Daily Charts

610,417 Views | 2786 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by AggieUSMC
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gordo14 • 9:52a, 6/23/20
AG
Gordo14 said:
yukmonkey said:
Some humans are good at evaluating risk.

The majority are not and are fearful animals.


Really. In my experience humans are extremely overconfident and almost always underprice risk. The housing crisis being an absolutely perfect example. Or what's happening to unconventional E&Ps right now. I mean, I could go on for days on risk management, because that's a big part of my job.

But I'm sure you're brilliant at evaluating risk and not a fearful animal
And yet over time we continue to live longer and longer lives as we evolve to our surroundings.

Maybe we are on to something.
Reply Quote
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 9:56a, 6/23/20
AG
culdeus said:
kag00 said:
oglaw said:
Just watched Sylvester Turners pc here in Houston. Says in the last two days have had over 1700 positive cases. Then says testing on these cases was done between June 9th -17th. Can somebody remind me what was happening before and during that time?


I really want to understand the impact of the protests on the spike. This is key data as the spike appears to correlate exactly to the mass gatherings. If we can determine that the mass gatherings were a main driver (or not) it would be very informative for future risk mitigation decisions.
There seems very minimal evidence the protests caused anything. Mask usage and outdoor events together make it very hard to spread this thing (which was already known). Indoor vs. outdoor settings unmasked has 20x less spread out of a few studies now. With effective mask usage at 80% and outdoors it's entirely possible there is nearly no spread whatsoever. In this way the protests could really be used to drive policy to some extent (like football games and other sporting events outdoors could happen)
Huh? Where do you get that?

As for masks? EVERY single video I've seen has shown many without a mask on, or hanging down below their nose. No way I'd say 80% are using them, or at least properly.

Couldn't disagree more about nearly no spread whatsoever from these protests. That is illogical at this time. Many articles have come out refuting that. We can't sit here and blame floating the river outdoors and say protesters who are half assed wearing masks aren't an issue, too.
Reply Quote
5
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 9:59a, 6/23/20
AG
And just because the actual protest was outdoors it doesn't mean that's the only place you can get it. How many people carpooled to the protest? How many were arrested? Even outdoors, the sheer volume of people and interactions (shouting/fighting/etc) is bound to transmit the virus.
Reply Quote
1
HotardAg07
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:00a, 6/23/20
AG
Epidemiologists have been reporting 20-400 times lower transmission outdoors versus indoors. The epidemiologists I follow who have taken a swag at estimating the effect of the protests have concluded that it did have an effect, but likely something less than 5% of the overall total active case population.

The larger effect is the change in overall human behavior since the Phase 2 re-opening.
Reply Quote
5
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HotardAg07 • 10:04a, 6/23/20
AG
with all due respect, the outdoor events used to show efficacy of spread prior to the protests are not the same as the protests

so it's a little disingenuous to extrapolate playing in the park to being butt to nut in a chanting crowd

better to say we just don't know
Reply Quote
10
Beat40
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HotardAg07 • 10:06a, 6/23/20
HotardAg07 said:
Epidemiologists have been reporting 20-400 times lower transmission outdoors versus indoors. The epidemiologists I follow who have taken a swag at estimating the effect of the protests have concluded that it did have an effect, but likely something less than 5% of the overall total active case population.

The larger effect is the change in overall human behavior since the Phase 2 re-opening.
I don't understand this, because at the protests, people are right on top of each other. Can you please show some of what they're saying, because I'm really curious to read the reasoning.

My skepticism starts to pop because there were groups epidemiologists, as reported on the news, who basically said go protest, it's bigger than the virus and will not have an effect (paraphrasing on my part). The skeptic in me says they may be trying to cover themselves.

However, I genuinely want to learn. This seems like something that should be talked about quite a bit as generally good news.

Are they saying anything in regards to memorial day? Like, people people spending time outside partying are contributing minimally as well? Or are they saying it's mainly people spending time in bars?
Reply Quote
culdeus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 10:09a, 6/23/20
AG
beerad12man said:
culdeus said:
kag00 said:
oglaw said:
Just watched Sylvester Turners pc here in Houston. Says in the last two days have had over 1700 positive cases. Then says testing on these cases was done between June 9th -17th. Can somebody remind me what was happening before and during that time?


