Balta1701

This one was from Ohio:

And yet how many prizes are there for drug development? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents

Texas governor, whose state is 49th in the US in testing per capita, issuing orders now allowing reopening of state parks, opening of all retail businesses for pickup.

That's one where I can say I'm a little content for our government to not be involved, at least this government. Every company that has expertise in doing those things is already racing on this, with some plausibly hopeful signs that they might be able to cut time off that 18 month schedule.

Got it. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52313715 That's exactly what our government needs to be saying in order to make a reopening possible. Even if all you get is the 20% who say "open everything now" going out and trying to do stuff, combined with businesses where low-income people have no choice but to go to work when ordered, that's more than enough to create an extra peak.

The Singapore version is basically our "phase 1 opening".

Because there aren't enough tests to actually do that. Best of luck man, some of us are in the same boat.

They shouldn't even be attempting to release "outlines" of how things are going to reopen right now but that's all they're talking about, and multiple states and governors are going along with it, including mine. They're even getting pushback from the businesses that they want to have reopen because the businesses know it is dumb. And yeah, there's a really good chance right now that things are still getting worse in places that can't be tested because the US is running out of testing supplies. I can't find a good article on it, but yesterday or two days ago (what is tiem now anyway?) the UK government outlined not a plan for reopening, but instead outlined what the situation needed to be before reopening was considered, including available tests, widely available hospital beds, ability to track and trace. That is what we should be releasing right now, not a reopening plan - the requirements we have to meet in order to actually open businessees, because you can't correctly plan reopening until you set the standard for when it is going to happen. Finally putting people on the streets, "Liberate virginia protect your second amendment rights" "Liberate Michigan" - those demonstrations and rallies that the President is now encouraging, they will serve as great transmission points to make this last even longer. This is a specific action that is going to do damage right now, making this worse, without even trying to reopen everything.

Every so often there's an early 90s bulls game repeat on TV and OMG he is so good at this.

If you want to look on the bright side, at least the people they tested it on didn't immediately develop severe heart conditions.

You realize why that won't happen? Because that sets the precedent that large prizes for successful treatment and companies not having patent monopolies is something we will do. You're suggesting a reasonable way around an industry that extracts hundreds of billions of dollars every year. The drug industry will light the hospitals testing the drug on fire and burn them to the ground with the people it was tested on inside before they will allow that.

Because the person in charge of 1 party and all of his loyal subjects will lose money and they're tired of that.

They're going to kill a lot of people.

For the Bears? No they shouldn't be interested, because while they have a need at that position, they have so little draft resources and they're so near the cap that they simply aren't a fit right now. They need to be finding guys in the draft who are cheap and under control for 4-5 years with the handful of selections they do have.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/04/us-coronavirus-outbreak-out-control-test-positivity-rate/610132/ Here's that argument considered in more long form and they seem to consider it plausible.

1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/15/834497497/antibody-tests-for-coronavirus-can-miss-the-mark Not possible to know what test they're using from that report, but here's published examples from the US of tests that would produce that number of false-positives. If your test had a specificity of 97%, and it returned 3% false positives, then almost every positive test would likely be a false-positive. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/998974/immunity-passports-cornavirus-antibody-test-outside/ 2. They may very well have that included, but it is imposisble to know from the article you've cited. It cites "unpublished data from the blood bank" being used, but you don't know who did the study, you don't know if it's publishable, you don't know the motivations of the person citing that number. Without full details of of the test used, the knowledge right now is that many of the antibody tests are of moderate quality or worse, return several percent false positive numbers, and the numbers reported in that study are right in the range one would expect based on the false-positive rate.

The caution on most of the antibody tests have been that the false-positive rate is something like 5%, so depending on the test that was used, there's a good chance that almost all of those are false positives. It's probably not a coincidence that the percentage falls right where you'd expect based on almost all the positives being false.

In order to make this work, there would have to be a rapid agreement between the owners and the Union on how to interpret contracts, revenue, service time, viral safety issues, all that stuff. This is one of the reasons why, even if we're not sure how it would work, to make it happen at all they need to be currently working on possible plans, because every one of those things would need time to work out. Maybe our strategy should be to start zoom-bombing every call we can find until we finally have someone wind up in a room with the commissioner...

1. Having more aisles and more merchandise at those stores draws extra stuff in which raises the chances that 1 person is infected. 1 infected person touching the wrong things can lead to 10 more cases. You can’t shut down food or health supplies, but your garden is not worth someone’s life. 2. I have never been in a kayak or canoe with 10 people. I have been in small motorized boats with like 10 family members. Repeatedly. i don’t know if those were part of the ones issued yesterday or if those were issued a while ago, but there’s no perfect way to do this. You’re trying to think through all of human behavior in every industry in like 3 days. Some stuff won’t make sense as written but it will address one specific situation that someone asked about. With 2 years to prepare maybe you write a different rule, but right now, overdoing the restrictions is way smarter than leaving one path too weak and winding up infecting the wrong person.

WTF? Seriously how have you never seen a poll?

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/scottie-pippen-says-he-was-fired-bulls-advisor-role?amp&__twitter_impression=true

And that’s why Sweden has the most deaths in the world. Wait... You did see the article I posted of a thousand antibody tests in Telluride and 8 positive results total right?

There's a protest right now in Lansing, MI over the governor's stay at home order. There was another one in North Carolina today. Some of the people in their cars wound up blocking an ambulance in the process. I'm guessing that this sort of "reopen stuff now!!!!" becomes a much bigger issue in the next week or two.

There's so many anecdotal/initial studies of people in China who have tested positive months apart now that I would be surprised if the mild cases offer yearlong immunity.

At the very least, I think we can say with confidence that New York is no longer doubling its cases every 2-3 days. That would continue showing up to the hospitals if it was growing at that rate. There also seems to be good evidence that Washington and California have at least limited their growth, and I saw an argument yesterday that Washington might be the first area to see fewer than 1 new infection per sick person - the level required to have number of cases start to go down over time. It is however plausible that you could have infections building in an area like Texas where there are population centers and very few tests per capita, or in prisons and immigrant communities, and those would not yet be hitting hospitals and morgues so they could remain much more hidden. Also worth noting is that it is possible for us to flatten the curve, but be nowhere near the downside. If distancing measures in New York make it such that the number of cases grows at 5% per day, then you have successfully flattened the curve and limited the explosion, but you would still have many months of increasing infections.