Not reading every post, but aren't there predictions for another 'spike' in the fall? Followed by possibly another?

If so, more 'rolling' lock downs?

If so, what does that mean about current efforts?

Are looking at this continuing on for some time (year+) without a vaccine?

Honest questions.

Boss

Saw this on my FB news feed from a semi lib friend.

I replied " yessir, saving for a rainy day or the Ronapocalypse is for chumps"

quote:

I clicked on the UK numbers and they seemed to have a rediculously low number of beds and ICU beds available.

I'm not SDY, and I don't remember where I saw it, but my understanding was that the UK has ~ 1/5th the resources per-capita compared to the US.

quote:

Saw this on my FB news feed from a semi lib friend.

I replied " yessir, saving for a rainy day or the Ronapocalypse is for chumps"

That image is the definition of non sequitur.

If some treatments can be found to be effective, the critical need for a vaccine is lessened. We would still want and need the vaccine, but it would not be as urgent.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
so-called "essential" businesses such as supermarkets and pharmacies as well as liquor stores are allowed to remain open, but everything else is ordered shuttered. Does the Peking Pox know not to traipse into the Whole Foods Market or hang ten offshore in Santa Monica?

Actually Carlson got closer to the more salient issue in this monologue when he noted (and I'm paraphrasing), "People can't go to work because of the potential for infection, but everyone is allowed to go to the grocery store. Seems like if you wanted to infect large groups of people, you'd send them all to the same place every week."

That's a very interesting question worth discussing with the morons in government who've set policy on how we have to live right now.

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
Saw this on my FB news feed from a semi lib friend.

I replied " yessir, saving for a rainy day or the Ronapocalypse is for chumps"


[IMG][/IMG]

No it's a sign people are stupid and don't plan.

quote:

Originally posted by Boss1:
Are looking at this continuing on for some time (year+) without a vaccine?

Honest questions.

Boss

I may very well get flamed for this statement, but in my opinion no entity that has ever existed on this planet has killed more people than the FDA. If we had a viable vaccine for the virus today, we wouldn't likely see it (if we saw it at all) for another year while it was 'extensively' tested. The FDA works at its own pace regardless the number of people croaking along the way. Listen to Fauci bloviate. He'll tell you as much.

We're going to have to find a way to coexist and deal deal with the existence of this virus for some time.

I love the wild over reaches of governors. LA gov, I need 7000 vents, govt here’s 250. Oh, we didn’t actually need any of them. Let alone 7 fucking thousand of them.

When this is over we are literally going to fill warehouses full of vents, masks, Ppe , assorted other medical and not so medical shot that we wildly over produced and bought on imaginary Treasury bills printed from unicorn ink.

The IHME bed estimates seem to be the weakest part of the model. I am pretty much ignoring them.

Hospitals are using all available space for China virus patients. (even such as Javits Center)

The IHME death data seems to be much more reliable. And as real data comes in, they move it into the model.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


one thing about the NY real data is bothering me.

I must be missing something.

NY has 138,836 confirmed cases.

Ball park numbers are 15% of the confirmed cases needed hospitalization.

that would be 20,825

NY deaths are currently 5,489

That implies 26% of the hospitalized died. That sounds way too high. ???

Maybe a lot of the deaths occurred in patients who were not hospitalized ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The IHME bed estimates seem to be the weakest part of the model. I am pretty much ignoring them.

Hospitals are using all available space for China virus patients. (even such as Javits Center)

The IHME death data seems to be much more reliable. And as real data comes in, they move it into the model.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


one thing about the NY real data is bothering me.

I must be missing something.

NY has 138,836 confirmed cases.

Ball park numbers are 15% of the confirmed cases needed hospitalization.

that would be 20,825

NY deaths are currently 5,489

That implies 26% of the hospitalized died. That sounds way too high. ???

Maybe a lot of the deaths occurred in patients who were not hospitalized ?

I read that to be not everyone gets hospitalized and some of them die? It would be interesting to see the rate of hospitalized patients that die.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Maybe a lot of the deaths occurred in patients who were not hospitalized ?

So we're having massive amounts of people dying at home? Sorry, but I'm not buying into that possibility. If that were actually happening, the people running the show in NY as well as the always corrupt media would be all over it on a daily basis. I think its far more likely that the numbers just don't prove out.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
NY deaths are currently 5,489

That implies 26% of the hospitalized died. That sounds way too high. ???

