Covid-19 discussion and humor thread [Was: CDC says don't touch your face to avoid Covid19...Vets to the rescue!

[The Dean]

15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

and the ones where it looks like 30% are in masks...depends what picture , and who took it. 

 

I am all in on the protests and that wearing a mask, as I have stated been wearing one indoors since late March. But i also understand the opposing point of view. 

 

It is funny how NYC contact tracers are not allowed to ask if one has attended any demonstrations..

 

 

Can they ask if the person has been anywhere with large groups of people?  If so, wouldn't that be satisfactory without knowing the purpose of the gathering? I'm not sure the purpose has any bearing on the outcome. 

 

[plenzmd1]

2 minutes ago, The Dean said:

 

 

Can they ask if the person has been anywhere with large groups of people?  If so, wouldn't that be satisfactory without knowing the purpose of the gathering? I'm not sure the purpose has any bearing on the outcome. 

 

https://www.thecity.nyc/coronavirus/2020/6/14/21290963/nyc-covid-19-trackers-skipping-floyd-protest-questions-even-amid-fears-of-new-wave

 

BTW, i don't think the rates will spike, and i am thrilled about that. As mentioned, while i personally did not participate in any protests, my kids attended several here in Richmond and i highly encouraged their participation.

[The Dean]

11 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

https://www.thecity.nyc/coronavirus/2020/6/14/21290963/nyc-covid-19-trackers-skipping-floyd-protest-questions-even-amid-fears-of-new-wave

 

BTW, i don't think the rates will spike, and i am thrilled about that. As mentioned, while i personally did not participate in any protests, my kids attended several here in Richmond and i highly encouraged their participation.

 

 

I take no issue with them not asking people if they attended a protest for George Floyed/BLM (or any other protest) or a political rally (for Trump or any other politician).  However, I would have added a question asking if they have been in any large gatherings where they might not be familiar with the all the others in the group.

 

And I also support joining the marches and protests, but I DO expect more Covid cases related to them and other large events. Oh, and if you are protesting, I'd also advise "Wear a Mask!"

[plenzmd1]

Just now, The Dean said:

 

 

I take no issue with them not asking people if they attended a protest for George Floyed/BLM (or any other protest) or a political rally (for Trump or any other politician).  However, I would have added a question asking if they have been in any large gatherings where they might not be familiar with the all the others in the group.

 

And I also support joining the marches and protests, but I DO expect more Covid cases related to them and other large events. Oh, and if you are protesting, I'd also advise "Wear a Mask!"

yea, its not in that article, but where do you draw the line? OKay to ask "have you been to any religious services?" ..hard to know the right answers

 

I am ever so hopeful that being outdoors was a real detriment to the spread...good for so many reasons.

 

[The Dean]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

yea, its not in that article, but where do you draw the line? OKay to ask "have you been to any religious services?" ..hard to know the right answers

 

I am ever so hopeful that being outdoors was a real detriment to the spread...good for so many reasons.

 

 

I don't think  it matters WHY you were in contact with a large number of people, so I wouldn't ask a question that way. It's good enough (I think) to know IF not WHY. Asking a well constructed question about if a person has had contact with any large gatherings should be good enough. If they test positive, the venue of the contact would be helpful as well, of course. But I don't see any real line to draw here, other than that.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

yea, its not in that article, but where do you draw the line? OKay to ask "have you been to any religious services?" ..hard to know the right answers

 

I am ever so hopeful that being outdoors was a real detriment to the spread...good for so many reasons.

 

 

I would think "have you been in contact with a large gathering of people in the last 14 days" would include religious services?

The wording would probably need more thought

[Jauronimo]

 

[SinceThe70s]

10 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

 

 

I just came across this (Phillies outbreak):

 

https://nypost.com/2020/06/19/phillies-have-major-coronavirus-outbreak-at-spring-training-facility/

[BillsFan4]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/31-thoughts-breaking-major-nhl-awards-races/

 

Some interesting stuff from Elliotte Friedman’s 31 thoughts. I posted the Sabres related stuff in the NHL thread, but didn’t want to potentially derail the Sabres thread with covid talk so I figured I’d post this part here.

