in our living room.  I heard the call of Bo Jackson's home run to put the Sox up and likely clinch the AL West.  I remember waking up the next morning and receiving the confirmation on the radio that the Sox had indeed won, via"WMAQ ALL NEWS 67" as I ate my breakfast before school.

How about all of the Sox games my Dad took me to, despite him being relatively indifferent to baseball or sports in general, because he was being a good dad.  We would park at what is now known as "Morrie O'Malley's".  I remember getting excited as we would walk down 35th toward the park, you knew you were close when you went under the railroad overpass and heard the street vendor's music.

Again, this is irrelevant to the conversation.

So you're from Chicago! What part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear that my motives are being questioned, so I'll share my experience.  However, I fully recognize that I'm just viewing a snapshot of the situation.

I've been a guest of this site for several years through my interest in the White Sox.  I've enjoyed reading news and having a consolidated place for information.  However, I've never felt I could add something material to the discussion, therefore, I never posted.

Since the Covid situation arose, I've continued to review this site and have also visited another completely unrelated forum based around an entirely different subject that interests me regarding travel.  Similarly, this forum also has a Covid related discussion.  When this situation began to gain steam in March, I noticed these two unrelated forums maintain a very different outlook and tone pertaining to the situation.  On the other forum, I notice there are many different viewpoints, some more optimistic and some more pessimistic.  However, within this forum, I have found an overwhelmingly pessimistic and defeated tone.

I've clearly been intrigued by much of the data I've cited suggesting the lack of correlation between strong "lockdowns" and reducing the impacts of Covid.  This research was largely spurred by my personal experiences.  I'm fortunate that both myself and my wife have been able to work from home with minimal interruption and our compensation has remained steady.  We are finding that we have actually benefited financially due to a significant reduction in expenses.  I'm very aware that is not the case for many and it concerns me.  My immediate family and I are not in an at-risk population, however, we have been largely following all recommendations.  In the early weeks, we completely ceased visiting our places of work, avoided all gatherings, and effectively only left the house for groceries and outdoor walks.  My children did not see their grandparents, cousins, friends, etc for three months.  Like most, we have relaxed these restrictions since mid-May while still being careful.  We follow guidelines, wear our facemasks, and have avoided large gatherings.  I only began returning to my office on a once-per-week basis beginning this month despite my employer providing me the freedom to come as I please (we are considered an essential business and legally could have maintained full office levels).

I have had a few experiences with Covid.  I had a family member pass and it was deemed a Covid death.  However, this family member already had a terminal illness and it is unlikely they would still be with us absent Covid.  I've shared similar experiences with colleagues who have lost family members with similar stories.  Although it was classified as a Covid death, the person was unfortunately already severely ill and unlikely to make a recovery.

I work with clients throughout the country, what I've found interesting is that I regularly work with a client who works out of an office in Manhattan while residing on Long Island.  Throughout this entire experience, they have consistently maintained that although serious, the situation in New York is far more calm than the news media would suggest.

My wife runs a charity focused on a completely unrelated health issue.  We are fortunate to have several physicians part of our program, including one emergency room physician who has treated Covid patients.  They were even frequently quoted in the media in early April regarding their experiences.  At the onset, this physician was extremely careful when visiting our home; they would avoid entering, would stand at least ten feet from us while wearing a mask, and even asked us to place the birthday gift we got their son on the ground so they could separately pick it up and avoid contact with us.  However, by mid-may, this physician was comfortable entering our home without a mask and carrying on a conversation.  They indicated that based upon their experience, Covid was much less dangerous than initially feared for most of the population and they felt most of the lockdown was unneccasry.  What stands out to me is that through our relationship, we know we are on different ends of the political spectrum, yet this was her feedback.  Shockingly, we are still good friends despite having opposing political views.

I also have had conversations with a friend who is an anesthesiologist.  Similarly, they believe the lockdown was an overreaction.  However, I place less weight in this viewpoint because they maintain a similar political outlook as I do.

I've also unfortunately had a more distant family member attempt suicide during these events.  Although I have no idea what he was thinking prompting him to take that action, I can't help but suspect it is related to the lockdown.  I do know that I'd like to buy the exterminator who fortunately found him a nice dinner as appreciation for saving their life.

These experiences cause me to question the true cost of the lockdown, from health impacts, social impact, economic impacts, etc, they are endless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice follow-up day, still going strong. No uptick from protestors yet.

25500 tests, 589 positives. slightly above yesterday with 5k fewer tests, but still just a 2.3% positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bmags said:

nice follow-up day, still going strong. No uptick from protestors yet.

25500 tests, 589 positives. slightly above yesterday with 5k fewer tests, but still just a 2.3% positive.

Do you have any info on contact measures being put into place in Illinois? I haven't seen much about that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAUCI: "One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are, for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable, they just don't believe science."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

FAUCI: "One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are, for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable, they just don't believe science."

[STARES SCIENCELY AT PRESIDENT]

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bmags said:

nice follow-up day, still going strong. No uptick from protestors yet.

25500 tests, 589 positives. slightly above yesterday with 5k fewer tests, but still just a 2.3% positive.

You can thank my daughter for one of those negative tests. Her physician's office made her get one before theyd see her for an appointment. 

The entire process took 2 minutes and we received results within 24 hours. She said it was pretty painful though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Do you have any info on contact measures being put into place in Illinois? I haven't seen much about that yet.

so yeah i just found this. I thought when the grant money was released in early june this process would be much faster:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-cook-county-contact-tracing-20200611-twzam6xpa5fctjg6pyhog7qid4-story.html

 

Quote

 

Joshi said the county currently has 25 people involved on contact tracing, which to date has been focused on vulnerable communities including minorities and those in congregate care settings such as nursing homes and homeless shelters. About 375 more people will be hired, for a total of 400.

For now, though, only program supervisors are being hired, and actual contact tracers won’t be hired until late July and won’t be in place until early August. They will be hired in groups of 50 people to 100, a process that will be completed sometime in the fall, he said.

 

 

I can't do that math, if 400 was needed for 60% of cases in the fall...that's what 4% of cases are being traced currently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

You can thank my daughter for one of those negative tests. Her physician's office made her get one before theyd see her for an appointment. 

The entire process took 2 minutes and we received results within 24 hours. She said it was pretty painful though. 

yeah, was going to say I had it a few weeks ago. I was pretty impressed but not fun for a kid I'd imagine. Hope saliva tests become more available by fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Texsox said:

It is more nuanced than that. What Texas Governor Abbott did was make it impossible for local governments to make a law requiring individuals to wear a mask. What local governments can do, and the governor agreed, is make laws requiring businesses to require masks for customers and employees in their stores. He gets to keep his personal choice GOP street cred while allowing local mayors to run their cities. Best of both worlds. 

 

2 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

Abbott's approach is certainly better than Ricketts, I'll give him that.

It's worth noting...he specifically blocked anyone from requiring masks including for businesses until yesterday when a judge from Bexar county pushed him on it and he just said "oh wait we should really allow this as we're in deep s***" so he pretended he's been allowing it all along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

 

It's worth noting...he specifically blocked anyone from requiring masks including for businesses until yesterday when a judge from Bexar county pushed him on it and he just said "oh wait we should really allow this as we're in deep s***" so he pretended he's been allowing it all along. 

That's my judge. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

I'm still curious what article you copy-pasted these bullet points for since the Nature paper Balta links doesn't contain the phrase in the quotation marks, doesn't mention Sweden at all and states their IFR as 0.75%.

No copy and paste job though:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

Please refer to their supplementary information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×