Jump to content
T&C

Erie County Dept. of Health Warning Fans Who Plan on Attending the Miami Game

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RiotAct said:

then why don’t they just state that???

 

That's a really good question.  I got that from seeing it in print, now I need to dig it up.

 

So the NYS Phase 4 Reopening guidelines are no spectators, no tailgating:

https://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/2020/07/no-fans-will-be-allowed-to-attend-buffalo-bills-games-during-covid.html

"One of the mandatory conditions in the physical distancing section reads: “Ensure that no live audience, fans, or spectators are allowed to attend or permitted to enter any professional sports venue, even if an outdoor venue. Prohibit fans from congregating outside the venue and implement a security plan to safely disperse any individuals that gather outside of the venue.” "

 

So then there's this Bills statement that these guidelines will remain unchanged for "at least the first two games".  The implication is something could change it - what?

 

Then there's this statement from Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz:

https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/erie-county/erie-county-executive-says-if-people-dont-take-precautions-ban-on-bills-game-may-extend-into-october/

 

"Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz says our infection rate in Western New York could lead to the state announcing no fans will be allowed inside football stadiums indefinitely, especially as the region’s rates are higher than the rest of the state. 

While the Bills announced yesterday no fans will be there for the two home games next month – the County Executive says we still have a shot to attend the home games in October, but it will only be if we get our positive cases down."

 

 

I guess it's my inference that if WNY gets positive cases down more towards some of the lower infection rate regions, fans at football games will be back on the table (according to discussions with the state that Poloncarz may be, to use the immortal words of Whaley, "privy to"

 

Reasonable inference/not reasonable?

 

You be the judge.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Let's move this to the covid-19 thread please.  Thanks.

 

I'm bailing out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Wrong... man people have a lot of incorrect info.  It can take up to 14 days for exposure to manifest itself.  Up to, it can happen before.  Asymptomatic people can spread disease... In addition its all about viral load and proximity to an infected person as to whether or not you catch it.  Jeez there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about the disease.  The 14 day quarantine from potential exposure is generally the most it takes for you to have the disease symptomatic or asymptomatic and spread it to others.  

Generally means you are safe... and wash your hands regularly while there and dont touch anything and then yourself ... :) 

 

 

That's exactly what I said.

 

From my post

Also sounds like most people develop symptoms within a week of exposure, but in some cases can be up to 14 days so to be cautious require a 14 day period.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hapless, I'm sorry, I'm just seeing your warnings about moved posts now. I logged out of work to be able to access a couple of links there, but I can't spend any more time away right now, I have things to do. Feel free to move the posts. No promises I can get back today, I have a busy day. And no promises I'll care enough to head off the wall and find the discussion again when I do get some free time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Beast said:

Who's to say what I will be doing. There will be football games I can attend while I am down there.

 

It's a valid point, unless we establish a police state, all Public Health measures ultimately depend upon the good will of the individual to act towards the Public Good by behaving to minimize exposure while traveling on essential business, and voluntarily complying with the measures.

 

I think the point about essential workers vs. travel for pleasure is 1) the number of essential workers traveling is expected to be fewer than those traveling just for fun 2) rightly or wrongly, essential workers are expected to be more motivated to avoid infection.

 

Both those expectations could, of course, be flat out wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, arcane said:

I've never taken a covid test, and gratefully finished up grad school and came back home to start work about 3 weeks before the virus was discovered in Wuhan. In fact, working from home is the norm at my position, and so my life may have been impacted the least by the coronavirus pandemic out of anyone you could find from a random selection of thousands of individuals. I am eternally grateful for my luck in this, and I mean that sincerely. You may be taking me for a "covid is a hoax!" person, but I merely insist that the pandemic knowledge we possessed before December 2019 is correct, and the frenzied rush of nonsensical legislation in some western nations was both damaging and useless, as that knowledge predicted it would be.(I will forever chuckle at the lauding of Peru, Belgium that took place weeks and months before they assumed positions 1 & 2 atop total coronavirus deaths per civilian in the entire world, and that of the US states which would hold that record themselves if they were counted as their own nation). But it was a genuine pandemic that killed a lot of people and destroyed a lot of lives with secondary, tertiary etc. effects that rippled from our decisions (both good and bad). I certainly acknowledge this. Luckily, a lot of the real science and speculation I hint at suggests that we are in a pretty decent spot moving forward all things considered.

