ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1623 of 3903
« First < 623112315231573161316191620162116221623 162416251626162716331673172321232623 > 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]
'Hamas' Jenkins 09:06 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
So then what do we do?
I've stated what I think the best process is more than a few times, but there are a lot of things we're not doing that make that process currently unattainable.
[Reply]
petegz28 09:06 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You seriously underestimate the number of people in this country with underlying medical conditions. We are a very unhealthy society.
And we are seriously underestimating how many people actually have or have had this. We can't play it both ways.

I mean if it came out tomorrow that we somehow found out that say 40 million people had this would that change your perspective at all?

Or say even 20 million?
[Reply]
Marcellus 09:06 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You seriously underestimate the number of people in this country with underlying medical conditions. We are a very unhealthy society.
:-)
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 09:08 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
And we are seriously underestimating how many people actually have or have had this. We can't play it both ways.

I mean if it came out tomorrow that we somehow found out that say 40 million people had this would that change your perspective at all?

Or say even 20 million?
I would imagine around 20 million people probably have had it. In order to get herd immunity for this virus if the R0 is near 6, you need another 220 million people to get it.
[Reply]
petegz28 09:08 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I've stated what I think the best process is more than a few times, but there are a lot of things we're not doing that make that process currently unattainable.
If your answer is to just test on a large scale I say that can present a false sense of security. I don't understand the call for such testing at this point unless you can freeze everyone who is negative in place after they are tested until all those who were positive recovered.
[Reply]
petegz28 09:09 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I would imagine around 20 million people probably have had it. In order to get herd immunity for this virus if the R0 is near 6, you need another 220 million people to get it.
Oh I agree and I wasn't arguing about heard immunity. But it suddenly takes our CFR or whatever to what, .2% if 20 mil people have or have had it?
[Reply]
KS Smitty 09:09 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
How do you know if an entire meat packing plant is "sick"?
Originally Posted by O.city:
How would you know if they’re asymptomatic?
With reliable testing, which the lack thereof seems to be a major sticking point in opening things back up.

It's ridiculous that states have had to bid (against each other) on kits and supplies, there has to/should be an equitable way to ensure everyone has the tools they need to insure the safest easing of the current regulations.
[Reply]
Marcellus 09:11 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I would imagine around 20 million people probably have had it. In order to get herd immunity for this virus if the R0 is near 6, you need another 220 million people to get it.
Making the CFR .26%?
[Reply]
Ghost of Maslowski 09:14 PM 04-24-2020


https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/down...04242020-1.pdf
[Reply]
Marcellus 09:16 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by Ghost of Maslowski:


https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/down...04242020-1.pdf
66 people out of 10,600 with no underlying health conditions? 8,000 over 65?

:-)
[Reply]
petegz28 09:16 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by KS Smitty:
With reliable testing, which the lack thereof seems to be a major sticking point in opening things back up.

It's ridiculous that states have had to bid (against each other) on kits and supplies, there has to/should be an equitable way to ensure everyone has the tools they need to insure the safest easing of the current regulations.
Again, I think testing is being a bit overblown. We don't need tests to see our hospitals are obviously not overflowing. Don't get me wrong I am not against testing at all and think kits should be available but what is the strategy with testing at this point in regards to opening back up?

If I am sick I am staying home, especially right now. If I have symptoms I am being counted as positive even if I am not. I just don't see the correlation between testing and it being a requirement to opening things back up?

I mean, if you have an outbreak or are in a hot spot, you're gonna know without testing because there is going to be a run on the hospitals and doctors.

We are laying off doctors and nurses right now while at the same time we are being told we have to shut down so we don't overrun the hospitals.
[Reply]
petegz28 09:18 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
66 people out of 10,000 with no underlying health conditions?
Well I agree with Hamas that there are more people with underlying conditions than without. That being said yes, there cannot be a one size fits all answer to this.

People who know they are at risk are going to have to take more precautions than people who aren't. At least until effective treatments come around.
[Reply]
O.city 09:18 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I would imagine around 20 million people probably have had it. In order to get herd immunity for this virus if the R0 is near 6, you need another 220 million people to get it.
I just can’t see the Ro being that high. If it is and this thing has been here since early January I’d think it would have broke a while back

Surely it’s around 3
[Reply]
O.city 09:20 PM 04-24-2020
You test so you know where it’s at and can isolate those who test positive. Constant testing of a lot of people would work I just don’t know if we can get there
[Reply]
Marcellus 09:20 PM 04-24-2020
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Well I agree with Hamas that there are more people with underlying conditions than without. That being said yes, there cannot be a one size fits all answer to this.

People who know they are at risk are going to have to take more precautions than people who aren't. At least until effective treatments come around.
I dont even want to do the math but based on that data the CFR for people under 65 is probably less than your odds of killing yourself.
[Reply]
Page 1623 of 3903
« First < 623112315231573161316191620162116221623 162416251626162716331673172321232623 > Last »
Up