Beer Virus V

[foszoe]

Oh, you won't get Covid at Kwanza or Eid gatherings. They are exempt.

Even if you wouldn't get it at Hannukah, Cuomo or DeBlasio would lock you up for trying.

Infringing on religious freedoms is already ticking me off enough. Now we have CNN singling out Christianity when in other years they want to remind us that Christmas doesn't have sole possession of the holidays.

 

[BigRed]

Neil Diamond - the Rick Astley of the 1970's : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&list=PLahKLy8pQdCM0SiXNn3EfGIXX19QGzUG3




Oh and....Melvin IPA, Truth IPA, Boulevard Double Wide, Des Moines IPA

John Prine is gone, but we're still stuck with this guy talking to his chair.

 

[Phase2]

Called it weeks ago.

 

[Twangbanger]

For your reading pleasure:

https://theweek.com/articles/949567/americas-narrow-idea-freedom-literally-killing

"...In reality, as Vietnam demonstrates, the only way to have freedom during a pandemic is with a competent, aggressive state that does intrusive, coercive things on a hair trigger, the very instant they become necessary. There must be widespread testing, fever checks, and so on to monitor for the virus. Anyone who tests positive needs to be instantly thrown in isolated treatment facilities. People's movements must be tracked, and anyone a positive case has come in contact with recently must be thrown in quarantine for a time. All the while the state must build trust that its policies are necessary and working. And as Simon Wren-Lewis writes, "if you start seeing a rapid rise in cases, and your [test-trace-isolate] system is beginning to fail, you need to lock down rapidly and hard..."

 

[nonobaddog]

How about flu shots? If you normally get one each year, are you getting one this year? Why or why not?

I normally get one each year but so far I am undecided.

 

[drillsgt]

How about flu shots? If you normally get one each year, are you getting one this year? Why or why not?

I normally get one each year but so far I am undecided.

Working for both IU and the Army it wasn't really an option not to get one but at least I got paid to get it lol.

 

[CindyE]

How about flu shots? If you normally get one each year, are you getting one this year? Why or why not?

I normally get one each year but so far I am undecided.

i stopped getting them years ago, don't plan on getting it this year.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

What bothers me is the 'models' do not even seem to have terms or variables related to economic harm, they are solely focused on keeping cases to a minimum but with no benchmarks for accuracy or relevance. Thus we arrive at the masking debate, where there is evidence that masks might be somewhat effective but no benchmarks and no connection to the temporal component. If a universal mask mandate happens to coincide with the inevitable slowing of cases after a spike, it will not be called upon to demonstrate any sort of relevance to timing or required to predict what the rates of amelioration will look like, it will just be accorded any positive effects just because of proximity

And without any concurrent modeling of economic effects, if there is a desire to do the most good at reducing transmission while concurrently minimizing economic disruption, there is no unified data and no tools

Optimizing one variable and ignoring all others is what lets you wind up with an F106 when the enemy is no longer even relying on bombers to deliver its weapons

Wait, isn't this exactly what the phased levels of re-opening are? Level of economic normalcy versus level of pandemic in a state or county... I think you can argue about the calibration of the levels and metrics for each phase, but the approach seems solid.

Lockdown the world 'til it disappears is one extreme, but so is pretend it isn't even a thing.

How about flu shots? If you normally get one each year, are you getting one this year? Why or why not?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I normally get one each year but so far I am undecided.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Same on prior years... normally got one each year. Got one this year only because I was already right there and it was just 2 minutes, literally, to get it. Given that the Southern hemisphere influenza season was down 95-97%, I had no plans to go out of my way to go get the shot... any level of pandemic prudent behavior almost completely eliminates the flu... it's R0 is at least an order of magnitude lower than covid.[/FONT]

 

[NKBJ]

A highly entertaining presentation on the bank bug, from a town where I once found a 1970's book* on weather manipulation, weather control and management.
So any how, the video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBFZOGgAZzY&feature=emb_title

*It was at a veterans' benefits charity resale shop. Written by a ex-head of the EPA. You just never can tell what you'll find in the out of the way places.
Like finding this one in a little town in Wyoming.
Used books are where it's at!

 

[dusty88]

How about flu shots? If you normally get one each year, are you getting one this year? Why or why not?

I normally get one each year but so far I am undecided.

I'm normally inconsistent on getting flu shots. I think it's important this year because anywhere you pick up Covid may be the same places you pick up flu. Having both at once is a stacked risk I don't want, and don't want to put on the hospitals.

 

[BugI02]

Wait, isn't this exactly what the phased levels of re-opening are? Level of economic normalcy versus level of pandemic in a state or county... I think you can argue about the calibration of the levels and metrics for each phase, but the approach seems solid.

Lockdown the world 'til it disappears is one extreme, but so is pretend it isn't even a thing.



