Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corona virus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So please someone explain to me what June, and July look like, because right now I don’t have a clue?

    I live in California. I live in an area with around 1.5 million people and we have 41 confirmed deaths ( majority of those deaths over 65 with pre-existing issues).
    As of today no end in site for reopening. Many of my family and friends have lost jobs and businesses.
    Doesn't add up to me.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RunYouOver View Post
      To my point, that's why I'll keep any and all politics out of it (aside from this board being P&R free). I'll go by what I've heard firsthand, the friends who have been sick, the family members of friends who have died, etc. Everyone will acknowledge it's tragic that people are dying and that it's a bad virus, but it usually takes seeing it first hand to actually put it in perspective. I'm fortunate that none of my family or friends have died from it, but I have friends who are not as lucky. Can't confuse "it hasn't happened to me" with "it won't happen to me."
      I agree....the bigger and more varied "people net" one has, free of political stance, the more relative info we can accumulate, as individuals.

      Stay pos!! Stay healthy!!

      :thumb:

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 58Miller View Post
        So please someone explain to me what June, and July look like, because right now I don’t have a clue?

        I live in California. I live in an area with around 1.5 million people and we have 41 confirmed deaths ( majority of those deaths over 65 with pre-existing issues).
        As of today no end in site for reopening. Many of my family and friends have lost jobs and businesses.
        Doesn't add up to me.
        We’ve had good disagreements on football which don’t matter in the big scheme of things, especially in these times. It’s impossible to know what things will look like in June-July. Empathy to all those with health and/or jobs affected by Covid-19.

        Each state/locality is moving at a different pace depending on when the cases and deaths peak. In one state they used the “phased guidelines” as the way to assess re-opening. They are taking a data driven measured approach. They committed to stopping or reversing re-opening if the data indicates.

        I cited an example earlier from a restaurateur in Florida. They adapted with takeout and delivery to keep afloat. Meanwhile they’re using the time to demolish and reconfigure dining areas to accommodate the “new normal”. That’s just one example. As people and public officials see others leading the way they will hopefully follow.

        It’s become clear there won’t be a magical date in the calendar when everyone returns to the way things were.

        Hang in there and hoping your job remains in tact.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jason Sitoke View Post
          You are correct. LA county deaths are around 900. My mistake. Either way, my only point was that the 0.03% is wholly inaccurate.
          In that regard I was wrong. I am not trying to be dismissive of what you’re saying. I think this is a necessary dialogue. Lets say the number lies somewhere in the middle of 220k & 440k, that would put the mortality rate in LA county somewhere near .2%. Personally I fail to see how this data is political. As everyone knows politicians have made decisions based on the data they have, which in the beginning was largely hypothetical because China was deceptive and non-forthcoming. Now there is more data which suggests the early models presenting a 3-7% mortality rate were wildly inaccurate.It should be noted the #’s I’m referencing represent data from Southern & Central CA. There are many variances and also outliers. To find accurate data we need to remove outliers on both ends.

          To be clear I don’t believe if deaths are being reported without 100% accuracy that it represents a political motive. I believe it’s motivated by other things at their respective hospitals.

          I am also persuaded that social distancing would have been just as effective as shut in orders; Sweden as an example. Having said that it I am not taking a shot at Fauci because he had the same data coming out everyone else did which was almost exclusively hypothetical. Erring towards safety made sense at the time. My current concern is we wont adjust our plan going forward based on more accurate date opposed to the power of fear.
          Last edited by Al Wilson 4 Mayor; 04-26-2020, 12:27 PM.
          sigpic
          Thank you to my grandfather jetrazor for being a veteran of the armed forces!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor View Post
            In that regard I was wrong. I am not trying to be dismissive of what you’re saying. I think this is a necessary dialogue. Lets say the number lies somewhere in the middle of 220k & 440k, that would put the mortality rate in LA county somewhere near .2%. Personally I fail to see how this data is political. As everyone knows politicians have made decisions based on the data they have, which in the beginning was largely hypothetical because China was deceptive and non-forthcoming. Now there is more data which suggests the early models presenting a 3-7% mortality rate were wildly inaccurate.It should be noted the #’s I’m referencing represent data from Southern & Central CA. There are many variances and also outliers. To find accurate data we need to remove outliers on both ends.

            To be clear I don’t believe if deaths are being reported without 100% accuracy that it represents a political motive. I believe it’s motivated by other things at their respective hospitals.

            I am also persuaded that social distancing would have been just as effective as shut in orders; Sweden as an example. Having said that it I am not taking a shot at Fauci because he had the same data coming out everyone else did which was almost exclusively hypothetical. Erring towards safety made sense at the time. My current concern is we wont adjust our plan going forward based on more accurate date opposed to the power of fear.
            When the lock downs started all we heard was, “We have to follow science and the experts”. Now we’re getting data and learning more about what’s actually happened we’re not hearing much about science.

            Several here have provided some of the data. The data doesn’t provide all the answers but public policy makers can’t wait forever to begin making decisions. If people don’t like the data, challenge the analysis and/or provide evidence supporting an alternate view. It’s easier to just stay the course. Staying the course isn’t a plan.

            Here’s an interesting article from Dr. Scott W. Atlas. His thoughts and data help summarize and provide context for what many here have tried to express.

            The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

            The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

            Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

            Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

            The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.

            In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.

            Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

            Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

            We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.

            Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

            We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

            Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

            Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.

            Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

            The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.

            The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.

            Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

            Comment


            • I knew it was coming...my wife says it's time for her to "try" to give me a hair cut! I love her BUT.....

              Comment


              • letting your car idle is actually detrimental to the modern automotive engine, wastes gasoline, and causes environmental damage. Modern engines do not, in fact, need more than a few seconds or idling time before they can be driven safely.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • I should have expanded on what was listed:

                  A local auto expert said that it's a good idea to start your vehicle every 6 to 8 days and let it run for 15 minutes. making it less likely the battery will die. Recently there were a lot of dead battery calls. It was also suggested that folks add fuel stabilizer to the tank to prevent fuel from breaking down and damaging components.

                  Just some clarification.

                  I am not going to do so as frequently as suggested, but the point being made, if your battery is weak, and you have not driven much of late, you may want to think about it...maybe use a trickle charger.
                  Last edited by CanDB; 04-27-2020, 12:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CanDB View Post
                    I should have expanded on what was listed:

                    A local auto expert said that it's a good idea to start your vehicle every 6 to 8 days and let it run for 15 minutes. making it less likely the battery will die. Recently there were a lot of dead battery calls. It was also suggested that folks add fuel stabilizer to the tank to prevent fuel from breaking down and damaging components.

                    Just some clarification.

                    I am not going to do so as frequently as suggested, but the point being made, if your battery is weak, and you have not driven much of late, you may want to think about it...maybe use a trickle charger.
                    You can cut this idle time in half if you gently pull into your neighbor’s driveway and rev it hard up and down for 2-3 minutes. Early morning hours between 4-6am work the best because it’s cold outside and will prevent the motor from overheating.
                    sigpic
                    Thank you to my grandfather jetrazor for being a veteran of the armed forces!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor View Post
                      You can cut this idle time in half if you gently pull into your neighbor’s driveway and rev it hard up and down for 2-3 minutes. Early morning hours between 4-6am work the best because it’s cold outside and will prevent the motor from overheating.
                      I trust ya on that. Thought it might be a useful side topic, given how little some of us have been driving. Saw a car getting a boost the other day.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor View Post
                        You can cut this idle time in half if you gently pull into your neighbor’s driveway and rev it hard up and down for 2-3 minutes. Early morning hours between 4-6am work the best because it’s cold outside and will prevent the motor from overheating.
                        You have a naughty side.

                        Our neighbor has a muscle car. She doesn't need to be in our driveway. Fortunately, she doesn't rev the engine (I love the sound but at the track, not near my house. ).
                        Administrator

                        Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage

                        Lupus Awareness

                        "a semicolon is used when an author could've chosen to end their sentence, but chose not to. The author is you and the sentence is your life ; "

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
                          When the lock downs started all we heard was, “We have to follow science and the experts”. Now we’re getting data and learning more about what’s actually happened we’re not hearing much about science.

                          Several here have provided some of the data. The data doesn’t provide all the answers but public policy makers can’t wait forever to begin making decisions. If people don’t like the data, challenge the analysis and/or provide evidence supporting an alternate view. It’s easier to just stay the course. Staying the course isn’t a plan.

                          Here’s an interesting article from Dr. Scott W. Atlas. His thoughts and data help summarize and provide context for what many here have tried to express.

                          The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

                          The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

                          Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

                          Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

                          The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.

                          In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.

                          Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

                          Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

                          We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.

                          Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

                          We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

                          Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

                          Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.

                          Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

                          The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.

                          The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.

                          Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
                          This doctor makes too much sense! And he is using Science. I think I need to stop trying to make sense of all of this.
                          Here in Dr. Atlas own state the lockdown was moved another month (end of May). Stanford has always been one of the most respected names in medicine and now being ignored. SMH
                          Last edited by 58Miller; 04-27-2020, 05:26 PM.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 58Miller View Post
                            This doctor makes too much sense! And he is using Science. I think I need to stop trying to make sense of all of this.
                            Here in Dr. Atlas own state the lockdown was moved another month (end of May). Stanford has always been one of the most respected names in medicine and now being ignored. SMH
                            Very similar situation in our state and we’re scheduled to stay closed through June 10. There are still people managing the situation as if the original predictions had come true. People argue it was the lock downs that prevented the worst case scenario, but there is zero evidence to back that up. In fact, one analysis showed there hasn’t been a statistical difference between states with lock downs vs those with modest social distancing policies.

                            I’ve found it interesting to look at the county level data from Johns Hopkins:

                            https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
                              Very similar situation in our state and we’re scheduled to stay closed through June 10. There are still people managing the situation as if the original predictions had come true. People argue it was the lock downs that prevented the worst case scenario, but there is zero evidence to back that up. In fact, one analysis showed there hasn’t been a statistical difference between states with lock downs vs those with modest social distancing policies.

                              I’ve found it interesting to look at the county level data from Johns Hopkins:

                              https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map
                              Wow! Sorry to hear that, hang in there!
                              And thank you for the link I’m pulling it up now.
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 58Miller View Post
                                Wow! Sorry to hear that, hang in there!
                                And thank you for the link I’m pulling it up now.
                                I should add that our state is planning to use the three phase guidelines, so the June 10 date could adjust. We’ll see.

                                Fortunately In our county we’ve only had ~100 cases and nobody has died related to the virus. People have generally followed the guidelines but not to the letter of the law so to speak.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X