I really want to understand the impact of the protests on the spike. This is key data as the spike appears to correlate exactly to the mass gatherings. If we can determine that the mass gatherings were a main driver (or not) it would be very informative for future risk mitigation decisions.
There seems very minimal evidence the protests caused anything. Mask usage and outdoor events together make it very hard to spread this thing (which was already known). Indoor vs. outdoor settings unmasked has 20x less spread out of a few studies now. With effective mask usage at 80% and outdoors it's entirely possible there is nearly no spread whatsoever. In this way the protests could really be used to drive policy to some extent (like football games and other sporting events outdoors could happen)
Huh? Where do you get that?

As for masks? EVERY single video I've seen has shown many without a mask on, or hanging down below their nose. No way I'd say 80% are using them, or at least properly.

Couldn't disagree more about nearly no spread whatsoever from these protests. That is illogical at this time. Many articles have come out refuting that. We can't sit here and blame floating the river outdoors and say protesters who are half assed wearing masks aren't an issue, too.
It's such a small portion of infections that it's not really worth talking about except to point out that you could shape policy based on how few people got infected despite being in close quarters for extended duration and not in a fixed position.

There's a huge lesson to be learned from this. One that was staring all of us in the face for a long time. Masks (even half assed) + outside = no risk.

To flip this, if you really think masked protests are a major infection risk (which they weren't) then we should shutdown literally everything again and hide at home and pray because there is nothing, nothing that is lower risk than that where people are to come into contact with eachother.
Reply Quote
3
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 10:12a, 6/23/20
AG
It's ridiculous to see the mental gymnastics of defending mass protests while shaming people going to the beach or a park
Reply Quote
22
Beat40
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 10:13a, 6/23/20
culdeus said:
kag00 said:
oglaw said:
Just watched Sylvester Turners pc here in Houston. Says in the last two days have had over 1700 positive cases. Then says testing on these cases was done between June 9th -17th. Can somebody remind me what was happening before and during that time?


I really want to understand the impact of the protests on the spike. This is key data as the spike appears to correlate exactly to the mass gatherings. If we can determine that the mass gatherings were a main driver (or not) it would be very informative for future risk mitigation decisions.
There seems very minimal evidence the protests caused anything. Mask usage and outdoor events together make it very hard to spread this thing (which was already known). Indoor vs. outdoor settings unmasked has 20x less spread out of a few studies now. With effective mask usage at 80% and outdoors it's entirely possible there is nearly no spread whatsoever. In this way the protests could really be used to drive policy to some extent (like football games and other sporting events outdoors could happen)
New York said their contact tracers were not going to ask if people had been to the protest. Here's one article:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-contact-tracers-not-asking-people-attend-george-floyd-protest-2020-6

In Minnesota, the police said they were going to use "contact tracing" for protesters as far as police work. There has been quite a bit of push back in regards to contact tracing in Minnesota around the protests.

If those two places aren't asking, what about other cities?

I've seen articles that say contact tracing only works when we get peoples trust back regarding the protests and using the contact tracing to not arrest or investigate people who said they were at the protest.

My point is, how do confidently we know the protests had minimal effect? Can we be confident if places really aren't asking?

Is it kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts if we aren't willing to actually ask and figure out where someone became positive?

Finally, can you please post some stuff for me to read? As I told Hotard, I genuinely want to read and understand because this seems like excellent news that should be shared all over the place.

It should allow outdoor sports stadiums like most of baseball and football to be opened up with masks.
Reply Quote
1 edit
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 10:17a, 6/23/20
AG
um going into a crowd and staying there for an extended period of time even with a mask is higher risk than the beach

so there's plenty less risky than that
Reply Quote
15
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 10:19a, 6/23/20
AG
That's still an opinion. You can find many articles stating it would be hard to separate the protests from cases in areas where we are re-opening. To definitively claim the percentage either way is nearly impossible. IMHO, they likely caused more than you are giving credit for in certain conditions: In areas that haven't been hit as hard so far.

This continues to go back to my main premise that this has spread more than we realize in many areas. Places like texas where we had such a low rate of infections compared to some others? I think it's causing a decent deal of this, but that's opinionated and unknown. Heck, NYC and some areas won't even allow you to ask if someone came from a protest, making it impossible to trace. You are stating things so definitively some reason, though. Even though it's definitely not capable of being proven without some extensive research, and on the surface, to me, seems pretty illogical.

And no, your last paragraph makes zero sense to me. Shutting everything down versus having hundreds, if not thousands in close proximity is a huge leap. You don't have to shut down everything to keep thousands from being in one area together.
Reply Quote
1
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Beat40 • 10:22a, 6/23/20
AG
We don't confidently know. It's impossible to know. Those that want to push a political agenda for conservatives can come up with evidence that shows the protests caused quite a bit of the spike. Those that want to have a liberal agenda can pull up articles that say they didn't. But it's a near impossibility without honest tracing and really trying to get to the bottom of it all, which we all know will never happen/be allowed.

