ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1227 of 3903
« First < 22772711271177121712231224122512261227 122812291230123112371277132717272227 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
banyon 11:35 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
A far simpler and more reliable solution would be to get serology testing out to the public and then if someone has antibodies and is fever and symptom free for X number of days, they are cleared to do whatever they want.

You can debate almost every aspect of our response to this but I find it hard to justify how little emphasis was placed on getting serology testing rolled out as soon as possible.
This is one of the best solutions. We need to ramp up the antibody test ASAP for the economy and critical infrastructure's sake.
[Reply]
Donger 11:36 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I have no idea who wrote the app or programmed the grading system but one must assume you know what a "C" grade implies.
So, you know nothing about it, but you believe the grade.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 11:36 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Explain this - the idea of social distancing is to flatten the curve, yes? And in flattening the curve, you lower the peak. Agreed?

Yet universally, in EVERY one of those models, the consensus was that by flattening the curve and lowering the peak, you push said peak out. Because of course you do, that's how mitigation operates.

And yet the peaks are moving in. MASSIVELY. By over a month in Missouri. Nothing about higher rates of social distancing would've caused that. Sure, it might yield lower overall figures but it wouldn't simply rush the peak forward by several weeks.
.
If you practice enough distancing to lower the effective R0 of the virus to less than one, you will reach a peak sooner with fewer cases because the virus is being transmitted to less than one additional person for every infection, and thus, cannot sustain itself past the incubation and convalescent period.
[Reply]
Bugeater 11:38 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
You know what grade Missouri had last week on the mobile phone tracking app for social distancing?
I deemed that thing useless when I saw it gave New York a freaking B.
[Reply]
dirk digler 11:38 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I'm not nor have I ever implied it was anything nefarious.

What's interesting is that the info on the virus we have been given from the start has been false, inaccurate, inconsistent, and or flat out wrong it seems like we have all stated at some time it's hard to know what to actually believe.

But if someone has a difference in opinion then obviously they must be wrong.

I don't think the info we have in regards to the actual virus has been totally wrong. It is a new virus that we are still learning about but we do know a couple of things such as it is highly communicable and deadly.
[Reply]
Marcellus 11:39 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
Do you want me to go back through your posts in this thread?
Knock yourself out.
[Reply]
BigRedChief 11:40 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Mecca:
This because Florida has handled it very poorly..
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Ok. So I’ve been rolling wheels pretty hard and haven’t paid any attention to, well, much of anything.

These numbers.... goddamn.
It's not only the governor handled it sooo bad, he was a total **** up with his response, its that he stopped local counties and cities from taking steps to protect their community. He went to court and sued counties and cities that they didn't have the authority to close a beach or order a stay at home order for their local city or county.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 11:40 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
You should have just type the math doesn't add up in all caps, much shorter and concise. :-)
I absolutely believe they underestimated the impact of social distancing. I just don't for one second believe it was due to some whimsical notion that people simply did what they said to do better than they said to do it. Especially when the first model that the rest of these modeling efforts seemed to spring from was assuming complete social isolation (as stated by its creator) and it's best case scenarios were still orders of magnitude worse than we've seen.

Nor do I think that's the only problem with them. I don't think we can even assume it's the MAIN problem with them.

I just think its laughable that they happened to put forward the one possible explanation that allows them to duck responsibility and pat people on the back (thus giving them pride in the outcomes and turning off their bullshit detectors) as the reason their models were completely worthless. Even after they refused to 'fix' whatever their claimed driver was after a week or more of clear information to the contrary.

Give the public a pat on the head and I guess they'll just lap up whatever you feed them.
[Reply]
Marcellus 11:40 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
So, you know nothing about it, but you believe the grade.
Take from it what you want. I dont give a shit.

Here is a simple google result form KC Star.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/coro...241497176.html
[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 11:41 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Explain this - the idea of social distancing is to flatten the curve, yes? And in flattening the curve, you lower the peak. Agreed?

Yet universally, in EVERY one of those models, the consensus was that by flattening the curve and lowering the peak, you push said peak out. Because of course you do, that's how mitigation operates.

