k2aggie07 said:

---

Well yeah.. don't trust anything an anonymous person on TexAgs posts.

---

ya think?

tysker said:

---

Good stuff especially with the error bands fully shown.
Interesting that NY was categorized as 'Full Lockdown' even though schools, retail, parks and transportation in NYC was slow to be closed. Are the Likely Under Control results due to the lockdown or simply because the virus has run its course in those locations and is past it's peak?

---

Got me. TBH, I didn't follow much if any of the explanation just saw the graphs that noted each state and the corresponding downturns. Those graphs seem to me to reinforce the findings of the Israeli scientist that the virus follows a pattern no matter where the outbreak occurs. The peak times and the downturns come at roughly the same time periods vis-a-vis the date of introduction of the virus to the population. IOW, this virus has its own life cycle, so to speak.

But I'm a retired lawyer, not a doctor so maybe I'm misreading the data points and connecting the wrong dots.

What would be a "lot" of people dying post reopening?

50K more?
200K more?

I know some of the media is starting to sniff at this...and yes it does matter...but it is looking more and more like the Wuhan"wet market" was the proverbial red herring. And no this is not a conspiracy theory. There are actual videos out there on the internet of Shi Zhengli (the Wuhan virologist aka the bat lady) in symposiums describing the unique "design" of a potential virus that matches Covid-19. A doctor at the time at the Pasteur Institute even commented on the danger and asked "why would you do that?" i.e. Cobble together in a lab several aspects of different viruses to make a more contagious/deadly one. Not sure why a lot of the press initially chose to/continues to ignore this.

Announcement from Santa Clara County...

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-04-21-20-early.aspx

Deaths were much earlier than the first reported death in the United States in late February.

From my perspective, it would also appear that the virus made its first appearance in the United States well before January 19th.

Umm. Then link the actual videos

Stlkofta said:

---

Announcement from Santa Clara County...

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-04-21-20-early.aspx

Deaths were much earlier than the first reported death in the United States in late February.

From my perspective, it would also appear that the virus made its first appearance in the United States well before January 19th.

---

Wasn't the later introduction a core assumption of the modelers? I don't recall a lot of discussion questioning that.

We knew we had community spread in Washington in mid January (guy came on Jan 15). Very likely the epidemic began from multiple seed points around that time.

The big argument was whether "last fall" we had cov2 going around (we didn't).

That you know of....

2014

Seriously.

Flag him from trolling and move on.

You left out the number of Ebola cases, deaths, and it's contagion rate. Troll.

houag80 said:

---

That you know of....

---

The first patients in Wuhan didn't present until early December. That's well documented by sources that have no interest in ChiCom propaganda, so it is credible.

If you think this thing was going around last fall, you would have to reject the idea that it originated in Wuhan.

Shanked Punt said:

---

You left out the number of Ebola cases, deaths, and it's contagion rate. Troll.

---

Left out the mode of transmission too. But we can go over this **** all damn day. You're a notorious troll that gets smacked down more than Tina Turner after Ike on a bender. Same ****, different day, but yet staff lets you persist for some reason.

Yeah, can't figure it out either. He is a ban generator, so there's that.

Focus is lost. The COVID presents only 1 problem to solve for America. Hypothetical models show possibility of exceeding hospital.bed capacity. Problem has been solved and we know now how to solve the problem. Testing did not solve the problem and has no impact on hospital/bed capacity. The monitoring that needs to continue is the realtime monitoring of hospital/bed capacity. Positive tests only provide data for guessing the affect on hospital/bed capacity. This guessing is why we continue to kneecap the economy.

Any recovery plan including testing will ruin the economy MOAR.

Quote:

---

The monitoring that needs to continue is the realtime monitoring of hospital/bed capacity.

---

but that's a massive lag. by the time you get a upwards trend in hospitalizations, there's a substantial risk that it's too late

and we can't and won't do this sort of lockdown again. this was a one shot deal.

you do the surveillance testing so you are weeks ahead of the uptick in hosptializations and you can do pinpoint hyperlocal quarantines

cone said:

---

Quote:

---

The monitoring that needs to continue is the realtime monitoring of hospital/bed capacity.

---

but that's a massive lag. by the time you get a upwards trend in hospitalizations, there's a substantial risk that it's too late

and we can't and won't do this sort of lockdown again. this was a one shot deal.

you do the surveillance testing so you are weeks ahead of the uptick in hosptializations and you can do pinpoint hyperlocal quarantines

---

There is no data showing a massive lag and data shows nationwide citizen lockdown not required again...for anything.

You run into a chronological problem using only hospital beds as what to monitor.

Because by the time you realize you need more beds, there is already a larger number of patients infected and then you're fooked.

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

absolutely

but you still want to test

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

---

Oh, so you want to test everyone in and around the nursing home? Because people work there and they go home to their families at the end of their shifts. They're not closed systems.

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

---

Oh, so you want to test everyone in and around the nursing home? Because people work there and they go home to their families at the end of their shifts.

---

Did I say otherwise? Whatever it takes to protect the vulnerable. I guess I missed what the debate was about.

My point is first priority is protect the at-risk so we decrease hospitalizations. I am sure there are protocols being put in place, if not already.

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

---

Oh, so you want to test everyone in and around the nursing home? Because people work there and they go home to their families at the end of their shifts.

---

Did I say otherwise? Whatever it takes to protect the vulnerable. I guess I missed what the debate was about.

My point is first priority is protect the at-risk so we decrease hospitalizations. I am sure there are protocols being put in place, if not already.

---

law-apt-3g was saying the only thing we need to monitor is hospitalizations.

If you only do that, you will get overwhelmed before you have time to react.

you want to do both. you want to layer as many protections as possible so we can expanded economic activity as much as possible without epidemic spread.

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

---

Oh, so you want to test everyone in and around the nursing home? Because people work there and they go home to their families at the end of their shifts. They're not closed systems.

---

Can't nursing homes make it a closed system as needed? Necessity is still the the mother of invention. People are limitless in their creative solution when given freedom to do so.

Ironically just got fwd a text about wifes grandmother. 3 cases confirmed in her nursing home but they say not enough to mandate testing staff.

Wowza

tysker said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

---

Oh, so you want to test everyone in and around the nursing home? Because people work there and they go home to their families at the end of their shifts. They're not closed systems.

---

Can't nursing homes make it a closed system as needed? Necessity is still the the mother of invention. People are limitless in their creative solution when given freedom to do so.

---

How do you make it a closed system?

FWIW:

Quote:

---

There are no patterns indicating a surge in the number of coronavirus cases in Wisconsin related to the state's controversial April 7 election, according to Andrea Palm, the secretary of Wisconsin's Department of Health Services.

Health officials in the state have identified seven cases of the virus that appear connected to the state's in-person primary voting. They are awaiting news on the seriousness of the cases.

The state's governor and Supreme Court clashed over in-person voting in the primary election amid the coronavirus pandemic.

---

LINK

We do not need mail in ballots in November.

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

There is TONS of data showing that hospitalizations lag infections.

People get exposed, they get sick, and then they get sick enough to require hospitalization. That can take well over a week.

---

There is also tons of information on the demographics of those who are at risk for hospitalization.

---

Exactly. Which is why if you only use hospitalizations as a metric, but the bug gets loose in, say, a nursing home, you're screwed. Because that will result in a massive surge in hospitalizations a week or so later.

---

So fortify the nursing homes. Is this not possible?

---

This. Or at the very least establish protocols. No nursing home employee or relative should be allowed to step foot in the facility unless they are screened and cleared/or have had it and now are clear and immune. This will truly save lives that shutdown folks are clamoring for, as this is statistically the preponderance of the source of deaths nationwide by my count.