Coronavirus Information...who do you trust?

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2020, 07:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How did it spread so quickly? Asking for a friend.

Well, the university made the idiotic decision of bringing the student body back to campus. This causes the population of my city to increase by about 20k people and they are coming from all over the country, and the globe, really. Then, because this increase in population is predominantly consisted of 18-22 year olds that having fully developed the good decision-making part of their brains, they engaged in behaviors that increased the risk of exposure to the virus. Every fall semester, we have what we term the "freshmen flu," as it is a virus that spreads across campus because of this situation during a normal year. With a pandemic situation, there was zero doubt this virus would spread around campus.

We did not even last a full week before our isolation rooms reserved for students were full, which was the trigger for moving to online classes. Surprisingly, to me at least, the virus did not spread to the non-student population very much. That has changed some and could very well change more as things progress.

Anyway, here is the graph of the 7-day average of positive cases in my city:


We are seeing a slow down thanks to the move to online. Hopefully the administration won't make the mistake of bringing the students back to campus.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-15-2020, 07:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the university made the idiotic decision of bringing the student body back to campus. This causes the population of my city to increase by about 20k people and they are coming from all over the country, and the globe, really. Then, because this increase in population is predominantly consisted of 18-22 year olds that having fully developed the good decision-making part of their brains, they engaged in behaviors that increased the risk of exposure to the virus. Every fall semester, we have what we term the "freshmen flu," as it is a virus that spreads across campus because of this situation during a normal year. With a pandemic situation, there was zero doubt this virus would spread around campus.

We did not even last a full week before our isolation rooms reserved for students were full, which was the trigger for moving to online classes. Surprisingly, to me at least, the virus did not spread to the non-student population very much. That has changed some and could very well change more as things progress.

Anyway, here is the graph of the 7-day average of positive cases in my city:


We are seeing a slow down thanks to the move to online. Hopefully the administration won't make the mistake of bringing the students back to campus.

So what you’re saying is don’t send you sick students home so they don’t create an environment that is conducive to the spread of contagion after creating an environment conducive to the spread of contagion that got those students sick in the first place? Asking for my other friend.

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2020, 11:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So what you’re saying is don’t send you sick students home so they don’t create an environment that is conducive to the spread of contagion after creating an environment conducive to the spread of contagion that got those students sick in the first place? Asking for my other friend.

Man, I wish that was what we did. Instead, we told the on-campus students that they had to go home for the month (though about half sought out exemptions) which prompted articles in the national media that mentioned us doing the wrong thing because we were defying CDC recommendations on that.

[Mickeypoo]

How many of those people in the recent surge who tested positive died?

My opinion is unpopular. Protect the at risk population the best we can and Open fully with no masks.

[*Nately120*]

(09-16-2020, 10:08 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: How many of those people in the recent surge who tested positive died?

My opinion is unpopular.  Protect the at risk population the best we can and Open fully with no masks.

Opening fully with no masks and protecting the at risk the best we can seems like a conflicting statement.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 10:08 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: How many of those people in the recent surge who tested positive died?

Too many since these surges are predictable and preventable.

Quote:My opinion is unpopular. Protect the at risk population the best we can and Open fully with no masks.

The “at risk” population is anyone who breaths air. The increased risk population is protected by mitigation strategies you want to get rid of and if you get rid of them then you aren’t protecting the people you claim we should protect.

Again, I am willing to change my stance based upon data and evidence. Do you have any data that supports your opinion over leading medical experts who have opinions informed by formal eduction, training, and experience in epidemiology, infectious disease, and public health?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-16-2020, 10:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Too many since these surges are predictable and preventable.


The “at risk” population is anyone who breaths air. The increased risk population is protected by mitigation strategies you want to get rid of and if you get rid of them then you aren’t protecting the people you claim we should protect.

Again, I am willing to change my stance based upon data and evidence. Do you have any data that supports your opinion over leading medical experts who have opinions informed by formal eduction, training, and experience in epidemiology, infectious disease, and public health?