Maybe a lot of the deaths occurred in patients who were not hospitalized ?

This could also be a case of selective, or even downright artistic, reporting. Remember that Cuomo was howling about imminent doom in an attempt to justify stripping rural New York counties of resources for the sake of New York City and in an attempt to bully (hah!) Trump into just shutting up and giving New York whatever Cuomo demanded.

If you exaggerate your 'confirmed' cases (he's got the sniffles! It must be Kung Flu!) then you exaggerate your need for public resources and governmental controls. The thing is, you don't want to exaggerate your deaths, because then no one will want to come to New York to help, New York may get written off as a lost cause (Trump was thinking about walling NYC off), and because the dead can't be helped - which means that the number of dead won't justify continuing to demand more public resources and more "emergency powers" for the government.

I realize that it's difficult to think like a Cuomo without dropping acid and shoving a lit road flare up your own ass, but I think that what I've suggested would be consistent with the way Cuomo, ah, "thinks".

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chellim1:
so-called "essential" businesses such as supermarkets and pharmacies as well as liquor stores are allowed to remain open, but everything else is ordered shuttered. Does the Peking Pox know not to traipse into the Whole Foods Market or hang ten offshore in Santa Monica?

Actually Carlson got closer to the more salient issue in this monologue when he noted (and I'm paraphrasing), "People can't go to work because of the potential for infection, but everyone is allowed to go to the grocery store. Seems like if you wanted to infect large groups of people, you'd send them all to the same place every week."

I've had that same thought and discussion, why is is safe to go to WalMart, Target, Home Depot or other certain enterprises, where there are hundreds of people, no masks, no gloves, touching everything, and yet small businesses have to close in other industries.

Some of it is political, such as the attempts to close gun stores in leftist states like CA< NJ, NY etc...

Still don't see how setting rules that would allow restaurants and bars to be open are considered a significant hazard to national health but you can go into the liquor store with 50 people and get a case of Beer and it's less of a risk.

It's bullshit... How long before lots of Americans tell government to F-Off and go back to work....

Our network is running at 25% of hospitalized patients require vents.
I've seen reported (for what that is worth) that 25% to 50% of those requiring vents don't make it.

Well. My friend didn’t make it. He passed. Details are scarce other than he died.

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
Our network is running at 25% of hospitalized patients require vents.
I've seen reported (for what that is worth) that 25% to 50% of those requiring vents don't make it.

Is there something bad about reducing the numbers needing hospitalization and ventilators because these measures (characterized by some as "extreme")? Should the saving of those 50-75% of the people placed on ventilators be considered a failure?

I just don't get this kind of attitude. How the same people that applauded President Trump for actually caring about the welfare of the average American citizen instead of his/her own benefit (ie: Clintons), can now suggest he's somehow been duped into working against American's interest makes no sense.

I'm sure The President wants to see our economy back on track ASAP, but for that to happen, we need to stabilize the current health crisis. It's not a myth or a hoax. It's real.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
Well. My friend didn’t make it. He passed. Details are scarce other than he died.

Sorry to learn of this.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:
Our network is running at 25% of hospitalized patients require vents.
I've seen reported (for what that is worth) that 25% to 50% of those requiring vents don't make it.

Is there something bad about reducing the numbers needing hospitalization and ventilators because these measures (characterized by some as "extreme")? Should the saving of those 50-75% of the people placed on ventilators be considered a failure?

I just don't get this kind of attitude. How the same people that applauded President Trump for actually caring about the welfare of the average American citizen instead of his/her own benefit (ie: Clintons), can now suggest he's somehow been duped into working against American's interest makes no sense.

I'm sure The President wants to see our economy back on track ASAP, but for that to happen, we need to stabilize the current health crisis. It's not a myth or a hoax. It's real.

Not sure what you mean. I meant no attitude. The 25% of patients requiring ventilators is fact at our network, given to us yesterday by the Infectious Diseases department. The survival rate of those on ventilators that I quoted is from the news and is therefore questionable.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
If you exaggerate your 'confirmed' cases (he's got the sniffles! It must be Kung Flu!) then you exaggerate your need for public resources and governmental controls.

Everything I have seen indicates that "confirmed cases" means those with laboratory diagnoses (i.e., positive test results), and that clinical diagnoses (diagnoses from symptoms and medical history) are not counted.

E.g., through 4 pm yesterday, there were 361,331 positive test results out of a total 1,917,095 tests resulted in the US. https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily