GaryPinC

My only complaint is she needs to be less neat about it and spill some on her top.

@HaplessBillsFan "Ok, this one has me scratching my head. CDC travel guidelines have changed. They have dropped the recommendation to quarantine for 14 days when you return from travel: You may have been exposed to COVID-19 on your travels. You may feel well and not have any symptoms, but you can be contagious without symptoms and spread the virus to others. You and your travel companions (including children) pose a risk to your family, friends, and community for 14 days after you were exposed to the virus. Regardless of where you traveled or what you did during your trip, take these actions to protect others from getting sick after you return: Given this, and the fact that the CDC notes returning travelers pose a risk to those close to them for 14 days, the focus on "outside the home" and "other people who are not from your household" while removing the advice to quarantine, is puzzling to understand. The revision is from last week and has received relatively little press coverage. I could not find any interviews giving a scientific rationale for the change. Gentle reminder that if you're moved to discuss or expostulate, please copy the link to this post and discuss in discussion thread." I can't say exactly why, but I do know here in Ohio from someone who contracted Covid the DOH told her she could be spreading asymptomatically up to 48 hours before her first symptoms appeared and focused only on that time frame. It was interesting to me because they seemed to assume if you contract you will show symptoms up to 48 hours later. I've never seen any science behind this, so feel free to correct me, but if this is accepted practice it could partly explain why CDC is dropping the 14 day quarantine.

I have to disagree with you. I believe Harbaugh hurts Michigan more. They certainly are not among the elite for a good number of years since Carr. Carr's overall record was ok, but they had a knack for beating the SEC (7-2 in bowl games). Harbaugh was supposed to return UM to that level. He's failing miserably and I have a hard time blaming the university. I don't follow college ball too closely anymore, but it always seems he's having issues with the level of play of his QB's, defense, etc mid-season. There's articles like this (admittedly a bit dated) https://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2016/01/26/michigan-football-recruiting-jim-harbaugh/79352270/ All those crazy recruiting tactics end up looking pretty disingenuous when you're willing to turn around and cut good numbers of verbal commits Otherwise, I sat down to watch last year's OSU-MI game and Harbaugh showed me one of the most poorly coached team efforts I had ever seen. MI was disciplined enough, but base defenses, bland offense and zero adjustments to what OSU was doing. Not impressed with him as a coach these days. And Michigan's kind of stuck with him.

Well, if you really want to know why you feel you are in control of your alcohol while your friends are not, why not first ask your family if they feel your alcohol consumption is a problem? If the people who love you and know you best feel you're in control then you have your answer.

Holy hell. Others have been trying to tell you but you keep ignoring. HE DID NOT HAVE A BEER CAN BETWEEN HIS LEGS. It was in the side door and used for his dip spit. Easily proven by pouring it out. Whether the cops did the right thing or not I won't comment on as it's their judgement, but blowing a 0.00 and NOT having an open beer would change my perception.

Sure. You are making a big deal about 1. God -------------------> 2. People and I am just trying to help you understand that's really not how it works for most of us who are religious, I feel it is a misconception on your part. You generally seem open minded and have been respectful and that is always worth a shot to increase understanding.

Actually people are, but by a very small amount, not the wide margin you imagine. A big part of your relationship with God is how you express it through your love of people. He's also mentioned he's started to see things in a new light with all the conversations he's had and perhaps he'd like to do more listening and gathering of information instead of opinionating. What's wrong with that?

This is what he was quoted as saying: "There’s a lot of things going on and the last thing I want to do is get political in any sort of way, but I think the world would be a better place if we can love God first and then love people." So he immediately says that he's not really going to answer the question and simply says for him love God first and then people. For Christians of faith this is how it's taught to be, it doesn't mean he's saying "well God is more important than people anyway". Also, one of the biggest lessons of Christ was to love all people equally. I think it's his way of pointing back to that. As far as him deflecting, why shouldn't he? His texts were not a good look and now a certain subset of people will find bad in whatever he says. It's already happening on this thread, including yourself. At this point he needs to prove who he is through his actions and that takes time.

A good chance it's part of why he came here to practice before making the final decision. It's a given McDermott is going to have a strict system set up. Tre can take it all in and use what he's seen as part of the discussion. I certainly understand if he opts out but am hoping not. Also think with others he's hoping for that "23%" lol. So true.

I don't think so. Yes, they are only part of the solution but an important part. As I said I didn't disagree with what you are saying except for the laughable part. For me, it's ok for people to latch onto them as a solution, infinitely better than pretending it's all a democrat/left wing conspiracy.

