HappyDays
-
Posts
26,605 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HappyDays
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
If you don't have that kind of arrangement (which is everybody else), you don't get any money when you decide to take a year off.
And you get fired.
Yes, professional athletes do have more privileges than average people.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
Who wouldn't love to tell their employer they don't think it's a good idea to come to work this year.....and here's my winter address to send me my $150,000 salary!
They have to pay the $150,000 back next year out of their salary, they don't literally get paid to do nothing. No one making this decision is doing it for financial reasons.
-
53 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:
If I had to pick between resigning Milano and Edmunds, I'd choose Milano.
100% of offensive coordinators in the league would disagree. It's really difficult to create throwing lanes over the middle of the field with Edmunds standing there. His size in my opinion has actually made him UNDERRATED in the media. His impact doesn't show up on the stat sheet but his size and range means typical passing lanes are not there. Yeah he's probably below average at stopping the run. But he is already near elite status with pass coverage and that matters way more.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, mannc said:
I’ll see if I can find it. It was a pretty small sample, and included results from other countries as well, but the results nonetheless give a sense of the extent to which the public has been conditioned to believe things are far worse than they really are.
I'm going to guess there either was no such study or the source you got it from is misrepresenting the result.
-
Does this give Gase an excuse to keep the job in 2021? We can only hope.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, mannc said:
A recent poll showed that the average American believes that 9 percent of the population has died from COVID 19–that would be 30 million people.
I don't believe this. What is your source?
-
1
-
-
So he'll be suspended the whole season?
-
1
-
-
This is concerning with schools set to reopen in the fall.
20 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:Here's the study referenced above: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6931e1.htm?s_cid=mm6931e1_w
A total of 597 Georgia residents attended camp A.Median camper age was 12 years (range = 6–19 years), and 53% (182 of 346) were female.The median age of staff members and trainees was 17 years (range = 14–59 years), and 59% (148 of 251) were female.Test results were available for 344 (58%) attendees; among these, 260 (76%) were positive.The overall attack rate was 44% (260 of 597), 51% among those aged 6–10 years, 44% among those aged 11–17 years, and 33% among those aged 18–21 years (Table).Attack rates increased with increasing length of time spent at the camp, with staff members having the highest attack rate (56%). During June 21–27, occupancy of the 31 cabins averaged 15 persons per cabin (range = 1–26); median cabin attack rate was 50% (range = 22%–70%) among 28 cabins that had one or more cases.Among 136 cases with available symptom data, 36 (26%) patients reported no symptoms; among 100 (74%) who reported symptoms, those most commonly reported were subjective or documented fever (65%), headache (61%), and sore throat (46%).Staffers were required to wear cloth masks. Campers were not required to wear cloth masks. Campers had to provide documentation of a negative RT-PCR test taken <12 days before arriving and were assigned to "pods": "Camp attendees were cohorted by cabin and engaged in a variety of indoor and outdoor activities, including daily vigorous singing and cheering."
A 51% attack rate in age 6-10 is astoundingly high. A widespread contact tracing study in S. Korea during mitigation measures reported an attack rate of ~12% inside the home, with the highest attack rate occurring in children age 10-19 (~18%) and a low attack rate in younger children. But evidently when children are grouped together all day, the attack rate is much higher.
One does wonder if the attack rate would be lower had the Georgia CDC had access to test data on all campers, but even if it decreased by 50% it would still be a yike!ingly high 25%.-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, mannc said:
There is a ton of stuff out there on herd immunity at 20% or lower. This article cites one such study and explains why it may be lower than previously thought
.https://www.northsidesun.com/herd-immunity#sthash.WsvtUqBU.dpbs
The way that article describes the study is blatant misinformation.
The linked study is saying that to know what percentage would be needed for herd immunity, you would need to measure the variation of susceptibility in the population. As in different people have different probabilities of getting infected, and that variation in the probability would have to be factored in to the equation.
The study does not make the claim that herd immunity would be obtained at 10-20%. It says that assuming the best case scenario of susceptibility variation, herd immunity would be obtained at 10%. It does not claim that the best case scenario is reality. It says measures of individual variation are needed to find out for sure.
Here's an article on a more recent study that sought to do exactly that:
https://www.newsweek.com/herd-immunity-threshold-covid-19-could-just-43-percent-1512978
Their most optimistic prediction is 43%. We can't wait for anywhere near 43% of our population to catch the virus. That would destroy our health care system.
Here's something even more alarming:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650
One of the studies found that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 COVID-positive patients registered undetectable antibody levels within weeks of first showing symptoms, while the other of 74 patients found they typically lost their antibodies two to three months after recovering from the infection, especially among those who tested positive but were asymptomatic.
researchers compared the immune responses of 37 asymptomatic but positive patients to an equal number with severe symptoms living in the Wanzhou District in China. They found that asymptomatic individuals reacted less strongly to infection, with 40 percent having undetectable levels of protective antibodies in the two to three months after the infection compared to 13 percent of the symptomatic patients.So there is recent evidence that many carriers, especially asymptomatic ones, are losing their immunity in matter of weeks or months. That would ruin the potential for herd immunity to be reached at the requisite level.
