|
Post by tobyglyn on Jun 27, 2020 6:33:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 27, 2020 9:00:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 27, 2020 10:44:16 GMT
Yesterday, there were 40,184 new CO-19 cases reported for the US, a new all-time high. It looks like the number of new cases in the US today is going to be significantly higher with Florida alone currently showing more than 8,000 cases. It would be nice to know how many of the new CO-19 cases being reported are from antibody tests. These are not new cases. New hospitalizations are a better indicator of CO-19 infection trends and there is a slight uptick although the number of currently hospitalilized patients in the US is only a little more than half the peak level. Texas today closed all bars. Yet the reports are also that the average age of the positive cases is now down to ~45 from ~65 and low symptoms or asymptomatic positives this could be due to the hugely increased testing. The large number of positive tests with less severe symptoms is reducing the CFR below influenza. It was said rather delicately that hospitalizations were largely of people with co-morbidities one of the common ones being a BMI over 30 and 'African American' (almost certainly vitamin D deficient).
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 27, 2020 10:52:08 GMT
Here's a guy who makes his point 😄 whether or not hes right or you agree with him or not.
Enjoyable to watch!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 27, 2020 13:08:51 GMT
Alternative transport idea:
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 27, 2020 13:15:51 GMT
Alternative transport idea: If Captain Bligh can do it, then so can Acid and the Boys. Unfortunately, nobody wants US regardless of transport mode.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2020 13:53:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2020 14:20:15 GMT
We plan to take advantage of the Covid19 pandemic. I am going to teach a kid how to spray, and then we are heading to Oregon with stops along the way.
Parks etc shouldn't be as full as usual.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 27, 2020 14:46:43 GMT
Alternative transport idea: You know that would take longer to return in then a 2 week quarantine....right???
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 27, 2020 14:48:10 GMT
Alternative transport idea: If Captain Bligh can do it, then so can Acid and the Boys. Unfortunately, nobody wants US regardless of transport mode. Me and boys 👍🏻👍🏻 Mrs.Acid 👎🏻👎🏻
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 27, 2020 15:32:07 GMT
Alternative transport idea: You know that would take longer to return in then a 2 week quarantine....right??? But you would have the experience / honor of being denied entry to every port in the northern Med.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jun 27, 2020 17:18:13 GMT
Bear with me on this, and please fell free to correct me if my logic and reasoning are flawed. I've been thinking that the recent surge in COVID cases supports arguments AGAINST "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders." The US totally locked down in March, and two months later we began to see a slow decline in new cases, and a dramatic decline in COVID related deaths. This, we were assured, proved the effectiveness of the quarantine of the healthy as well as the sick. And, it's difficult to argue with that now, because when people started interacting again, the incidence of new infections has risen, in some places dramatically so. The response to that rise, starting in Texas and soon spreading to other locales I'm sure, is to lock down again. So why does the answer of those in charge seem to be back we go into a "solution" that has resulted in economic destruction, until the rise in cases slows again, and we start to reopen again, and then, what? Wash, rinse, repeat in an endless cycle of shutdown, then reopening then shutdown when the infections rise again, with each shutdown a new torpedo in the hull of the economy? Wouldn't it be better, especially since we know a lot more both about the virus and the economic effect of shutdowns, to now isolate the old and infirm, and let the virus take its course among the populations who will just get ill for a couple of days? We don't shut down the country during flu season. And, yes, I know, I know, "this is not the flue! It's much worse than the flue!" Blah, blah. But it's not much worse than the flue, and in many instances less severe, in the populations it is now predominantly infecting. No one seems to be taking into account that, this time, the virus is focusing on a younger cohort who are not only far less likely to die, but who will suffer flue like symptoms for a few days, won't overtax the medical systems as a result, and who will have COVID antibodies when they recover. It seems like the virus is going to work its way through the entire population no matter what we do. Let it do that whilst we protect the elderly and infirm, now that we know how to do that. If we make that call, then COVID is just another infectious disease like the hundreds we have lived with in human history.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2020 18:12:24 GMT
Sweden is doing that very successfully today. Their entomology expert readily admits that they made a mistake not protecting the elderly. That is where the bulk of their deaths are.
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Jun 27, 2020 18:59:10 GMT
Bear with me on this, and please fell free to correct me if my logic and reasoning are flawed. I've been thinking that the recent surge in COVID cases supports arguments AGAINST "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders." The US totally locked down in March. and two months later we began to see a slow decline in new cases, and a dramatic decline in COVID related deaths. This, we were assured, proved the effectiveness of the quarantine of the healthy as well as the sick. And, it's difficult to argue with that now, because when people started interacting again, the incidence of new infections has risen, in some places dramatically so. The response to that rise, starting in Texas and soon spreading to other locales I'm sure, is to lock down again. So why does the answer of those in charge seem to be back we go into a "solution" that has resulted in economic destruction, until the rise in cases slows again, and we start to reopen again, and then, what? Wash, rinse, repeat in an endless cycle of shutdown, then reopening then shutdown when the infections rise again, with each shutdown a new torpedo in the hull of the economy? Wouldn't it be better, especially since we know a lot more both about the virus and the economic effect of shutdowns, to now isolate the old and infirm, and let the virus take its course among the populations who will just get ill for a couple of days? We don't shut down the country during flu season. And, yes, I know, I know, "this is not the flue! It's much worse than the flue!" Blah, blah. But it's not much worse than the flue, and in many instances less severe, in the populations it is now predominantly infecting. No one seems to be taking into account that, this time, the virus is focusing on a younger cohort who are not only far less likely to die, but who will suffer flue like symptoms for a few days, won't overtax the medical systems as a result, and who will have COVID antibodies when they recover. It seems like the virus is going to work its way through the entire population no matter what we do. Let it do that whilst we protect the elderly and infirm, now that we know how to do that. If we make that call, then COVID is just another infectious disease like the hundreds we have lived with in human history. When you say protect the elderly I hope you mean the over 90's because at 73 I don't consider myself old and don't want to be locked up for a week or more.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jun 27, 2020 19:41:37 GMT
I get you, Mr. Birder. I'm 68 and regularly go out as well. What I should have said is protect the elderly and infirm who may not be able to protect themselves.
|
|