No, you failed to understand what I was saying. I was saying from this description it sounds like Bundgaard's study focused on if masks self-protect. That is one facet of mask wearing, a more important one is that it protects others. If he finds a face shield is better self-protection it doesn't invalidate the utility of masks to protect others. If his study finds masks don't significantly self-protect, we should be careful not to condemn masks unless he also shows it doesn't protect others. But I absolutely mentioned he feels like people would eschew other self protection and over-rely on masks. That gibberish means us scientists go beyond variables and how data is collected. It deals more with scope and shortcomings of the entire study. I have tried to replicate data following exact methods in peer reviewed journals and come up short. Sometimes it's a problem on my end and sometimes it's a problem with their study. I was asking because there are many who looked at the data and did just that. Glad it wasn't you, but it happens all the time. You have a good point and so do they. Certainly once your baseline went down it's fairly routine epidemiological methods Shoshin was talking about. My apologies for misunderstanding your end of it. Haha. Nutty left wing extremists, nutty right wing extremists and me somewhere in the middle. I voted Trump too. Left wing snowflakes need their safe spaces, right wing snowflakes need their conspiracy spaces. Listen to 'em both howl and moan! No conclusive data evidence? So sometimes you're all about the hard data when it suits you and sometimes you're not? Certainly acquired immunity will help slow the spread. The problem is we haven't figured out the nature of the acquired immunity, what percent of post-infected have it and for how long? I don't know if you're familiar with R0. If not, here's a link that does a decent job without getting lost in the weeds. https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/rounds/how-scientists-quantify-intensity-of-an-outbreak-like-covid-19 There are a lot of factors to get our R0 under 1 and keep it there. Certainly the draconian Asians are the most effective. In the absence of that, masks, social distancing, hand washing, etc. take on extra importance with a novel virus like Covid. I don't argue with you that mask wearing is overstated at times. But to avoid lockdowns we need to take their use and the other measures seriously. Not wait until a family member or friend has their lungs damaged or even dies. It rubs me the wrong way that people overblow having to wear masks so much when it's so simple and helpful an act. Sorry if you got caught in the blow-by.

Yep, I definitely agree with you about the evidence of no resurgence so far. To answer the likelihood of the virus returning in March form, two things are important, was what NYC went through because lax preparation allowed undetected superspreading or was it an isoform of the virus that drove the R0 to become very high? Not sure we have enough captured data to determine that. You can argue either way on it, you can look at Michigan's journey (similar to NYC) vs Ohio or look at California and the south.

Thanks for the explanation, I'll have to dig deeper into that one. But again, acquired immunity is still a big unknown here and we're conducting so many infection tests not sure when we'll get good numbers on immunity. The virus is not gone from NYC. Rest assured of that. It could be eradicated but it requires an Asian persistence which we don't put up with sacrificing that many of our rights in this country. Also, one other big factor is your infection rate outdoors vs indoors. Certainly experts don't think it's that different but I respectfully disagree with them.

LOL, forgive my midwestern ignorance but what is the Hasids of Williamsburg? The rest? And these are only educated guesses. Incidence in NY is very low right now. If, loose behavior is as rampant as you describe, then the virus will come back up. As I said, we still don't know enough about long term immunity from this virus so it's certainly very possible that is tamping it down right now. Will it be long lasting? Maybe NYC will teach us then. BTW, I was up at Chautauqua 2 weeks ago. NY still has a lot of restrictions that help. This is a novel virus. It is highly infectious. Yes, the numbers tell us only a small percent of the population will have problems with it. But I don't want to have those kinds of problems nor to I want to be careless and inflict them on someone else. I go out to eat at bar/restaurants that are operating responsibly and am out doing my part to support responsible businesses.

You're certainly right about most everything except the laughable part. You keep at the efforts to control it until you get control then really need to use contact tracing to keep it under control. But even then people need to take the prevention steps. The baseline can come down, isolation and these other measures help that.

Look, I get your point, but there's going to be outbreaks in New York also, nearly everywhere unless we get, as Magox says, draconian about it. Certainly previous exposure (innate immunity) will play an as-yet-unquantified role but it's up to everyone to do their best to follow guidelines to limit the outbreak. You're comparing Sydney to Melbourne today? It could completely flip in a week, who knows?