The big takeaway here is we don't really know anything for sure. We're researching this thing fast as we can but it would be grossly irresponsible to reopen the entire country without mandates until we know it is safe to do so.
-
4
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
Are you saying that the science on the novel coronavirus is proven?
Furthermore, are you saying "catastrophic" deaths? Or "catastrophic" cases without the shutdown?
I am saying through epidemiology we know that letting the virus run naturally through the population would be catastrophic. That is not even up for debate. Catastrophe doesn't just mean deaths. It means the healthcare system gets overwhelmed like what happened in NYC at the peak. Obviously not every region would experience the same peak but many areas would become catastrophes.
8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:we still don't have a realistic picture of the death rate of this thing. If it had gone unchecked in society we would have seen it spread, obviously, but we don't know what the death picture would look like because even now we're seeing studies that show the death rate is substantially lower than what is being reported due to unreported cases.
Right, we don't know the exact death rate. That is an argument in my favor. We can't let a virus run rampant when we don't know exactly what it will do. As it stands there have been over 150,000 confirmed deaths and over 300,000 hospitalizations in the USA (obviously there is some overlap with those two figures). That is with the restrictions that we implemented before it really got out of control. We don't know the death rate but we know that what we've seen is the floor of what the virus could do.
10 minutes ago, mannc said:The governor’s discussion of herd immunity is way off. Many experts believe effective herd immunity with this virus is 20% or below, not 40 or 80%.
And you are vastly overstating the extent to which lockdowns are a proven scientific technique for controlling viruses. They had never been done before on anything close to this scale, and for good reason. Prior to CV 19, the CDC had recommended against such measures as a method of combatting viruses like this one.
Can you source either of those claims? How would 20% achieve herd immunity?
-
6
-
-
2 minutes ago, mannc said:
That’s highly debatable and not scientifically proven.
No, it is not. Many things are debatable. I like debating whether Josh Allen will be good or if the Bills will win the Super Bowl. Those are fun harmless debates. Epidemiology is not debatable. The effects of an uninhibited pandemic are proven science. No one can predict the exact numbers, but we know for a fact that it would be catastrophic.
5 minutes ago, mannc said:Many states and countries that imposed fewer restrictions have “performed” as well or better than counties or states that locked down harder.
I would like to see your source for this claim.
8 minutes ago, mannc said:And at any rate, it’s not an argument between zero restrictions and full lockdown.
I wish this were so. The easiest restriction, a national mask mandate, would likely be enough to re-open most of the country. Unfortunately a good portion of the country thinks that even that is too much of an infringement on their freedoms. I don't believe a full lockdown is necessary, but in the early stages when we were still learning about the virus it was an important step.
To illustrate some of this, here is a Twitter thread from the Governor of Mississippi a couple weeks ago. Make sure to read the whole thing:
His discussion of herd immunity is only somewhat related to what you're saying, but the deeper point of this thread is that if the virus spread uninhibited it would be a disaster for our healthcare system. He points out that even at the current levels, Mississippi's hospital system has been overwhelmed. That's with just 1.2% of their state population testing positive. Imagine if there were no restrictions at all. The case load would rise exponentially. In a matter of days or weeks the hospitals would be full. Extrapolate this to the rest of the country and you're looking at a national catastrophe.
-
9 minutes ago, mannc said:
In fact, I have two members of my immediate family who have been severely impacted by the insane and scientifically unsupported forced school closures, business closures and travel restrictions. Do they count too? Are we even going to consider them? I'm guessing there are many more people like me than there are people who have close friends or family members who have died from CV19.
Regarding the bolded - the reason for that is that the travel restrictions and closures have limited the virus's spread. The alternate choice was leave everything open as normal and allow hundreds of thousands of people to die while overwhelming the healthcare system. It's unfortunate people are being affected, but I guarantee the resulting economic collapse of an uninhibited pandemic would have been many many times worse.
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
So this isn’t really the thread for keeping track of voluntary opt outs, I see....
I'm voluntarily opting out of this thread
-
1
-
4
-
1
-
-
Wow with Chung also opting out, their defense from last year has been gutted. Their offense will take a lateral step at best. This is definitely our year, please don't screw it up.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:
And just to clear, show me where that tool came up with the case counts...what site was he using, what data etc was he using etc.
More info is at the full link:
The data source is apparently the National Governors Association.
More to the point, my original post said that if we had instituted a national mask policy early on we would have gotten it under control. I don't think the data I'm showing does a good enough job of showing that. This data shows how we're able to get an ongoing outbreak under control. And in one sense you're obviously right - at this point it is a little too late for one policy to end the pandemic. These things needed to be done before it turned into an outbreak. If states can lower their new case rate by an average of 25% with one simple policy, imagine what we could have done if we had instituted that policy well before we had thousands of new cases per day.
-
2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:
you posted data from June 24, i posted data from today!
But California was already included in the original analysis I posted as one of the states with a full mask mandate. And at that time it already had an increase in cases. The trend I posted was already taking that into account. If you have a multi-state study that shows a different result, please share it.
