COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (10 Viewers)

Hopefully this puts to bed a lot of discussion about four drugs.

 
[
NYC and many places in Europe did have very strict lockdowns. So did parts of Asia (China, S. Korea). It ended in all those places months ago.

Once again, I'm not being facetious. I really don't understand what lockdowns are being referred to now.

Quite a few college campuses are being run like its Wuhan last January. Strict size gatherings, no dining hall, everything online, disciplinary action for covid 'violations' - its insane.

Then there's LSU where entire dorms are infected but not reporting it to anyone because they dont want to jeopardize football season lol
 
Wait, wait, wait.....a study about airplane safety in partnership with an airline? And they're saying, "Everything is A Ok!" I trust that about as much as a study from McDonald's saying that their food is absolutely healthy for you.

Yeah, maybe the study is good, but I'm going to need to see the study and the protocols before I'm willing to believe it. On the surface it seems odd that the only used one maequine on the plane. But, I'd need more details.
 
Yeah, maybe the study is good, but I'm going to need to see the study and the protocols before I'm willing to believe it. On the surface it seems odd that the only used one maequine on the plane. But, I'd need more details.

I rather Otto Pilot from Airplane.
 
[


Quite a few college campuses are being run like its Wuhan last January. Strict size gatherings, no dining hall, everything online, disciplinary action for covid 'violations' - its insane.

Then there's LSU where entire dorms are infected but not reporting it to anyone because they dont want to jeopardize football season lol

So is that what we think they are referring to as lockdown? I wouldn't consider it a lockdown. In Wuhan you couldn't leave your home. They are away from home, in dorms but things are structured in a way to prevent super spreader events so the school can remain open. I wouldn't call "do your thing, just with less than x number of people at a time" a lockdown.

I do think the penalties I'm hearing about are draconian and I wonder if some of that would withstand a legal challenge.
 

While some aspects of this make sense, like super protecting the most vulnerable, we are nowhere near herd immunity in the USA. We are probably in the 18-20% range right now. The estimates of what you need for herd immunity for this virus are all over the place, usually they are between 60-80%. Our total rate now of maybe 20%, means we are, at best, 1/3 or the way there. Do we need another 500,000 dead to get there? That is crazy talk. OK, so we protect the most vulnerable, keep the death count going forward to what, another 200,000? Not sure where the final number will wind up, but it is more than now and likely less than a million. That is a very big range. Keeping it lower is better. Masks, distancing, cleaning and getting a good vaccine, or two or three, and then we can escape this mess. Until then, it will continue to be bad.

" Total Infected (as of Oct 4): 16.1% (1 in 6) " It is probably closer to 18-20% now.

 
So is that what we think they are referring to as lockdown? I wouldn't consider it a lockdown. In Wuhan you couldn't leave your home. They are away from home, in dorms but things are structured in a way to prevent super spreader events so the school can remain open. I wouldn't call "do your thing, just with less than x number of people at a time" a lockdown.

I do think the penalties I'm hearing about are draconian and I wonder if some of that would withstand a legal challenge.

Yeah, my daughter is currently at JMU where in Virginia, and basically, if you're caught hosting a large gathering, you not only get kicked out, but they're won't refund tuition and room/board. That's a lot of $$$.
 
While some aspects of this make sense, like super protecting the most vulnerable, we are nowhere near herd immunity in the USA. We are probably in the 18-20% range right now. The estimates of what you need for herd immunity for this virus are all over the place, usually they are between 60-80%. Our total rate now of maybe 20%, means we are, at best, 1/3 or the way there. Do we need another 500,000 dead to get there? That is crazy talk. OK, so we protect the most vulnerable, keep the death count going forward to what, another 200,000? Not sure where the final number will wind up, but it is more than now and likely less than a million. That is a very big range. Keeping it lower is better. Masks, distancing, cleaning and getting a good vaccine, or two or three, and then we can escape this mess. Until then, it will continue to be bad.