Same on prior years... normally got one each year. Got one this year only because I was already right there and it was just 2 minutes, literally, to get it. Given that the Southern hemisphere influenza season was down 95-97%, I had no plans to go out of my way to go get the shot... any level of pandemic prudent behavior almost completely eliminates the flu... it's R0 is at least an order of magnitude lower than covid.

Now do the part where you prove the lockdowns in some way do anything to halt the spread of the disease rather than simply delay it. Going by todays worldometers data, and adding serious cases in with deaths, I calculate 'case fatality plus hospitalization rate' of ~0.0237 and a probability of a test being positive (total cases/total tests) of ~0.0678. The product of the two numbers would be an approximation of an individuals chances of a serious case or death based at least on constantly updating numbers, and that number is 0.0016 - 1.6 in 1000

For that we brought a healthy economy to the brink one time, and people with little skin in the game want to do so again. Please point out where the phased level system you approve of has a variable for or in any way takes into account economic harm and/or considers the level of that in relation to cases. The entire construct is driven solely by case numbers and ostensibly designed to minimize only that variable

The point would be to quantify how many economic lives per hundred are destroyed in order to prevent those 2.37 lives per hundred from being lost. Without even considering how many of those 2.37 would be lost to some other stressor like influenza or pneumonia or heart disease because of pre-existing morbidities, don't you think we should have the conversation about what level of economic damage is acceptable? 5 to 1 lives destroyed for lives saved? 10 to 1?

That is the point I wished to make, re-opening level is kept as a dependent variable of CFR and IFR. In such a scheme, how would you derive a solution that optimizes both simultaneously

 

[nonobaddog]

Now do the part where you prove the lockdowns in some way do anything to halt the spread of the disease rather than simply delay it. Going by todays worldometers data, and adding serious cases in with deaths, I calculate 'case fatality plus hospitalization rate' of ~0.0237 and a probability of a test being positive (total cases/total tests) of ~0.0678. The product of the two numbers would be an approximation of an individuals chances of a serious case or death based at least on constantly updating numbers, and that number is 0.0016 - 1.6 in 1000

For that we brought a healthy economy to the brink one time, and people with little skin in the game want to do so again. Please point out where the phased level system you approve of has a variable for or in any way takes into account economic harm and/or considers the level of that in relation to cases. The entire construct is driven solely by case numbers and ostensibly designed to minimize only that variable

The point would be to quantify how many economic lives per hundred are destroyed in order to prevent those 2.37 lives per hundred from being lost. Without even considering how many of those 2.37 would be lost to some other stressor like influenza or pneumonia or heart disease because of pre-existing morbidities, don't you think we should have the conversation about what level of economic damage is acceptable? 5 to 1 lives destroyed for lives saved? 10 to 1?

That is the point I wished to make, re-opening level is kept as a dependent variable of CFR and IFR. In such a scheme, how would you derive a solution that optimizes both simultaneously

I agree. But you are, of course, considering that economic lives lost is a bad thing. What if some people consider an economic life lost as merely increasing the chances that person will vote for socialist dumocraps. This makes an economic life lost a favorable byproduct of the crisis, therefore the crisis itself becomes something to hype.

 

[NKBJ]

We're faced with global occupation or global emancipation.
Right now, this minute and in the previous decades of my life, we are slaves.
Slavery is the most profitable business on this planet.

 

[BugI02]

I agree. But you are, of course, considering that economic lives lost is a bad thing. What if some people consider an economic life lost as merely increasing the chances that person will vote for socialist dumocraps. This makes an economic life lost a favorable byproduct of the crisis, therefore the crisis itself becomes something to hype.

I'm a couple of steps behind you. I'm still trying to convince people that single-mindedly using unproven methods in an attempt to reduce new cases of WuVid by any means possible may have unintended consequences. The argument whether the consequences really were unintended is for a later date. Discouraging, or at least taking into account, the economic harm seems paramount

 

[Phase2]

The science isn't settled...

Lockdowns & masks are useless and might even increase COVID-19 spread

Study done by: School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation and the Naval Medical Research Center and published in the New England Journal of Medicine

 

[IndyBeerman]

Yup, stolen. LOL

 

[Ingomike]

The science isn't settled...

Lockdowns & masks are useless and might even increase COVID-19 spread

Study done by: School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation and the Naval Medical Research Center and published in the New England Journal of Medicine

That is a game changer! Wondering how the lockdown crowd will respond to this?

 

[Phase2]

Oh, they'll ignore the CDC, WHO, etc. and just run right ahead to shut down the economy. If you make the mistake of thinking this is about public health, then you will be mystified by their actions.

 

[BugI02]

Slackers get paid, producers get hurt and the US economy is further weakened, What's not to like if you're a good little Marxist seeking to make the world safe for communism

 

[dusty88]

The science isn't settled...

Lockdowns & masks are useless and might even increase COVID-19 spread

Study done by: School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation and the Naval Medical Research Center and published in the New England Journal of Medicine

Did you read the study yourself?