-
33 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:
Not my job...but here ya go . Yep, they sure look like they have fallen off a cliff! @HappyDays
BTW, just to clear, both well over 100% growth in new cases since June 10th, the baseline date for the bogus tweet
I have multiple responses:
1) A multi-state study is more effective than single-state because it has a higher sample size. Pointing out one state that exists outside of the trend does not dismiss the trend entirely. That was the purpose of the initial analysis I posted.
2) California's mask mandate is omly about a month old. It is entirely possible that this was done too late and that they are still seeing lasting effects from the initial surge.
3) I found multiple articles that say most counties in California are not actually enforcing the law. In practice is more of a recommendation, and some argue the governor doesn't have the right to personally create a mandate like that. My personal thoughts on that argument aside, I would not consider that a good sample of a state that "mandates masks."
If you have a graph or link that differs from what I posted in total I would like to see it. You don't get off the hook just because California is an exception to the rule. That isn't how statistics work.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:
Trump banned travel from China, and the left accused him of being a racist.
Is that true? I don't remember the left getting angry at Trump for banning travel as part of the pandemic response.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:
awesome to show a graph that is over a month old!!! Brilliant!!!!
That's the best you've got? How about you look at a list of states where cases have been on the rise for a few weeks now and let me know if you notice a trend.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:
That said, Trump didn't call it a hoax. I feel like that has been fact-checked enough that people shouldn't still be making that claim.
I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference between "it's a hoax" and "it will magically disappear on its own." But politics aside the real problem is that every state has its own policy. Without national mandates neither party would have been able to save us.
There was a time early on in the pandemic when I thought maybe in the long run this will be good for the country. Some day a disease that is literally an existential threat may hit our society. The larger our global population grows, the more likely that becomes. I thought maybe living through a relatively minor test run would force people to recognize that we need to listen to scientists and be prepared for this sort of thing in the future. But there are a bunch of people who think 100,000+ dead isn't really a big deal, or that the people who die would have died anyways, or that herd immunity will save us. It scares me a little.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, RiotAct said:
Just like that! Simple.
Yep, simple. Here's how simple it is:
Masks have been shown to be far and away the best method of stopping the virus's spread, short of social isolation.
Combine that with readily available testing to anyone who wants it and tracing those that test positive, we could have had this thing well under control by now. Instead we're still sputtering along.
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:
WRT the bold. We did. We had the best pandemic response system in the world. Someone threw it all away in 2018.
You can't help but wonder how things would be different if Trump wasn't president. But I don't know, I don't necessarily buy that Democrats would have solved the problem. There was zero chance of federal legislation that mandated masks nationally and I don't think the President has any constitutional standing to mandate them with an executive order. I think this pandemic belongs to the citizens of the country. Too many just weren't willing to socially distance and wear masks - many still aren't! As long as those people are here, no pandemic response would have been enough short of federal policy.
-
It blows my mind that we are one of the richest cilizatizations in history and we could not get this thing under control by now. How did we not have a procedure already in place? We could knocked the whole thing out in a month early in the year. Mandate that everyone in the country wear masks in public, make testing easily available and cheap/free, contact trace the positive tests. That's it. It would be all but eliminated at this point if we had followed those three steps for 3-4 weeks.
There are no contingencies in place if this sort of thing happens in the NFL. It's one thing for a couple players to get covid, but it if spreads within a whole team the season will be at risk. I can't see how they are going to make a 16 game schedule work at this point. It is logistically impossible.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, FireChans said:
That’s a far too simplistic way to describe it.
Your argument would support that the Dolphins should have considered trading pick 5 for Adams. After all, players over picks. However, we all know that’s nonsense, because the Dolphins were angling for a QB, and trading a first rounder on a depleted team devoid of talent for a solitary player who may or may not be retained is just not smart team building.
Also, a team that has agreed with your philosophy wholeheartedly is the Rams. They have believed players > picks and executed that plan for the last 3 years. I think they have been mostly right in their assessment, but I wonder your opinion on their future.
Sure that was too simplistic of me, it obviously isn't a universal truth. If you don't need the position upgraded or if you're looking for a QB or if you're putting yourself in cap jail because you make too many trades for players, then you are better off keeping the draft picks. I'm just talking about one off scenarios. In general if I have the choice between the great player or the draft pick(s), I'm taking the great player. The exception would be if I can't afford him or I don't need him. The Jets can afford Adams AND they need his position AND the draft picks they got back aren't the best value. It's easy for me to say they lost that trade. It's the same reason I say Diggs was a no brainer trade for the Bills with no downside.
Covid-19 discussion and humor thread [Was: CDC says don't touch your face to avoid Covid19...Vets to the rescue!
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
My son has autism so it is impossible for us to send him back to school. He would not be able to wear a mask for a whole school day. I'm thankfully in a good situation since my wife does not need to work and can stay at home, but I can't even imagine what other parents with special needs children are going to do. The school sends us packets on what we should be doing but I know he is not getting the education he needs right now so in that respect it's very frustrating.