" Total Infected (as of Oct 4): 16.1% (1 in 6) " It is probably closer to 18-20% now.


The more people that are walking around infected, the more difficult it is to protect the highly vulnerable.

(I am agreeing with you, in case that isn’t clear)
 
Just what exactly is involved in "super protecting the vulnerable?"

Hard lockdowns of all nursing home and ALF's? Don't let these people have visitors? Leave them to die in their communal homes and not let them go anywhere and go bananas? Put anybody on chemo, overweight people or those with autoimmune deficiency into "camps?"

Seems draconian and rather cruel as opposed to returning to some semblance of normalcy save the great "inconvenience" of putting on a mask a few minutes a day when the situation arises.
 
Yeah, my daughter is currently at JMU where in Virginia, and basically, if you're caught hosting a large gathering, you not only get kicked out, but they're won't refund tuition and room/board. That's a lot of $$$.

Its for a different thread but these policies are so backward it makes me crazy. Should never have brought any kids to campus if your plan is to tell them "Don't socialize" and then punish them when they (inevitably) do - and of course they're creating incentives for kids to leave campus to escape the rules and then bring the virus back.... stupid.
 
Its for a different thread but these policies are so backward it makes me crazy. Should never have brought any kids to campus if your plan is to tell them "Don't socialize" and then punish them when they (inevitably) do - and of course they're creating incentives for kids to leave campus to escape the rules and then bring the virus back.... stupid.

It's almost like they were just concerned with getting the tuitions in and not with the outcome of the situation. :cautious:
 
Just what exactly is involved in "super protecting the vulnerable?"

Hard lockdowns of all nursing home and ALF's? Don't let these people have visitors? Leave them to die in their communal homes and not let them go anywhere and go bananas? Put anybody on chemo, overweight people or those with autoimmune deficiency into "camps?"

Seems draconian and rather cruel as opposed to returning to some semblance of normalcy save the great "inconvenience" of putting on a mask a few minutes a day when the situation arises.

I agree with much of this, it is very difficult for families. The hardest are those in hospitals and nursing homes. I am "responsible" for two people in my family at high risk. I have not been within ten feet of anybody, who is not living in my household, without a mask since late March. Rapid testing of all visitors of people in nursing homes and hospitals and some distancing and good ventilation could work. I don't have any relatives currently in nursing homes or ALF's who live nearby, they all died before the virus hit, but this is very hard on those people impacted by this.

Much has been done on this issue. Does anybody have any direct stories or info on these types of facilities recently? What is being done, right or wrong?

I'm not sure putting a mask on a few minutes a day will end this mess. I read, that even in Germany, they are having massive push back on "lockdowns" going forward.
 
It's almost like they were just concerned with getting the tuitions in and not with the outcome of the situation. :cautious:

There is a lot of that going around with people willing to sacrifice lives based on a bet that we can suddenly fix the economy by letting people go to football games and lifting what few restrictions are actually left.

As usual in our world, money is a major consideration in everything that is done.
 
The more people that are walking around infected, the more difficult it is to protect the highly vulnerable.
The overbearing problem with "protect the vulnerable" is that "the vulnerable" is a huge block of people -- perhaps the majority of American adults (yes, even 20-somethings). Some talk like it's only a small number of the elderly that have to avoid COVID-19.

So, who are "the vulnerable"? How are they counted? I read someone on another board say that counting the obese, those with hypertension, cancer survivors, asthmatics, immunodepressed persons, etc. among "the vulnerable" was being disingenous. As if it were this tiny slice of "old people" and every other single person under 60 could live and do as if it were 2019 with nary a real risk. Maybe a "get struck by lightning on a clear day" risk, or a "get hit on the head by a meteorite" risk.
 
Put anybody on chemo, overweight people or those with autoimmune deficiency into "camps?"
Many believe that "the young" (usually meaning under-60 or under-50), even with these conditions, are pretty close to 100% COVID-safe. Maybe 1 in a thousand suffers or expires, and those odds are totally worth it to hear some tell it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom