ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1484 of 3052
« First < 48498413841434147414801481148214831484 148514861487148814941534158419842484 > Last »
The Dumbass Lounge>***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]
TLO 12:17 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by notorious:
Just curious, what the total ban count is for this thread?
It was around 20, last I knew. But much like the IHME model, this isn't updated on a consistent basis.
[Reply]
Monticore 12:18 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by Donger:
The bump in coronavirus cases is most pronounced in states without stay at home orders. Oklahoma saw a 53% increase in cases over the past week, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Over same time, cases jumped 60% in Arkansas, 74% in Nebraska, and 82% in Iowa. South Dakota saw a whopping 205% spike.

The remaining states, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming each saw an increase in cases, but more in line with other places that have stay-at-home orders. And all of those numbers may very well undercount the total cases, given a persistent lack of testing across the US.
What is the population of South Dakota 27 people?
[Reply]
lewdog 12:21 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
It seems selfish that everyone has to social distance and shut down the economy to preserve hospital capacity mostly for people who don't take personal responsibility for their health with proper diet, not smoking, etc.
I take good care of myself, have never smoked, but have asthma. This is concerning for me and Coronavirus.

Fuck me though right?!
[Reply]
Dartgod 12:22 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by notorious:
Just curious, what the total ban count is for this thread?
22. We administered chloroquine to 18 out of the 22, but they all perished anyway.







Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, that was a joke.
[Reply]
Bwana 12:23 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by notorious:
Just curious, what the total ban count is for this thread?
Edit 22, I missed a line.
[Reply]
OnTheWarpath15 12:24 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
22. We administered chloroquine to 18 out of the 22, but they all perished anyway.
Originally Posted by Bwana:
16
FAKE NEWS!
[Reply]
notorious 12:26 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by TLO:
It was around 20, last I knew. But much like the IHME model, this isn't updated on a consistent basis.
We need the brains of CP to create a model thatís shows potential bans with and without the ignore function being used.
[Reply]
TLO 12:26 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
22.
Originally Posted by Bwana:
16
This must be part of the 95% uncertainty..
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 12:26 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by lewdog:
I take good care of myself, have never smoked, but have asthma. This is concerning for me and Coronavirus.

**** me though right?!
No, but you should be extremely careful, which I'm sure you will, when it does open back up and they should have policy in place to make sure you are accommodated as needed in the interim.
[Reply]
Bwana 12:27 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15:
FAKE NEWS!
:-)

My first count sure was!! I missed a complete line of outlaws.
[Reply]
Monticore 12:28 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by Bwana:
Edit 22, I missed a line.
Liar.
[Reply]
'Hamas' Jenkins 12:28 PM 04-17-2020
Just had a thought: over 17,000 people have died in New York state alone. The population of the state is 20 million. If 3000 more die and everyone is infected, the fatality rate would be 0.1. If 50 percent were infected, it is 0.2.

I don't see a scenario wherein the fatality rate is less than 0.3.
[Reply]
Bwana 12:31 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Liar.
Dartgod right Bwana wrong! :-)
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 12:31 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by kgrund:
Quite honestly, until you know the answer to that your first point lacks any context IMO. To be more specific you would want to know how many in NYC died of the flu on average each season in NYC.
New York City probably has fewer than 100 people under the age of 45 die of the flu annually, which I'm guessing is hamas's point.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
It's not 347 out of the total population that age, it's 347 out of the total population that age infected with COVID, and you know it.

I'd be interested to know how many people that age died of flu on average each season.
Well no, because you were off responding to the random appearance by a Mike Maslowski fan's post concerning the number of NYC deaths as a percentage of the NYC population.

If NYC reported ~118,000 cases as of yesterday and the under 45 population is 56% of the total, then confirmed cases in the under 45 population "should" be about 65,900 and I say "should" as in "that's understating by a huge amount."

If that's the accurate count of cases, then 0.5% of people infected by C-19 have died. I'd bet no other commonly communicable disease gets to the point of killing 1 out of every 200 people under the age of 45. If that death rate were extrapolated to the entire USA, then it's a few tenths of a percent higher than the annual car crash mortality rate for that same age group.

Odds are though there aren't 65,900 people under the age of 45 infected by C-19 in New York. It's probably triple that and then the 347 of that tripled amount of cases is about 0.18%. Does that match any other easily communicable disease? I'll go ahead and assume the answer is no.

But making sure it's fewer than 1 out of every 200 or 550 people in any particular age demographic dying from C-19 hasn't been main motivation as has been said from public health officials. The motivation is to prevent an overload of health care resources (particularly intensive care) by C-19 patients to the detriment of health care providers themselves and other patients needing those same resources. Ideally, more lives are saved with the efforts taken than they would have without since the broader health care system remains able to operate, yes, but not people specifically with C-19.

Have we succeeded at this? I say no. At the moment, most areas have prevented an overload of C-19 cases in their local health care systems. Key phrase being "at the moment." If C-19 is as easily transmissibleand yields X amount of deaths for every N of cases, then there has been no appreciable effort to ready the resources to accommodate an influx of cases. Manufacturers pivoted to create ventilators, but in this layman's opinion, I'd wager (if I didn't have such bad luck in that regard lately) that we're going to find out that intubating people makes as much sense as trepanating someone with a sinus headache but whatever. The medical conventional wisdom says ventilators are the last line of defense so I'll give us that so far.

But have we made efforts in many densely populated areas to isolate and treat C-19 cases outside of typical hospitals, meaning there's still a risk that a spike of cases will overload that area's health system? No. And to me, again as someone who isn't bearing a MPH degree and definitely isn't paid to be in a role with that type of competency, that should have been the top-down goal across the country. Testing and tracing? As a layman, it doesn't seem like testing matters barring some sort of miracle device that tells if one within 15 minutes of being test that they are infected with better than 68% certainty of a positive read AND HAS A negligible amount of false negatives.. and such a test must be used for that one person multiple times per day. Tracing? That seems more feasible but will necessitate an abrogation of civil liberties somewhere along the line, which means there isn't a point of me discussing this further in this thread.

So given we are still, at this moment, are perpetually 14 days away from a cascade failure of our health care systems across the country, the question then becomes "how long will 'shelter in place' mandates stay in effect?" Seems to me that the answer is "until there is a vaccine" and to me, that's not an answer since there isn't a guarantee a vaccine will even be effective in the first place.
[Reply]
notorious 12:31 PM 04-17-2020
Originally Posted by Bwana:
Edit 22, I missed a line.
Is this a record?
[Reply]
Page 1484 of 3052
« First < 48498413841434147414801481148214831484 148514861487148814941534158419842484 > Last »
Up