And I agree. IF true. IF the protests didn't cause much of anything, then there is zero reason to limit sports with cloth masks.
Reply Quote
2
Incorrect, sir!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 10:23a, 6/23/20
Quote:
Couldn't disagree more about nearly no spread whatsoever from these protests. That is illogical at this time. Many articles have come out refuting that. We can't sit here and blame floating the river outdoors and say protesters who are half assed wearing masks aren't an issue, too.

In DC, tens of thousands of people (mostly wearing masks) participated in protests in early June. The seven day average case count has continued to decline.

Reply Quote
2
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Incorrect, sir! • 10:27a, 6/23/20
AG
I'd also expect that DC had more non local protestors as well
Reply Quote
1
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:27a, 6/23/20
AG
people of a certain disposition are never going to grant the protests as being anything less than necessary and a complete non-event with regard to public health

just like people of a certain disposition are going to nitpick hospitalization increases and claim we're supposed to be looking at deaths instead, until the death count rises and then it's something else

it's all numbers on a page

from where i sit, you want to 1) wear masks in indoor public places, 2) strictly regulate places where people congregate in close proximity and talk for an extended period of time, 3) only shutdown the lowest hanging fruit and do so incrementally
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
TexasAggie008
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28a, 6/23/20
AG
So the same "experts" that say outdoor protests are fine also say outdoor stadiums and outdoor bars are fine ?! Perfect
Reply Quote
culdeus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 10:29a, 6/23/20
AG
beerad12man said:
We don't confidently know. It's impossible to know. Those that want to push a political agenda for conservatives can come up with evidence that shows the protests caused quite a bit of the spike. Those that want to have a liberal agenda can pull up articles that say they didn't. But it's a near impossibility without honest tracing and really trying to get to the bottom of it all, which we all know will never happen/be allowed.

And I agree. IF true. IF the protests didn't cause much of anything, then there is zero reason to limit sports with cloth masks.

Exactly. If the protests didn't spread this thing, then have sports. If the protests did spread this thing then don't at least in person.

People have been looking for evidence that in person sports is safe with/without masks, this is where you look to make that call.

Extending out from that there's no hope for schools if protests caused spread.
Reply Quote
1
cone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 10:30a, 6/23/20
AG
Quote:
Extending out from that there's no hope for schools if protests caused spread.
other than the economic imperative
Reply Quote
2
Phat32
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32a, 6/23/20
AG
So football then?
Reply Quote
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Beat40 • 10:34a, 6/23/20
AG
Beat40 said:
HotardAg07 said:
Epidemiologists have been reporting 20-400 times lower transmission outdoors versus indoors. The epidemiologists I follow who have taken a swag at estimating the effect of the protests have concluded that it did have an effect, but likely something less than 5% of the overall total active case population.

The larger effect is the change in overall human behavior since the Phase 2 re-opening.
I don't understand this, because at the protests, people are right on top of each other. Can you please show some of what they're saying, because I'm really curious to read the reasoning.

My skepticism starts to pop because there were groups epidemiologists, as reported on the news, who basically said go protest, it's bigger than the virus and will not have an effect (paraphrasing on my part). The skeptic in me says they may be trying to cover themselves.

However, I genuinely want to learn. This seems like something that should be talked about quite a bit as generally good news.

Are they saying anything in regards to memorial day? Like, people people spending time outside partying are contributing minimally as well? Or are they saying it's mainly people spending time in bars?
Because they, like all of us, literally* get dumber when we let partisan biases get in the way of rational thought.

*https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22105/833.pdf?
Reply Quote
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cone • 10:40a, 6/23/20
AG
Quote:
better to say we just don't know
Press Release and news article/headline writers don't get pad to say "Eh, we really don't know."
Reply Quote
1
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to culdeus • 10:41a, 6/23/20
AG
I could be completely wrong, but I've maintained for a long time now that I believe there has been a more rapid spread in areas than we realize with this thing, and a lesser death rate. In areas already past the peak, re-opening, protests, massive sporting events. All should be fine and not cause further peaks. This things spikes up quick everywhere that's let it get a little out of control, then reaches a peak and tends to drop slow and steady. No matter what takes place afterwards. No matter the differences in stances of masks, lockdowns, social distancing, etc. It's a fairly consistent and common theme in many areas/graphs. And then it never goes back up again. Could be it's reached most of the population that is highly effected by it. Could be antibodies, the thread about tcells, whatever. Could also be that some mitigation stances help as well. Probably a combination of all of the above.