 

Quote

Broadcast compatriot Kevin Bieksa caused a stir when he went on Sportsnet 650 Vancouver and said, “A lot of friends that I have and a lot of people that I’ve talked to that are going to be playing, they still don’t have their equipment, they still haven’t skated, they’re still very skeptical. They haven’t been told anything by their team, so I’m skeptical. I obviously want hockey back. I’d love to cover some games and watch it on TV and get everything back to normal, but I wouldn’t jump the gun if I were the fans. I wouldn’t get your hopes up too much yet…. There’s so much to figure out.”

 

Quote

I think we’re going to learn a lot over the next two weeks. The NHL and NHLPA continue grinding away towards an agreement on safety protocol for Phase III (training camp) and Phase IV (games), in addition to the CBA. With camps scheduled for July 10, the players’ vote on this is targeted for the end of June. I don’t know if there will be two separate decisions (one for protocols and one for CBA) or one big, all-encompassing ballot, but it’s expected each player will get an individual vote. So we’re going to get the answers to Kevin’s questions.

 

This comes at a time when the University of Texas announced 13 football players tested positive for COVID-19, the University of Houston halted workouts after six of their did, and we are seeing spikes in places like Arizona and Florida — where many NHLers live. The NHL and NHLPA are working on opt-out language for anyone who may feel uncomfortable about playing. But part of their pitch might be that the bubble will be safer than parts of North America. In some places, it looks like social distancing no longer exists.

 

 

Quote

 

The NBA released its return-to-play protocol this week, and it is pretty strict. NHLers shouldn’t expect much different. National Basketball Players’ Association Executive Director Michele Roberts told the Boston Globe it isn’t a matter of if a player will test positive in the bubble, but when.

 

“That’s the only realistic mindset you can have going into this,” she said. “It’s not any more of this ‘if’ — it’s ‘when’ and what can I do to mitigate against the ‘when.’ When it happens, if I’m not successful, what treatment is available to me, what are my chances of being really, really sick, and how are you detecting the presence of an infection? Honestly, I don’t think this is any different than what any American has to come to grips with.”

Nowhere in the NBA’s document was there an answer to the question: “How many tests shuts everything down?” 

 

If you’re looking for more info about what to expect, listen to Zachary Binney (epidemiologist) on 31 Thoughts: The Podcast this week.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by BillsFan4

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....still mind boggling to me how the scientific community can EVER get to having a "reasonably accurate database (50, 60, 70%)" devoid of the rampant politicization to be able to reach substantive conclusions for future mitigation of Covid-19......sadly begin to think their work is in vain until a vaccine comes out....hope I'm wrong because there is some major, MAJOR work in progress by the scientific community.............thanks to their efforts.....

[Hapless Bills Fan]

out of Arizona

On 6/17/2020 at 12:11 PM, plenzmd1 said:

 

 

Posted 1 hour ago

  Quote

People like to keep saying this

What you seem to have skated by (it has been pointed out, up thread), is that

1) the high risk people - the people who have comorbid conditions identified as risk factors for more serious covid-19 disease/hospitalization - may include half of us.  Hypertension, obesity, diabetes, heart disease - the identified risk factors - affect roughly 50% of the American population, and certainly some of these affect NFL staff including coaches.  It probably includes a significant number of players since some of them are known to have diabetes (well controlled I assume), statistically some are likely to have high blood pressure (hopefully well controlled), and DL and OLmen are encouraged to "block a lot of daylight" and thus may be obese in terms of weight and body fat % - fit and amazingly athletic, but obese.

2) how exactly does this "high risk people stay home" thing work?  Obviously they can not attend sporting events, but what about the rest of life?  Don't answer here, but please consider answering in the Covid discussion thread on OTW.  How do these high risk people obtain groceries, medical care, money (if they need to work), personal care if they need assistance with "activities of daily living" or even just with driving and cleaning the house?

 

@Hapless Bills Fan

 

First, i do not buy the argument that half of the US population carries higher risk factors and much higher risk of bad outcomes . I dont buy that, and think it highlights what many have dubbed "panic porn".