It's just my opinion and as I said, it's not popular.  With all due respect, "too many" is not a number.  Again, with all due respect, the at risk population is not "anyone who breathes air". 

I will try to explain my thought process on this.  Please don't hammer me as I am just being honest and already stated numerous times that I realize my opinion is unpopular.

Population is 325 million.  Death toll at 200,000.  200,000 / 325,000,000 = .00061% death

Nursing home deaths = 68,000+ and account for at least 40% of deaths.  Not just elderly, but elderly in nursing homes, so not out and about in the general population.
 
200,000 - 68,000 = 132,000       So general population of 132,000 / 325,000,000 = .00040% death

That is not even factoring in elderly not in nursing homes, elderly with comorbitities and any age group but with comorbitities.

With all that factored in, that number starts to get incredibly small and the number of healthy people that actually die from Covid is miniscule.  This is why I made the statement that the at risk group is not "anyone who breathes air".

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html#:~:text=More%20Than%2040%25%20of%20U.S.%20Coronavirus%20Deaths%20Are%20Linked%20to%20Nursing%20Homes,-By%20The%20New&text=At%20least%2068%2C000%20residents%20and,a%20New%20York%20Times%20database.

Cases.  6.61 million / 325,000,000 = .018% infected

https://www.google.com/search?ei=SRdiX6mMEciHytMP9-mU0A0&q=covid+casses+usa&oq=covid+casses+usa&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjoFCAAQkQI6BwgAELEDEEM6BQgAELEDOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToCCABQ0RZY1itghy5oAHAAeACAAUuIAbYIkgECMTeYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjp1Mf-5-3rAhXIg3IEHfc0BdoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

Based on those numbers, imo, it is insane to lock down, crash our economy, keep kids out of school, ruin livelihoods, etc.  And I have not even touched on all the ancillary problems and deaths that the lock downs have caused vs the Covid deaths themselves.  You can further break down that aspect quite a bit as well as the Covid numbers.

My opinion is that we should be fully open, no masks and targeted protection of the at risk groups.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2020, 11:44 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It's just my opinion and as I said, it's not popular.  With all due respect, "too many" is not a number.  Again, with all due respect, the at risk population is not "anyone who breathes air". 

I will try to explain my thought process on this.  Please don't hammer me as I am just being honest and already stated numerous times that I realize my opinion is unpopular.

Population is 325 million.  Death toll at 200,000.  200,000 / 325,000,000 = .00061% death

Nursing home deaths = 68,000+ and account for at least 40% of deaths.  Not just elderly, but elderly in nursing homes, so not out and about in the general population.
 
200,000 - 68,000 = 132,000       So general population of 132,000 / 325,000,000 = .00040% death

That is not even factoring in elderly not in nursing homes, elderly with comorbitities and any age group but with comorbitities.

With all that factored in, that number starts to get incredibly small and the number of healthy people that actually die from Covid is miniscule.  This is why I made the statement that the at risk group is not "anyone who breathes air".

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html#:~:text=More%20Than%2040%25%20of%20U.S.%20Coronavirus%20Deaths%20Are%20Linked%20to%20Nursing%20Homes,-By%20The%20New&text=At%20least%2068%2C000%20residents%20and,a%20New%20York%20Times%20database.

Cases.  6.61 million / 325,000,000 = .018% infected

https://www.google.com/search?ei=SRdiX6mMEciHytMP9-mU0A0&q=covid+casses+usa&oq=covid+casses+usa&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjoFCAAQkQI6BwgAELEDEEM6BQgAELEDOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToCCABQ0RZY1itghy5oAHAAeACAAUuIAbYIkgECMTeYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjp1Mf-5-3rAhXIg3IEHfc0BdoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

Based on those numbers, imo, it is insane to lock down, crash our economy, keep kids out of school, ruin livelihoods, etc.  And I have not even touched on all the ancillary problems and deaths that the lock downs have caused vs the Covid deaths themselves.  You can further break down that aspect quite a bit as well as the Covid numbers.