Of course, if you need me to be a jaded undergrad who just wants to partay and doesn't want muh rights trampled, feel free. This is an anonymous internet forum after all. 

When you parse testing data by age group, you'll find that the rise in cases is almost always related to this huge spike in testing. This corresponds to dozens of thousands of confirmed positives over a span of just a couple weeks, from just a handful of colleges, with no associated hospitalizations.  An example here:
wisconsin.thumb.jpg.c3e48cf958b5a80d16e9915db94a7a46.jpg

I'll let you guess what phenomenon played into that. 

 

I certainly don't claim to run around to labs and do important medical jobs like that. So forgive my layman's terminology. Let's not pretend you've provided tangible material counter to this though, rather than engaging in reddit-tier debate fallacies. You're reeling a bit, as resident covid "expert," and it's enjoyable to see from the perspective of someone only interested in understanding things as well as possible, and watching you misdiagnose so much about me personally.

 

But I do insist that, to my understanding, "amplification" is the proper phrase used when discussing the RNA/DNA replication that PCR cycles are built to employ. The tests make billions of copies of these fragments. The cycle threshold sets the sensitivity of these measurements, and should only be set at levels that can detect viable viral loads in the blood of those being tested. The NY Times have reported on this phenomenon too, so it's not some fringe take. Some labs have obfuscated their cycling practices, while others set the number ridiculously high. We legislate based on these results, and there's no consistency or logical grounding in them. Again, this way of handling things will be widely derided in the near future. 







 

Agree the testing and its consistency is problematic.  That being said, this is not a case of increased testing for the increase in positives.... more related to few infected persons going into a large gathering of irresponsible young folks not practicing social distancing and standard precautions.  The disease causes heart attacks, long term vascular issues, PEs and aneurysms even in asymptomatic otherwise healthy people.  Those with other issues are at even greater risk regardless of testing.  Please be safe people. Just not worth it.

 

PS I work in a hospital just outside NYC, saw the worst of it and though down to a dull roar... 1 dying a week v 11 a day at its height... it is still around and know a few nurses still experiencing issues since April infection.  

Edited by North Buffalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, arcane said:

Hapless, I'm sorry, I'm just seeing your warnings about moved posts now. I logged out of work to be able to access a couple of links there, but I can't spend any more time away right now, I have things to do. Feel free to move the posts. No promises I can get back today, I have a busy day. And no promises I'll care enough to head off the wall and find the discussion again when I do get some free time ;)

 

I apologize, unfortunately I have no ability to move posts.  However, since you're making a good faith effort to listen, I do appreciate that and will adjust accordingly.  *poof*.

I will look forward to seeing your sources correlating covid-19 RT-PCR cycle threshold with Sars-Cov2 viral infectivity as I know many people who would be most interested in solid information upon this point.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Agree the testing and its consistency is problematic.  That being said, this is not a case of increased testing for the increase in positives.... more related to few infected persons going into a large gathering of irresponsible young folks not practicing social distancing a precautions.  The disease causes heart attacks, long term vascular issues, PEs and aneurysms even in asymptomatic otherwise healthy people.  Those with other issues are at even greater risk regardless of testing.  Please be safe people. Just not worth it.

 

Did you see the video from Miami of Ohio where the kid was positive, was told to quarantine so had the party at his house.  He didn't go out, so figured he was following the rules!

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, billspro said:


If you have had it and test negative it means you have immunity to it and are no longer spreading it.

 

If you haven’t had it and test negative you can still get it at any moment. The test is just a snap shot of one moment.

 

If you had it,  you should have Antibodies which can be verified.  If you donate blood at the Red Cross they will test for Antibodies  

Kind of like a free test.  After a period of time you no longer spread it. 

 

I do not believe a negative test says you were ever exposed to it.  *   It just means you don't have it.

If Hap tells me I am wrong, I will believe her as she is in the field of medicine

 

 

EDIT *  this is why players are tested continuously.  

Edited by SlimShady'sSpaceForce
  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Maybe they assume as an essential worker you won't go unmasked to a pool party with a thousand people?

 

Do you think I wouldn't attend a college football game if I got the chance to?

Edited by Beast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Did you see the video from Miami of Ohio where the kid was positive, was told to quarantine so had the party at his house.  He didn't go out, so figured he was following the rules!

Yep idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billspro said:


This is true. It’s statistically insignificant. 

That does not appear to be true. Where are you getting that information?

2 hours ago, billspro said:


If you have had it and test negative it means you have immunity to it and are no longer spreading it.

