NO FANS AT CYCLONE GAMES?
- Thread starter iowa_wildcat
- Start date
This person obviously has a science background but he has also been a continual go to guy from the panic reporting media. The first thing that I notice is at the bottom He makes the statement " if we assume a mortality rate of 1%". We are no where near that mortality rate. That has been debunked for a long time and why is he using it?
I can also post an interview early on where he was touting a 2% mortality rate. Why not get information from someone using correct current data or maybe even better who had a handle on it in the beginning and called 2-3.4% mortality rates b.s.?
How about some people that want to report accurately and not cause panic like Josh Ketter who on March 17 2020 put out an article calling the inflated mortality rates unreliable? Alex Berenson on Twitter, or Dr. Eran Bendavid who was head of the Stanford study who was much closer to the mortality rate.
As a country we have ramped up over 300k tests just last week alone, it is expected that case numbers will go up. States cant stay closed forever so it is expected that cases will go up.
However, wasn't the whole goal of this was to flatten the curve and reduce stress on the health system? The goal was never to stop the virus because it is impossible. That is only achievable through herd immunity and vaccines and even then it isnt 100%.
I have a hard time even paying attention to the total new count of cases because it doesnt really matter. Someone with a runny nose could test positive.
The total new admissions to hospitals is whats most important, which those numbers have been trending down even though positive cases have been going up. That is a good sign.
this.. what reason would they be testing me for at this point with some of their requirements they put for the testing....
yep basically spent the next few weeks basically in bed dead tired after work as well.. fiancee had some mild symptoms right before hand as well.
it's even funnier with some one riding a motorcycle with one of the blue masks on...
I would say that really is good though.... means it's not as bad as they were saying it is/was then. yes more wide spread but then the death rate is even way lower for it.....
Why is this not a positive overall and not a negative?
"If true, the estimate would suggest the percentage of U.S. deaths from the disease is lower than thought. More than 120,000 Americans have died from the disease since the pandemic erupted earlier this year.
The estimate comes as government officials note that many new cases are showing up in young people who do not exhibit symptoms and may not know they have it."
"We have heard from Florida and Texas that roughly half of the new cases that are reporting are people under the age of 35, and many of them are asymptomatic," one official said.
Question, If half of the infection rates are from people that will exhibit asymptomatic or low effect from the virus, why are we not happy with those results? These are the very people we want to see getting the virus.
My stance isn't a political one, instead it is logical. You can't prevent a virus from spreading. If you could, we would have done something to prevent the common cold or seasonal flu. Its unavoidable. Eventually most will get Covid. Thats reality and its foolish to think that it will just stop. Flattening the curve still has the whole population of eventual infected people within it, it is just spaced out. Also, yes Covid contributes to deaths, but the vast majority of deaths have pre-existing conditions that gets compounded with Covid. The actual number of deaths due to Covid alone is very small when you look at the data. Herd immunity will ultimately need to take place and then everyone's immune systems will ultimately become stronger.
I don't have interest in political discussions.
We haven't really attempted to stop the spread of the cold or the flu.
Several studies have determined the best chance of possibly stopping the spread is to limit the size of gatherings, practice social distancing, wear a mask, wash your hands and implement contact tracing.
I don't know if it is or is not inaccurate but it seems plausible. If the virus was here sooner than thought and is very contagious, we should have more numbers. If the virus is very contagious but is typically asymptomatic or have a very mild affect in most younger people it is even more likely.
Those individuals were not getting tested previously and now are in larger numbers. Some plausible explanations are required testing from employers and seeking out medical procedures previously put on hold. Some are reporting current cases are including those that test positive to have already having the virus.
It’s impossible to talk like you do and claim it’s not political. It’s obviously political as the decisions being made regarding public health are from politicians and their public health advisors, etc.
Young people don’t live in isolation, at some point they will give it to others in the community who are not young and healthy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...d-cdc-says/ar-BB15Y9Dp?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
This Reuters article that was posted previously gives us some potential answers to your question.
The officials, speaking to a small group of reporters on Wednesday night, said the estimate was based on the number of known cases, between 2.3 million and 2.4 million, multiplied by the average rate of antibodies seen from the serology tests, about an average of 10 to 1.
"If you multiply the cases by that ratio, that's where you get that 20 million figure," said one official.
***This would actually be a good thing. Some explanations could be the virus has been here longer than thought or could we still be way off in the number of infections in younger age groups that will be asymptomatic or have mild effects.
"Officials said young people with no symptoms, but who are in regular contact with vulnerable populations, should proactively get tested to make sure they do not spread it."
"We have heard from Florida and Texas that roughly half of the new cases that are reporting are people under the age of 35, and many of them are asymptomatic," one official said.
***We should monitor the increase in those states. We should not immediately jump to panic because this may be the very people we want to be exposed to the disease. It is important to continue to have those in older age groups especially with existing health conditions to continue to take caution.
So whats a better solution?
Everyone in lockdown, or those that are older and have known medical conditions? We now have good evidence there is very little risk to those under 50-60. Even in some of those older age groups where there is not a serious medical condition, the results are not near as severe.
So nobody should be going to football games? Or fill the stadiums with people that have typically exhibit asymptomatic or mild results from the virus?
Yeah Houston has no worries at all.
https://www.khou.com/mobile/article...ents/285-83f938cc-3911-4446-bd26-360ef22d00b2
All young asymptotic people while their icu nears 100% usage.
https://www.khou.com/mobile/article...read/285-aad0788d-256e-4454-8e3f-87f9c7956680
https://www.khou.com/mobile/article...ents/285-83f938cc-3911-4446-bd26-360ef22d00b2
All young asymptotic people while their icu nears 100% usage.
https://www.khou.com/mobile/article...read/285-aad0788d-256e-4454-8e3f-87f9c7956680
Do we know the risk of long term cardiovascular damage yet? We certainly know large gatherings have substantial impact as super spreader events.
Do we know that for sure in outdoor settings? Do we know for sure the virus isn't weakening in terms of virility?