 

You don't "buy the argument" and you think it is "panic porn".  Bully for you.  Sorry, you need to do better if we're gonna discuss.  Much better.  Sources, a basis for your "no sale" belief.  Dismissing it as "panic porn" just doesn't fly.

 

Here's the facts.  In multiple countries at this point, risk factors have been established for serious covid-19 disease requiring hospitalization:

Who China Joint report: hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease and cancer (obesity is not endemic in China as in US)

US, study of 5700 patients in NYC:   hypertension, obesity, diabetes, coronary artery disease

 

In fact, I have read and heard people using these comorbidities to dismiss the risks of covid-19: "it's all people with underlying disease who are getting sick!"

 

Very well, but let's ask the obvious question: how many people in the United States have these conditions:

Obesity: 42% https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Hypertension: 45% https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm

https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/high-blood-pressure-toolkit-resources "nearly half of US adults have high blood pressure and 45.6% of them do not have it controlled"

Diabetes: 10% https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/features/diabetes-stat-report.html

Coronary artery disease: 6.7% https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

 

Now clearly those numbers aren't additive.  Obese people have a higher incidence of hypertension and type II diabetes.

But clearly they aren't completely overlapping, either: quite a number of weight-proportional-to-height people have hypertension and diabetes, especially type I diabetes.

About 10% of diabetics are type I.  The Framingham study estimated that 26% of hypertensives had excess body weight (meaning 74% did not); I think the proportion has shifted over the years.

 

But fundamentally, to get from the above to "50%", all you need to do is add a few percent of obese people without hypertension, diabetics who are not obese or hypertensive, and people with heart disease who are not hypertensive or obese and Voila!  50%!  (and does it really matter if it's 50% or 45% or 42%?  the point is - the covid-19 risk factors are not RARE OBSCURE diseases, they are co-morbid conditions that affect almost half of the adults in the US.

 

Quote

If that were the case, ;logically would not young people with those conditions be dying at the same rate as older people? 

 

No, does not follow at all.  We're talking coMORBIDITIES here, factors that produce severe disease requiring hospitalization, not MORTALITIES (risk of death).  Younger people have stronger immune systems and less damaged systems all over.  Logically, one might expect they can fight off and recover from infections that older people succumb to.  Age is certainly a strong risk factor for death from covid-19, but please to note that in the JAMA study referenced above, the median age of hospitalization was 65.  That means half the people hospitalized were under 65.

 

Quote

This has been proven to be much more fatal to older folks with one or more comorbidity factors...you would have to show me the numbers to convince me young and old affected the same , i have not seen numbers like that and have no idea where i could find them.

 

Again - please separate MORBIDITY from MORTALITY.   Morbidity means serious disease/hospitalization.  And I'm not claiming that young people are "affected the same".  For example, the incidence of almost all those comorbidities increase with age. 

 

The point is that almost half the adult population of the US has one or more of these co-morbid risk factors.  Clearly many people who are under 44 yo must have them, since not all people who are 45-64 or 65 and over are afflicted.  From WIKI, US age distribution:

Age structure
Under 18 years	24.0% (2010)[4]
18–44 years	36.5% (2010)[4]
45–64 years	26.4% (2010)[4]
65 and over	13.0% (2010)[4]

 

This last sentence kind of boggles my mind.  You haven't seen data and have no idea how to find data but you're calling it "panic porn"?  I mean, it's not a problem to not have seen data.  TBH, the data are way less available than I'd like to see.  But when you don't know, why not "I'd like to see the data" or "I'd like to see the source", why "that's panic porn"?

 

OK some data. 

State of Georgia, 8 hospitals, March 2020.  Half the hospitalized people <=49 and 1/3 of those 50-64 had no risk factors, btw - risk factors are "factors", not sorting criteria.

About 30% were <50 years old.

Here's some more recent stuff, out of Arizona:.  Basically 39% of those hospitalized are younger than 55, and roughly the same proportion as those >65:

Quote

2nd. Not quite sure what your point is on #2 . If your thesis is that because 50% have high risk factors , we should continue with lockdown and only keep essential services open? Things like grocery stores, pharmacies, hospitals, Walmart etc?

 

I was in response to you.  You said:

On 6/17/2020 at 8:48 AM, plenzmd1 said:

So, should the season be cancelled because a few coaches are overweight and older? 

 

By that logic, 2500 players, i am guessing 5X in coaching in direct administrative roles etc so , plus all the TV personnel, plus all the folks in advertising, plus all the countless 1000s other people affected by a shutdown ...they should all lose their livelihood instead of the high risk people staying home.

 

The good of the 100's is more important than the good of millions?

 

My point is that when we're talking about "high risk people staying home", we're not talking about "the good of 100s vs the good of millions".  We're talking about roughly half the adults in the United States being arguably in one or another high risk category which, should they contract covid-19, puts them at higher risk for more serious disease including extended hospitalization with poorer outcomes.  Even if you want to argue only people >65 should worry, 13% of the US population is 43 million people.  That's millions, tens of millions, not hundreds.

We can talk about my ideas for how to end the pandemic (which do not include extended lockdown - I've said from the start lockdowns are a "Hail Mary Play" used as a desperation measure by public health officials who have nothing else in their bag, no testing, no contact tracing, no pharmaceutical interventions, no vaccines, but I think we need to straighten out how much we're on the same page with whether these risk factors are prevalant or some kind of "panic porn"

 

Quote

If that is the case, one has to assume a good portion of those folks work in grocery stores, work picking up trash, work cleaning hospitals, provising personal care to the elderly..in other words people who are doing "essential" jobs now..make up 50% of those jobs as well.  We also know minorities  make up a higher portion of those jobs, so i would say that even higher than 50% rhigh risk factor make up those jobs now. We know minority is  truly a high risk factor due to more crowded living conditions and more multi generational housing.  

 

I would say we know that blacks are disproportionately affected, but I would say we lack data as to whether crowded and multigenerational living are the risk factors.  At least, I have not seen data combing that out.

 

But now we seem to be getting somewhere.  We are not going to make it possible for high risk people to actually stay home, can we agree on that?  High risk people who happen to need to work, and to have jobs that must be done in person such as nursing home aides, warehouse workers, cleaning - THOSE PEOPLE DON'T GET TO STAY HOME.  They need to work to make rent, so off to work they go. 

 

Now let's take it a step further - when people who are all "I'm low risk, Off to the Bar!  Off to the Game!" are out having fun, are they designating one of their low risk buds to clean up?  Or just who is cleaning up, in order to let Mr Low Risk go have his fun?  And who is that cleaner riding the bus and shopping and going to church with?  Nancy Nurses Aide at the Safe Home Long Term Care facility?    Don't be all "so you want us to stay locked down then", let's just see if we can agree that the decisions and choices made by a low-risk no-comorbid factor person, inevitably impact high risk people pretty damn directly. 

 

I'll put it out there: "If you're high risk, Stay Home" is IMO an intellectually lazy crock of crap touted by people who want to do whatever they want whenever they want, without concern for how it impacts the society they gladly live in and reap the benefits from.  A lot of high risk people can not stay home.  Other very high risk people depend critically upon others to perform services.

 

If we want to beat this, open up all the way and stay open, we have to do better.

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

and the ones where it looks like 30% are in masks...depends what picture , and who took it. 

 

I am all in on the protests and that wearing a mask, as I have stated been wearing one indoors since late March. But i also understand the opposing point of view. 

 

It is funny how NYC contact tracers are not allowed to ask if one has attended any demonstrations..

 

Now that is a gap if so.  I can see not wanting to collect data about demonstrators, but one could ask "large gatherings of people" "indoors/outdoors" etc.

[njbuff]

If one player in the major sports dies from the Kung Flu virus, we can forget about seeing any live sports until the spring of 2021.

 

I hope to God it doesn't come down to this. 

 

With a star like Austin Matthews testing positive, it really puts a damper into this thing.

[plenzmd1]

@Hapless Bills Fan, (have no idead why in bold, not intentional but will not come off)

 

First, i learned something here , and that is morbidity is not the same as mortality, so thank you for that. I was certainly wrong in the usage.

 

 

According to most and where the attached CDC starts the US has most likely had the Virus on our shores since February at least, so almost 5 months of data.

 

Now, according to this chart from the CDC. deaths from Covid are 103,339.( week behind I believe)

Deaths under the age of 64 is 19, 913..or 20%.

If we take that down to 54 and under,it becomes 7606, .07 %(7606).
 

If we take it down further to the age of NFL players, 44 years old and under  (included for TB12) it becomes 2606, less than 2% of Covid deaths.  

 

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku/data

 

Now , let’s look at the population of the US of the age groups.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/

 

64 and Under Apx 250 M, Over 64 appx 50M

 

So then to extrapolate some numbers ….

 

out of 250M people, 19,913 have died so far from Covid 64 years and under..so less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.  I think that’s right but maybe someone better at math can correct me if wrong. 

 

Lord knows what that number for the under 54 set, and truly what it gets to under 44, its a statistical blip.

 

Even taken in the context of deaths as a percentage of cases( will use 2.1M) deaths under 54 equal 3/10 of 1%, or .003. 
 

Let’s not even get into the fact that therapies are better and treatment regimes are most likely leading to even less deaths, and as the new tests contain greater numbers of young people we can see from the last 5 months those percentage should go down even further. 

 

So this is why I the popular term “ panic Porn” has emerged. It is a statistical blip if I am 64 or under that I will die from Corona Virus, even if I get the virus. And yet your original statement is that 50% of Americans of all ages are in high risk categories. The numbers , I am pretty sure, just do not prove that.  

 

What am I missing here for people under 64...even with comorbidities? Why should i be worried about a bunch of 35 and under people who are in great shape playing, and possibly getting the virus. Might one of them succumb to the virus and pass? Could happen, just as they could die from any number of ailments. 

 

And BTW, i think we can accept the WHO data is not be trusted , prefer we do not use them as a source of record for anything

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by plenzmd1

[The Dean]

As I'm sure most of you have heard, Florida set a new record for Covid cases today. (Florida Man's reaction? "WooHoo! We beat the record!!!")  The governor seems to be saying the only reason the number of cases are so high is there is much more testing going on.  So if we don't' test there are no cases.  Now that's just freakin' brilliant! 

Edited June 20, 2020 by The Dean

[Warcodered]

6 hours ago, The Dean said:

As I'm sure most of you have heard, Florida set a new record for Covid cases today. (Florida Man's reaction? "WooHoo! We beat the record!!!")  The governor seems to be saying the only reason the number of cases are so high is there is much more testing going on.  So if we don't' test there are no cases.  Now that's just freakin' brilliant! 

So his argument is that things are not getting worse we just didn't know how bad things were to begin with?

[BillsFan4]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/19/countries-keeping-coronavirus-bay-experts-watch-us-case-numbers-with-alarm/

“In countries keeping the coronavirus at bay, experts watch US case numbers with alarm”

 

 

“It really does feel like the U.S. has given up.” -European scientist.

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by BillsFan4

[The Dean]

6 hours ago, Warcodered said:

So his argument is that things are not getting worse we just didn't know how bad things were to begin with?

 

 

 

That's the logical conclusion to what those who solely blame more testing for the higher positive rates, but they never seem to recognize that and/or admit it.

[Gray Beard]

13 hours ago, The Dean said:

As I'm sure most of you have heard, Florida set a new record for Covid cases today. (Florida Man's reaction? "WooHoo! We beat the record!!!")  The governor seems to be saying the only reason the number of cases are so high is there is much more testing going on.  So if we don't' test there are no cases.  Now that's just freakin' brilliant! 

There are claims that if there isn’t enough testing then the deaths can be attributed to other causes, such as pneumonia, stroke, organ failure, autoimmune disorders, etc.  That way they can keep the covid death count low to make it seem like it’s no big deal.  You can find news articles that take both sides in that argument.  Science isn’t supposed to be about taking sides and arguments, but we’re talking about Florida. 

[BillsFan4]

https://www.covidexitstrategy.org