My opinion is that we should be fully open, no masks and targeted protection of the at risk groups.

Ok, so, let's pause for a moment and look at your numbers.

First, mortality rate is based off of the number infected, not the entire population. So 200k/6.61M is 3% mortality rate overall. I'm not sure why people have been continually trying to do that math differently, but it's getting old.

Then, your last figure of the infected population is just wrong. 6.61M/325M is 2% of the population, not 0.018%.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ok, so, let's pause for a moment and look at your numbers.

First, mortality rate is based off of the number infected, not the entire population. So 200k/6.61M is 3% mortality rate overall. I'm not sure why people have been continually trying to do that math differently, but it's getting old.

Then, your last figure of the infected population is just wrong. 6.61M/325M is 2% of the population, not 0.018%.

Preach.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-16-2020, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ok, so, let's pause for a moment and look at your numbers.

First, mortality rate is based off of the number infected, not the entire population. So 200k/6.61M is 3% mortality rate overall. I'm not sure why people have been continually trying to do that math differently, but it's getting old.

Then, your last figure of the infected population is just wrong. 6.61M/325M is 2% of the population, not 0.018%.

While I think it very important we correct the misinformation when it comes to the mortality rate, I believe he was refuting the point that those who are 'at risk' of dying from corona are "anyone who breathes air".  The number of people who breathes air in America would be the totality of its population. So him comparing the numbers of dead and/or infected to the totality of population is not wrong when refuting that point.

For the record, I don't agree with his opinion of just opening up with no restrictions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 11:44 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It's just my opinion and as I said, it's not popular. 

It may not be popular, but my opinion is 1+1=3. Just my opinion. Don’t have any evidence to back it up. Don’t hammer me on it. I’m just being honest.

Opinions aren’t created equal. There are informed opinions. There are uninformed opinions.

Quote:With all due respect, "too many" is not a number. 

You already question the numbers, even suggesting hospitals are committing insurance fraud. Do the numbers even matter?

Quote:Again, with all due respect, the at risk population is not "anyone who breathes air". 

With all due respect, this pandemic is due to a novel virus which means every human is susceptible or at risk of becoming infected. Unless they have already been infected and developed immunity. Immunity which has yet to be determined if it is transient or permanent.

Then there is the population at increased risk for death

You’re wrong. Not an opinion. It’s a fact.

Quote:I will try to explain my thought process on this.  Please don't hammer me as I am just being honest and already stated numerous times that I realize my opinion is unpopular.

Population is 325 million.  Death toll at 200,000.  200,000 / 325,000,000 = .00061% death

As Matt has already pointed out, this isn’t how it is calculated. Again, there are informed opinions and then there are uninformed opinions and the two aren’t equal.

Quote:Nursing home deaths = 68,000+ and account for at least 40% of deaths.  Not just elderly, but elderly in nursing homes, so not out and about in the general population.

How did those nursing homes get infected if they’re isolated from the general population?
 

Quote:200,000 - 68,000 = 132,000       So general population of 132,000 / 325,000,000 = .00040% death

Again, not even how this is calculated. If this was Thanksgiving, you would be sent back to the kids table.

Quote:That is not even factoring in elderly not in nursing homes, elderly with comorbitities and any age group but with comorbitities.

I put the statistic in the original Covid thread which has been archived, but something like 60% of the nation across all age groups has at least one comorbidity placing them at increased risks of death due to infection from Covid 19 to include kids and young adults. I’m not looking it up, but that’s where you can find it to check my memory.

Quote:With all that factored in, that number starts to get incredibly small and the number of healthy people that actually die from Covid is miniscule.

Not a single one of your calculations are correct. Now you have proven you have an informed opinion based upon misinformation. If your opinion is based upon misinformation then it is invalid.

Quote:This is why I made the statement that the at risk group is not "anyone who breathes air".

Again, it’s a novel virus that no one has immunity to and 60% of the nation has at least one comorbidity placing them at increased risk of death due to Covid 19. These are facts, not opinion.

Quote:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html#:~:text=More%20Than%2040%25%20of%20U.S.%20Coronavirus%20Deaths%20Are%20Linked%20to%20Nursing%20Homes,-By%20The%20New&text=At%20least%2068%2C000%20residents%20and,a%20New%20York%20Times%20database.

Cases.  6.61 million / 325,000,000 = .018% infected

https://www.google.com/search?ei=SRdiX6mMEciHytMP9-mU0A0&q=covid+casses+usa&oq=covid+casses+usa&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjIECAAQCjoFCAAQkQI6BwgAELEDEEM6BQgAELEDOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToCCABQ0RZY1itghy5oAHAAeACAAUuIAbYIkgECMTeYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjp1Mf-5-3rAhXIg3IEHfc0BdoQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

That’s known cases. What about the unknown cases due to a lack of testing? What about the CDC changing the testing protocol as recently as this month to further reduce testing for political purposes?

Quote:Based on those numbers, imo, it is insane to lock down, crash our economy, keep kids out of school, ruin livelihoods, etc.  And I have not even touched on all the ancillary problems and deaths that the lock downs have caused vs the Covid deaths themselves.  You can further break down that aspect quite a bit as well as the Covid numbers.

My opinion is that we should be fully open, no masks and targeted protection of the at risk groups.

Everyone of your numbers is wrong. Every. Single. One.

It would be like me giving one of your kids liver or kidney failure because I calculated the dose of their medicine incorrectly.

I respect your right to voice your opinion. But, let’s not confuse that with respect for the actual opinion based upon misinformation and faulty calculations giving erroneous results which ultimately = BS.

And you can’t make public health decisions based upon BS when “death is on the line.”

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 12:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While I think it very important we correct the misinformation when it comes to the mortality rate, I believe he was refuting the point that those who are 'at risk' of dying from corona are "anyone who breathes air".  The number of people who breathes air in America would be the totality of its population. So him comparing the numbers of dead and/or infected to the totality of population is not wrong when refuting that point.

For the record, I don't agree with his opinion of just opening up with no restrictions.

See my response.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-16-2020, 12:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It may not be popular, but my opinion is 1+1=3. Just my opinion. Don’t have any evidence to back it up. Don’t hammer me on it. I’m just being honest.

Opinions aren’t created equal. There are informed opinions. There are uninformed opinions.


You already question the numbers, even suggesting hospitals are committing insurance fraud. Do the numbers even matter?


With all due respect, this pandemic is due to a novel virus which means every human is susceptible or at risk of becoming infected. Unless they have already been infected and developed immunity. Immunity which has yet to be determined if it is transient or permanent.

Then there is the population at increased risk for death

You’re wrong. Not an opinion. It’s a fact.


As Matt has already pointed out, this isn’t how it is calculated. Again, there are informed opinions and then there are uninformed opinions and the two aren’t equal.


How did those nursing homes get infected if they’re isolated from the general population?
 

Again, not even how this is calculated. If this was Thanksgiving, you would be sent back to the kids table.


I put the statistic in the original Covid thread which has been archived, but something like 60% of the nation across all age groups has at least one comorbidity placing them at increased risks of death due to infection from Covid 19 to include kids and young adults. I’m not looking it up, but that’s where you can find it to check my memory.


Not a single one of your calculations are correct. Now you have proven you have an informed opinion based upon misinformation. If your opinion is based upon misinformation then it is invalid.


Again, it’s a novel virus that no one has immunity to and 60% of the nation has at least one comorbidity placing them at increased risk of death due to Covid 19. These are facts, not opinion.


That’s known cases. What about the unknown cases due to a lack of testing? What about the CDC changing the testing protocol as recently as this month to further reduce testing for political purposes?