That doesn't mean in areas that haven't YET hit their peak, like Texas, particularly Houston/Dallas and big inner cities, this isn't causing a sizeable portion of the current spikes. I just personally believe it's illogical to think otherwise with all the data in front of me. It's also perfectly logical to think the bar scene, nightclubs, floating the river and sharing drinks, etc., is also causing a lot of it. It can be a good combination of all of the above.

So the protests can cause a spike here in texas, but school/sports/etc., still be fine by August/September if we reach that peak and start trending downwards by mid July or early August. I think we will but only time will tell.
Reply Quote
Complete Idiot
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 11:25a, 6/23/20
GAC06 said:
It's ridiculous to see the mental gymnastics of defending mass protests while shaming people going to the beach or a park
It's also ridiculous to see people who have said for two months "open everything up we can't be afraid to live" now blaming protests as the main spread of a virus. In Houston, how many unique individuals attended protests over the what, 2 weeks?, they occurred? And since restaurants and other indoor establishments have reopened beginning back in May, how many unique individuals in Houston ate in a restaurant, visited a bar, shop, or grocery store, visited a medical facility, on and on. Do we really think more people attended protests then were inside buildings with multiple other people?
Reply Quote
8
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Complete Idiot • 11:36a, 6/23/20
AG
A) Very few on this board are saying open it all up with zero restrictions / guidelines. There's maybe 5-10 of those extreme types even on F16. Most understand we can't go crazy here.But yes, opening up 2 months ago with some restrictions seems like it would be zero difference in opening up today. Arguably not as bad without the protests at the same time in this state.

B) No one is saying that ALL other causes combined aren't greater than the protests. Of course more people attend restaurants/bars in an average day in Houston or Austin than protests. But one person being able to open his business in comparison to a 60k protest? Keeping people from floating the river, going to the beach, opening up a business, but then practically encouraging these protests at the worst possible time when we are trying to get back to relative norm? Seems absurd.

It can be all of the above, you know. Some are merely saying the protests absolutely have to be adding to the numbers and it's illogical to think otherwise. To what percentage, we don't know. We all expected some kind of spike upon re-opening. Just didn't know what that spike would be. Seems reasonable to me to think that the spike would be less severe thus far without them. But that's just my opinion.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
HowdyTexasAggies
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 11:47a, 6/23/20
AG
"But that's just my opinion." Its not just an opinion, its logic.
Reply Quote
1
beerad12man
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HowdyTexasAggies • 11:53a, 6/23/20
AG
I mean, it's what I consider logic.
Reply Quote
1
deadbq03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to beerad12man • 11:55a, 6/23/20
AG
beerad12man said:
A) Very few on this board are saying open it all up with zero restrictions / guidelines. There's maybe 5-10 of those extreme types even on F16. Most understand we can't go crazy here.But yes, opening up 2 months ago with some restrictions seems like it would be zero difference in opening up today. Arguably not as bad without the protests at the same time in this state.

B) No one is saying that ALL other causes combined aren't greater than the protests. Of course more people attend restaurants/bars in an average day in Houston or Austin than protests. But one person being able to open his business in comparison to a 60k protest? Keeping people from floating the river, going to the beach, opening up a business, but then practically encouraging these protests at the worst possible time when we are trying to get back to relative norm? Seems absurd.

It can be all of the above, you know. Some are merely saying the protests absolutely have to be adding to the numbers and it's illogical to think otherwise. To what percentage, we don't know. We all expected some kind of spike upon re-opening. Just didn't know what that spike would be. Seems reasonable to me to think that the spike would be less severe thus far without them. But that's just my opinion.
Both sides are playing mental gymnastics due to political biases. See my above post regarding how our biases make us unable to interpret statistics rationally.

There are plenty of people at my work and on here who are entirely attributing the uptick to protesters. That's literally the first and only thing out of their mouth when presented with the statistics.

Similarly, (as you rightly point out) there are plenty of folks who will point to everything else but the protests.

The truth is likely somewhere in between, but even if it leans heavily to one side or the other, we're all trapped in patterns of binary thinking about Covid because of politics.
Reply Quote
10
Phat32
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:31p, 6/23/20
AG
The hypocrisy of "stay at home or you'll kill grandma" being thrown out for political purposes is what threw this the wrong direction.

