COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (6 Viewers)

[LuvNOLA]

“Free-dumb is not free. It endangers all of us.”

 

[superchuck500]

UK with a much more conservative plan - restaurants to open July 1 “at the earliest.”

Boris Johnson speech: PM unveils 'conditional plan' to reopen society https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52609952

 

[James Spader]

First article talks about the S and L strains. It says the more deadly strain has been replaced by the more communicable, yet less deadly strain in complete contradiction to people saying it’s gotten worse. However it is sprinkled heavily with may, possibly and appears as qualifiers in a non peer reviewed article. The second one talks about mutations, but then proceeds to state this. p = 4.8e-06,median 25, IR 21-28, versus median 19, IR 21-25) (Fig. S5) (Liu et al., 2020). There was, however, no significant correlation found between D614G status and hospitalization status; although the G614 mutation was slightly enriched among the ICU subjects, this was not statistically significant. So, once again, everyone knows it mutates, but nothing has been said it makes it any more infectious or deadly. This is also liberally sprinkled with mays, possibly, seems and mights.

The third article Now has this on top of it. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/05/06/2007295117 Which is essentially saying the methods used in the collection and the analysis of the data is unreliable. So pretty much undercuts the article off the bat.

So your 3 articles that you used to prove your point are flawed, not peer reviewed, in publicly published journals requiring no proof (think less than Wikipedia), and so loaded with mays, possiblies, mights, seems and appears to lose all credibility as proof.

So, if you’re going to make the statement that it is mutating and becoming more dangerous, these did not do it.

Hey champ. I didn’t post any articles.

 

[superchuck500]

I think this is Colorado.

 

[EGLSShin]

This whole thing has been super disappointing from community to leadership. A large sector of the populace is no longer taking this seriously and hasnt for weeks. The leadership fights one another. You have the reopen now crowd vs reopen smartly crowd locked in trench warfare.

80k deaths later and it still hasn't sunken in to enough folks.

 

[PurpleBlack&Gold]

First article talks about the S and L strains. It says the more deadly strain has been replaced by the more communicable, yet less deadly strain in complete contradiction to people saying it’s gotten worse. However it is sprinkled heavily with may, possibly and appears as qualifiers in a non peer reviewed article. The second one talks about mutations, but then proceeds to state this. p = 4.8e-06,median 25, IR 21-28, versus median 19, IR 21-25) (Fig. S5) (Liu et al., 2020). There was, however, no significant correlation found between D614G status and hospitalization status; although the G614 mutation was slightly enriched among the ICU subjects, this was not statistically significant. So, once again, everyone knows it mutates, but nothing has been said it makes it any more infectious or deadly. This is also liberally sprinkled with mays, possibly, seems and mights.

The third article Now has this on top of it. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/05/06/2007295117 Which is essentially saying the methods used in the collection and the analysis of the data is unreliable. So pretty much undercuts the article off the bat.

So your 3 articles that you used to prove your point are flawed, not peer reviewed, in publicly published journals requiring no proof (think less than Wikipedia), and so loaded with mays, possiblies, mights, seems and appears to lose all credibility as proof.

So, if you’re going to make the statement that it is mutating and becoming more dangerous, these did not do it.

I'm going to paste my original comment here. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

"PurpleBlack&Gold said:
This is false and actual research has shown there are several strains circulating. Some with possibly different properties in terms if infectiousness and possibly severity."

Again, I don't think its disputed there are different strains at this point.

Where did I say that these strains are making it worse? I said possibly different properties in terms of infectiousness and possibly severity. I never claimed mutations have made it worse. The first paper, as you pointed out, suggests the newer strain is less severe. You are the one claiming its more deadly. You prove it. But you already cited your sources are "people." So they must be correct I suppose.

I'm also pretty certain nearly all scientific writing uses the words and phrases such as may, possibly, appears to be, suggests and similar lingo to get a point across instead of making declarative statements. Nearly every paper I have read with new findings also ends with a request for more research to confirm or refute the findings. Its why lay people have a hard time reading scientific writing as I'm sure you know. Because scientists never ever write that their research "proves" anything. At best it merely provides good evidence one way or another.

So I'm not sure why you are getting after me for something I never said. Altered function does not mean more deadly. It just means altered function.

 

[Sun Wukong]

I think this is Colorado.

Things are going to be off the chain in about two weeks. June/July see going to make March look like a picnic. I'm going to go ahead and say we'll be looking at 200-250k dead by August

 

[LonghornSaint]

First article talks about the S and L strains. It says the more deadly strain has been replaced by the more communicable, yet less deadly strain in complete contradiction to people saying it’s gotten worse. However it is sprinkled heavily with may, possibly and appears as qualifiers in a non peer reviewed article. The second one talks about mutations, but then proceeds to state this. p = 4.8e-06,median 25, IR 21-28, versus median 19, IR 21-25) (Fig. S5) (Liu et al., 2020). There was, however, no significant correlation found between D614G status and hospitalization status; although the G614 mutation was slightly enriched among the ICU subjects, this was not statistically significant. So, once again, everyone knows it mutates, but nothing has been said it makes it any more infectious or deadly. This is also liberally sprinkled with mays, possibly, seems and mights.

For the record, the use of [may, possibly, appears, suggests, etc..] is proper science writing, especially when writing about new or preliminary research. It implies that this is how they interpret things, and they are acknowledging that they might be wrong, or that there are confounds that they are unaware of. I have NO problem with that style of writing. At all.

As far as the non-peer reviewed aspect of it, the urgency of this situation requires getting data and possible [see what I did there?] interpretations published for other researchers to read and think about. Their names and thus their reputations are on the line when they publish, and if they publish nonsense or worse (fabricated bs), that will bite them in the butt when they apply for their next job, or write their next grant. Every scientist knows this, but some take it more seriously than others. They chose a non-peer reviewed route rather than wait for months for other scientists to perform the review.

 

[buzd]

Things are going to be off the chain in about two weeks. June/July see going to make March look like a picnic. I'm going to go ahead and say we'll be looking at 200-250k dead by August

Yep

 

[St. Widge]

[MOD EDIT - deleted post]

How can you keep politics out of something when the decisions are being made based on politics? There is no way around it.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

How can you keep politics out of something when the decisions are being made based on politics? There is no way around it.

I know it's tough, but I think the answer is when you have a political opinion to take it to the board on MAP. It doesn't belong here and it will consistently derail this thread and has.

Easier said than done, but that should be the goal.

 

[Goatman Saint]

Hey champ. I didn’t post any articles.

Awww you called me champ. That’s so sweet

 

[St. Widge]

I know it's tough, but I think the answer is when you have a political opinion to take it to the board on MAP. It doesn't belong here and it will consistently derail this thread and has.

Easier said than done, but that should be the goal.

I get that it's the goal. But, if you are going to keep politics out of this subject, then you have to move the entire subject to the MAP board because the entire issue has been completely politicized by well, the politicians. I mean, we can veil comments as though they aren't political, but we all know the truth. But I guess if pretending it's not about politics makes people happy we can all pretend.

I mean, even the allegedly "pure" science is politicized.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I get that it's the goal. But, if you are going to keep politics out of this subject, then you have to move the entire subject to the MAP board because the entire issue has been completely politicized. I mean, we can veil comments as though they aren't political, but we all know the truth. But I guess if pretending it's not about politics makes people happy we can all pretend.

I mean, even the allegedly "pure" science is politicized.

I don't disagree. I think it's absolutely sad that not even a global pandemic can bridge the polarized political divide in the country. To me, it's a sign that we are irreparably broken as a nation.

For the purposes of the thread though if we can just keep from criticizing at the Republican/Democrat level or mentioning Trump specifically in a critical way (because that really triggers folks) we can at least keep the thread from derailing.

Once again, I know that's easier said than done, but it is possible and we don't have to pretend, just color inside the lines.

 

[Goatman Saint]

I don't disagree. I think it's absolutely sad that not even a global pandemic can bridge the polarized political divide in the country. To me, it's a sign that we are irreparably broken as a nation.

For the purposes of the thread though if we can just keep from criticizing at the Republican/Democrat level or mentioning Trump specifically in a critical way (because that really triggers folks) we can at least keep the thread from derailing.

Once again, I know that's easier said than done, but it is possible and we don't have to pretend, just color inside the lines.

Exactly. While we all know what going on, who hid the CDC plan for guidance in reopening, the one who said the magic fairy was going to make it disappear in April, the same one who said we have nothing to worry about and had the military doing flyovers to gloriously reopen the economy without care as to testing, tracking, personal distancing, or any other safety measure without having to say who it is who is leading this.