 

If you haven’t had it and test negative you can still get it at any moment. The test is just a snap shot of one moment.

That is also not true on either point. A person with a false negative can spread it, and there have already been cases of people getting it more than once. Likely different strains and perhaps not common enough to worry about, but the concern is about people spreading disease.
https://abc7chicago.com/health/nevada-man-becomes-first-in-the-us-to-catch-covid-19-twice/6393798/
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billspro said:


Of course people with a false negative can spread it. If you have a false negative it means your positive. It just doesn’t happen frequently enough to worry about. Unless the goal is to bring COVID transmission to 0%, which does not seem realistic to me. 
 

You can get any disease more than once. You can also get COVID if you have a vaccine to it. It just means your immune system will be more prepared and you are more likely to be asymptomatic. This is basic immunology and if you haven’t taken a course you shouldn’t talk about COVID online imo.

What are you basing this on? You keep repeating it but won't back it up with data. For reference, my company provides B2B software platforms as solutions for our clients. Anything over 99.9999 % uptime is in breach of our contracts which amounts to 56 minutes per year. By contrast, if the COVID test has a 99% accuracy rating, across the global population it amounts to 76,000,000 with false negatives or 2 1/2 times the total amount of people that have reportedly had the virus. From the data reported, 99% seems optimistic.

 

"Two studies from Wuhan, China, arouse concern about false negative RT-PCR tests in patients with apparent Covid-19 illness. In a preprint, Yang et al. described 213 patients hospitalized with Covid-19, of whom 37 were critically ill.2 They collected 205 throat swabs, 490 nasal swabs, and 142 sputum samples (median, 3 per patient) and used an RT-PCR test approved by the Chinese regulator. In days 1 through 7 after onset of illness, 11% of sputum, 27% of nasal, and 40% of throat samples were deemed falsely negative"

 

"Assessment of clinical sensitivity in asymptomatic people had not been reported for any commercial test as of June 1, 2020."

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897#:~:text=In days 1 through 7,at least one respiratory specimen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you wonder why the #'s in the US continue at the current levels?  

 

Really it's just a football game (that will be on TV), but people feel the need to travel & go to the Stadium.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beast said:

To put this into prespective, I have to travel to Florida in October concerning work. However,  since I am an "essential" employee, I do not have to quarantine when I return to New York.

 

Makes sense, huh?

I just came into the state yesterday and am considered an essential worker. I got tested this morning so that I can go into work as soon as I get results (I got the rapid test so already have results). The NYS Covid Tracing called me this morning also to go over everything. I was under the same impression as you, no need to quarantine with the negative test results. They told me this is incorrect. I can go into work based on the results but must otherwise quarantine for 14 days. The reasoning is the incubation period. If I was exposed in the last few days, I may give a negative test result but still have it and still be contagious. So, I can go to work and then go home and isolate myself at home.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beast said:

 

Do you think I wouldn't attend a college football game if I got the chance to?

 

Do you know why I had to get tested recently? Because my barber told me 2/3rd way through my haircut about his fun weekend in Sturgis.

 

I don't know what you do for a living but if you interact closely with people you should take extra care. At least let people know what you did over the weekend.

 

ICYW I was negative.

Edited by PromoTheRobot
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billspro said:


Every test likely has a different sensitivity. It suppose to be 99%, which is a very good sensitivity for a medical test. 

There is obviously nothing I can say to change your mind. You believe very strongly in a 14 day quarantine. I am okay with people being out in public after testing negative. That is how my area handles COVID and we have been very successful.

 

Not necessarily, no. I just see you saying dangerously incorrect things about a virus and felt the need to interject. What I believe is immaterial to your statements. 

Where are you getting 99% testing accuracy? The article I linked published by the New England journal of medicine showed a 7% - 40% false positive rate for the tests out of Wuhan. And it seems the accuracy of the US tests is unknown. John Oliver did an expose on the antigen tests and how there's little to no oversight on that process.
 

 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

John Oliver did an expose on the antigen tests and how there's little to no oversight on that process.

 

 

The in depth investigations on that show are phenomenal. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Beast said:

To put this into prespective, I have to travel to Florida in October concerning work. However,  since I am an "essential" employee, I do not have to quarantine when I return to New York.

 

Makes sense, huh?

 

I don't think that's how it works.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I don't think that's how it works.

 

Umm, it's exactly how it works. I made sure because I wouldn't have agreed to go otherwise.

Edited by Beast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...