Without going down a F16 rabbit hole, that's the most concise way to frame it up.

The uptick is likely due to general relaxing of restrictions + people more active + we never really had an outbreak in TX.

NYC won't see a massive second wave because they took it in the nuts on the first one.
Reply Quote
3
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old Buffalo • 12:59p, 6/23/20
AG
Old Buffalo said:
PJYoung said:
Hospitalization capacity is the focus now.


Sort of.

Seems like it is?

From today:

Quote:
Marcus Aurelius 9:48a AG

Like many regions we are seeing a major increase in admits the last five days. Whereas our last surge was patients from local SNFs, now it seems most of these patients are transfers from smaller hospitals that are ICU overloaded and diverting. From smaller communities outside the region, including several hrs away. I believe this is not unexpected.

Marcus is in Alabama.
Reply Quote
1
Old Buffalo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PJYoung • 1:16p, 6/23/20
AG
Nice of you to stop reading after my first sentence.
Reply Quote
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old Buffalo • 1:24p, 6/23/20
AG
Old Buffalo said:
Nice of you to stop reading after my first sentence.

I read it all and appreciated your response.
Reply Quote
1
Gordo14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GAC06 • 2:36p, 6/23/20
GAC06 said:
You started a thread for an article claiming we may lose immunity in 2-3 months despite zero confirmed instances of someone getting the virus twice. Perhaps you're not so good at the risk management thing.


That's not what I posted. I posted an article about how people are losing antibodies in 2-3 months which doesn't bode well for long term immunity. For comparison MERS and SARS recovered patients have antibodies for upwards of 32 months. And most common cold coronaviruses have antibodies for 2-6 months. It was a reminder that herd immunity isn't a solution not about immunity lasting 2-3 months. I said as much at least 3 times in the thread. Great point though. Sorry, but ignorance and apathy aren't solutions.
Reply Quote
2
Aggie95
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gordo14 • 2:41p, 6/23/20
AG
What if a vaccine doesn't work or takes years to develop? At that point isn't herd immunity our only answer? I would also say herd immunity covers both, people not catching the virus, PLUS (and perhaps more important) a form of immunity that reduces the severity of the virus.
Reply Quote
1
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gordo14 • 2:46p, 6/23/20
AG
Gordo14 said:
GAC06 said:
You started a thread for an article claiming we may lose immunity in 2-3 months despite zero confirmed instances of someone getting the virus twice. Perhaps you're not so good at the risk management thing.


That's not what I posted. I posted an article about how people are losing antibodies in 2-3 months which doesn't bode well for long term immunity. For comparison MERS and SARS recovered patients have antibodies for upwards of 32 months. And most common cold coronaviruses have antibodies for 2-6 months. It was a reminder that herd immunity isn't a solution not about immunity lasting 2-3 months. I said as much at least 3 times in the thread. Great point though. Sorry, but ignorance and apathy aren't solutions.


That's exactly what you posted. The title of your thread was literally "evidence we might lose immunity within 2-3 months." Stop lying.
Reply Quote
4
Gordo14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BowSowy • 2:53p, 6/23/20
BowSowy said:
Gordo14 said:
yukmonkey said:
Some humans are good at evaluating risk.

The majority are not and are fearful animals.


Really. In my experience humans are extremely overconfident and almost always underprice risk. The housing crisis being an absolutely perfect example. Or what's happening to unconventional E&Ps right now. I mean, I could go on for days on risk management, because that's a big part of my job.

But I'm sure you're brilliant at evaluating risk and not a fearful animal
Your extreme pessimism is so tiring. It oozes out of every novel you post. Please take a break, dude.


Sorry if I hurt your feelings. My extreme pessimism about defending the merits and likelihood of a vaccine was probably also tiring for you. Ignore me if you want - I really don't care, but too many of y'all want this to go away, yet don't appreciate the seriousness of the situation - just look at the governor asking us to stay home thread. That is not a solution. You want this to go away and not be a problem... And I get that. But this isn't a media conspiracy. I just want some of you all to give a **** because that's how we have better outcomes. Unfortunately, I know it's hopeless because we have our internet badass reputations on the line.

I'm very optimistic that the outcome of a vaccine, and a well managed effort to get through this, but the biggest threat is that people don't take this seriously. I'm disappointed that the recent data isn't making you all take it seriously and instead many of you all have doubled down - just as many of you did on the death count and what happened in New York City.

There it was 2 paragraphs! Hopefully you haven't run out of mental stamina at this point.
Reply Quote
11
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.