Really? And why is that? If you actually dig into their rationale, it usually revolves around the fact that experts prefer people concentrate on hand-washing, social distancing, and self-isolation (like Bundgaard) or that many looked at the tiny size of the viral particle but failed to consider it would be spread on water droplets. Already, Bundgaard advocating for face shields means his study may have focused on if masks self-protect. I don't know, but when it comes out this needs to be evaluated so we can appreciate the full picture on the role of masks. There is ample proof masks help protect others when you are infected and with an asymptomatically contagious virus, that becomes critical. It is doubtful simple masks offer much self-protection and some experts worry people will falsely rely on it and won't be diligent in self protection. Your mask wearing helps protect others. "the virus is going to do what a virus does" Sure, except that we are trying to dilute what the virus is doing. Go look at data for S. Korea, China, Japan to see how it did over there. You're on here crowing about how you follow the data. In science, in an emerging area, you can't just follow the data blindly. Data is collected from studies, and studies have limitations and biases. Many different studies and forms of data from different investigators must be collected before drawing conclusions and even then we must be careful to reconsider if needed. Things look different now than they did at the beginning of March and will look different next year. You follow the data? Were you one of those proclaiming this thing wasn't as bad as the flu back in early March, ignoring the problem of comparing an emerging virus to an endemic one? Were you one of those in late June/early July proclaiming the outbreaks in Florida, Texas, Arizona were simply due to increased testing because deaths hadn't risen yet? Even though recent history shows deaths trails incidence of new cases by 1-2 weeks. Because there were plenty of those people even if you were not among them. You say you predicted this virus would have outbreaks again? Big deal, the controlling factor is how bad will it be, and our efforts to control the spread can have some say over that. I also predicted the re-emergence in Ohio. Why? Our hospitalizations never bottomed out enough before reopening, too many people were convinced it would go away with the warm weather and the nutty right wing extremists and younger crowd were going to try and return life to normal and ignore protective measures. Not difficult to predict. And guess what? There is no evidence "herd immunity" will extinguish the virus (recent international outbreaks point otherwise) or bring it under enough control until we get a vaccine. Anyone who truly cares about getting the economy going and returning a semblance of normal should realize masks, distancing, etc are critical to that until either endemic outbreaks remain small enough or a vaccine is proven and in the population. People want to feel safe when they go out to spend money, unfortunately we have to rely on each other for that and in the USA we seem to be terrible at making small everyday changes for the good of others.

My simple point with the graph is for those who scream and denigrate claiming the increase in cases is simply due to increased testing. That's without even citing New York, the facts of which completely oppose this opinion. Your point about the 30% is taken, however, given the delays in test results you would have to provide some evidence that the 30% did indeed test negative for Covid. It's a tricky virus and sometimes medical professionals have to use their best judgement. WRT temporary lockdowns, they delay and dilute the inevitable. Was it necessary? At the time yes, because so much was unknown. Now? No, though it's debateable because there's too many petty people who think wearing a mask is akin to ripping up the constitution instead of seeing a simple, temporary measure to help limit the spread of a public health threat.

Here's the hospitilization data from Ohio ( a few days old and has continued to increase through today) And my docs who work the ER here at Metrohealth in Cleveland tell me they've reopened the extra Covid and ICU space, definitely many more Covid patients they're seeing since June and younger (40s-60s) and definitely very sick. WRT new cases and testing, many more tests administered, positivity rate remains mostly the same (bottomed out in June, now very slowly rising). So you're correct that a large portion, though not all, of Ohio's situation is due to increased testing. However, hospitilizations have always told the true story so I attempted to make this graph nice and big for someone as willfully ignorant of the full story such as yourself. How ironic that you perceive an epidemic of morons.

I did, and my take from it was that provided there was no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the 911 call, the officer is allowed to simply pull over the car for a basic investigation. If I'm hearing your argument correctly, your concerns seem to be that the officer would issue a moving violation citation based solely off the 911 call? (speeding, reckless op) That doesn't appear to be the case, though Navarette vs Cali did not deal specifically with this issue. But getting back to EO, the police were allowed to simply pull him over to investigate the possibility of DUI/DWI based on the 911 call. Perhaps they did not observe or bother to observe him driving unsafely, or perhaps they chose not to cite him for unsafe driving behavior they did observe. I have called in a driver one time because they were driving so erratically it appeared they had to be DUI. I imagine when any driver 911 calls in another driver a high majority of the time DUI is involved, and perhaps police stop the car regardless of their observations. If they don't and the car is later involved in a DUI accident, that would seem unethical.

As are you. He provided a sound reference pages ago on a California case that was upheld by the US Supreme Court. Basically, as long as the 911 call seems legit and police ID the vehicle, they are allowed to stop it immediately and conduct a brief investigation. Doesn't say they can simply write a ticket based on the call, but they can pull it over at their discretion. I imagine if they want to get a reckless op or speeding, I'm betting they're going to wait until they witness it first. But simply put, he's right you're wrong. Sorry.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me, so thanks for enlightening. It's a question of what's reasonable. If 911 call says swerving , etc. I could understand if the officer was required to follow and witness the behavior to establish probable cause. My understanding is that you can't just get a search warrant purely on an anonymous tip. You have to investigate specific assertions and justify the validity of the tip before getting a warrant, right? So I could see those being parallel arguments for what's reasonable but certainly allowing the officer to stop the car in question and do a brief investigation is reasonable when you consider the consequences of impaired driving and road rage.

You're right, disagreers are clearly wrong. Police are allowed to make a brief investigative stop based on a reasonable 911 call.

Well, if you feel there is a person driving so erratically, they could cause a serious accident or injury why would you NOT call it in?

LOL, I too know it's not just whites. And let's not get started about how wrong white males are. But sometimes it's best to shut up and lead by example.