Everyone of your numbers is wrong. Every. Single. One.

I respect your right to voice your opinion. But, let’s not confuse that with respect for the actual opinion based upon misinformation and faulty calculations giving erroneous results which ultimately = BS.

And you can’t make public health decisions based upon BS when “death is on the line.”

While his numbers may be wrong, I don't think they are going to change his opinion. 

My response to him would be to point out that the numbers that we do have now are where they are largely due to masking up and social distancing. Sure, not everyone is doing their part but most are. If we were somehow to go back the last few months and have no one wear a mask nor social distance, the numbers are going to be worse than what they are now, most likely far worse. 

The mortality rate may or may not change dramatically, but the total number of people infected will surely rise as well as the total number of people who died. 3% of 6 million may "only" be 200k, but 3% of 300 million is 9 million and while I think 200k is an unacceptable number, I would think that even Mickeypoo would find 9 million dead to certainly be too many.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 01:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While his numbers may be wrong, I don't think they are going to change his opinion. 

My response to him would be to point out that the numbers that we do have now are where they are largely due to masking up and social distancing. Sure, not everyone is doing their part but most are. If we were somehow to go back the last few months and have no one wear a mask nor social distance, the numbers are going to be worse than what they are now, most likely far worse. 

The mortality rate may or may not change dramatically, but the total number of people infected will surely rise as well as the total number of people who died. 3% of 6 million may "only" be 200k, but 3% of 300 million is 1 million and while I think 200k is an unacceptable number, I would think that even Mickeypoo would find 1 million dead to certainly be too many.

I agree with its most, if not all of what you wrote. Except a 3% mortality rate of 300M is 9M. Which would be much worse. That would completely overwhelm the healthcare system so in addition to the 9M expected Covid deaths there would be additional deaths unrelated to Covid due to lack of resources, man power, and triage decisions.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-16-2020, 01:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree with its most, if not all of what you wrote. Except a 3% mortality rate of 300M is 9M. Which would be much worse. That would completely overwhelm the healthcare system so in addition to the 9M expected Covid deaths there would be additional deaths unrelated to Covid due to lack of resources, man power, and triage decisions.

Thank you for correcting my math. You don't understand how much that bothers me. I pride myself in my math skills. To make that rookie of a mistake just ... GGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAHHHH!!!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 01:15 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I work at a Hospital in a very rural area and saw the results of the closing of both our in/out patient adult and in/out patient child psych units.  It was and is very sad.

So at this hospital, do they employ disease prevention strategies such as wearing masks, social distancing, limiting the size of groups, conducting virtual visits or meetings, etc to protect their patients and staff from Covid? You know, all the things you want to get rid of?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2020, 01:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Thank you for correcting my math. You don't understand how much that bothers me. I pride myself in my math skills. To make that rookie of a mistake just ... GGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAHHHH!!!

You work in a bank, dude.

[Belsnickel]

One of the things I think is a good visualizer for this whole situation is the "excess deaths" chart from the CDC. Something a lot of people may not know is that we can estimate, with fairly reasonable accuracy, how many deaths we will see in the country based on past trends.



Here we have the trend of deaths going back to January 2017. The blue bars indicate the observed deaths. The yellow line is what we had as the predicted about, meaning anything beyond that is considered to be "excess" based upon the predictions. You can see that we're pretty good at this math. There is a little bump, noted with those red plus signs, for the 2017-2018 flu season which was particularly bad, but otherwise we stay below the threshold that is predicted. Then the pandemic hits. Data is still being compiled for the end of August and early September, so we will see how this goes, but you can see that we have been experiencing these "excess deaths" since late March. We're currently trending downward, so let's hope it stays that way.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2020, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You work in a bank, dude.

My mother was a math professor and the number of times I've had to help her with math on the fly is hilarious.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-16-2020, 01:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You work in a bank, dude.

I already feel bad enough. Stop making it worse.