And yet the peaks are moving in. MASSIVELY. By over a month in Missouri. Nothing about higher rates of social distancing would've caused that. Sure, it might yield lower overall figures but it wouldn't simply rush the peak forward by several weeks.

You fellas are so eager to take these guys at face value that it just blows my mind. Yeah, I'm sure the explanation they give, which just so happens to reinforce the thing they said to do anyway, was the right one. Nevermind the fact that there's an internal logical failure to it. Even when they showed 'social distancing vs. no social distancing' in their own models, the lowered peak was always further out. There was never an argument that any amount of social distancing, 20%, 50% or 100% would move the peak in.

This is the "I care too much" of interview answers. "We were just TOO right, guys. We knew how important social distancing was and look, the fact that we were off by enormous numbers even at the BOTTOM of our uncertainty curves just proves how right we were!!!" Oh, and the fact that we saw in real time that social distancing was going along at rates far higher than 50% for over a week, 'updated' our model twice in that period of time and STILL couldn't get within 1/4 of our claimed figures....nah, don't worry about that little guy.

FFS. Y'all shit on any study that uses SARS or MERS as a baseline yet the Imperial College model was nothing BUT an recycled SARS model. And it assumed total social distancing in its best case scenario (Ferguson swore by that when he was preaching his gloom and doom) - shockingly, the IMHE model tracked right along with it.

And now you're just taking their justifications, ones that just happen to make them look good despite being catastrophically wrong, at face value and assuming these kindly scientists and mathematicians who will absolutely be using their 'performance' as a basis for grants, etc... had clearly pure motives as they were rushing models to the front with literally no reliable real-world data.

Sure guys - you were just too damn right. Thank you, oh noble 'experts'. You've proven your worth in spades throughout this thing.
Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 11:42 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
If you practice enough distancing to lower the effective R0 of the virus to less than one, you will reach a peak sooner with fewer cases because the virus is being transmitted to less than one additional person for every infection, and thus, cannot sustain itself past the incubation and convalescent period.
You believe the R0 is presently anywhere near 1? And that it happened in, what, a week?

C'mon. You continue to overstate the ease in which you can drive a virus's R0 down to 1.

And again, how do you explain the fact that those models, even the best case scenarios with complete social isolation, DIDN'T do what you're saying would happen. They didn't bring the peak in sooner - they simply reduced it even flatter and for even longer.

The models that you're trying desperately to defend didn't even do what you claim is so facially obvious as to be beyond reproach.
[Reply]
AustinChief 11:42 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
If you practice enough distancing to lower the effective R0 of the virus to less than one, you will reach a peak sooner with fewer cases because the virus is being transmitted to less than one additional person for every infection, and thus, cannot sustain itself past the incubation and convalescent period.
You can also fit the data by increasing the assumed R0 and assuming a much higher infected rate and a much lower severity for the virus, that is what one of the UK models did. I have no clue which is correct but let's be honest and recognize that there are VASTLY disparate models that can fit the data we currently have. As we get more data that will obviously change. Serology tests would be a HUGE benefit right now in regards to having much more accurate data. (Yes, I'm going to keep beating that dead horse)
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 11:44 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Could your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a thesis paper I would.
You don't read it anyway so no, I'm not typing for the "hey, could you dumb that down so the 'arrest anyone that leaves their home' crowd can understand?".

Short enough for you sweetheart?

Don't wanna read it, don't read it. You won't offer anything useful in response anyway.
[Reply]
PAChiefsGuy 11:46 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You don't read it anyway so no, I'm not typing for the "hey, could you dumb that down so the 'arrest anyone that leaves their home' crowd can understand?".

Short enough for you sweetheart?

Don't wanna read it, don't read it. You won't offer anything useful in response anyway.
Im just saying you can be a little wordy in your responses something you admitted yourself. Do you really think anyone is going to read that longass post? Just some friendly advice
[Reply]
FloridaMan88 11:46 AM 04-08-2020
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website.
The post contains information not consistent with your desire to live in a continued state of hysteria so you should probably save your time/energy and continue hoarding toilet paper instead.
[Reply]
Page 1227 of 3903
« First < 22772711271177121712231224122512261227 122812291230123112371277132717272227 > Last »
Up