Jump to content

BrazilHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    7349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BrazilHorn

  1. This is why when folks say "Defund the police" that it shouldn't trigger outrage about public safety.

    So many needless deaths have stemmed from cops killing mentally ill people. To be fair to cops they should not be used for this type of work. A mother who cannot control her 13 year old autistic child shouldn't be having to call the police to do it for her.

    Take some $ that go to cops and put it towards social workers/mental health professionals that could handle these types of calls initially.

    And before anyone throws out the "he's 13, how big could be be?" my son is 13 and is 5'10.5" and could if he was in a meltdown absolutely hurt my wife (no pics) if he was inclined to. So 13 in some cases can be as big as an adult and certainly bigger than the average mom is.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 3
  2. 10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

    Would someone who falls into a higher BMI group but almost purely because of muscle weight vs. fat weight have the same increased risk as the average person? It's been bugging me for awhile since Von Miller reported that it kicked the shit out of him. His BMI is above 30, but he barely has an ounce of fat on him. Would he legitimately be 2x the risk? Or is it more based on fat/body fat? Maybe @ChiTownDoc or @Newdoc have a take. I'm about 30 BMI but by no means carry the fat that your average 30 BMI person does, so it's been eating at me.

    I wouldn't think so as BMI technically is supposed to be a measure of the fatness within the body. So if you are >30 but with muscle vs fat you should be ok. If you are >40 BMI which is where the risks level really seem to kick up you must be a powerlifter :-). But as @ChiTownDoc said, this shit seems to hit everyone.

  3. It is definitely a cool study as it was one of the first ones I had seen that really focused on Obesity and its impact on mortality from CV19. Fairly large sample size (~7000) from Kaiser Permanente in SoCal.

    End of day this thing is a stone cold killer of old people and if you are >80 and get this you are fucked.

    Also if you are severely obese (40+ BMI) and <60 you have a 12-17X higher chance of dying than if you aren't.

    Severe obesity is called out as the absolute leading role in mortality, especially for men <60. (versus men <60 who aren't obese)

    No real difference seen based on ethnicity/income level etc.

    Interesting thing as well is that there is no one other contributing factor related to obesity that is major mortality driver (hypertension, sleep apnea eg)

    Rather just the fact that you are severely obese is the primary driver.

    tl:dr - study says if you are younger and fat you die and if you are old regardless of being fat you die

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

    Nice. Found the link. That's really interesting, particularly the rest of that visualization that you cut off, but more discussion of that probably belongs in the DT, not here.

    Yep - some really cool stuff. I was just showing the piece for <60 years old. One thing for sure is this disease is an absolute fucking killer if you are over 80. It is bad for those 60 to 80 but man if you are >80 and get this you have a VERY high likelihood of dying

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 18 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

     

    Where'd you see that one? I hadn't heard that but I certainly believe it. That's pretty interesting, I'd like to read more if you remember your source.

    Also, to add on to your "it's not the players, it's the janitors, staff etc.". It's also the players' families. There's a lot of risk there, IMO, particularly around the holidays.

    From the "Annals of Internal Medicine" - Article around Obesity & Mortality in the Kaiser Permanente System in Socal.

    Here is clip from article. Really spikes in terms of higher risk of mortality if your BMI is 40+ (considered severely obese). I used the low end of the higher risk in my post. Ultimately as I mentioned on other board we are in "Nut allergy" phase to me of CV19. If you know you are at risk of dying from CV19 (which the groups that are at higher risk are WELL established at this juncture) you need to enact the needed precautions to manage that risk. This may include not visiting grand children, going out to eat etc etc. Just like if you had a severe nut allergy you'd ensure that when you did go out you were not at risk of dying of it. (you'd verify restaurant doesn't cook with nuts/let airline know you were traveling and so on).

    image.png.1c528ed9a49c2fa2347069c9c2138c9d.png

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Wanker Bob said:

    That's about 80 percent of the country over the age of 30. 

    It's already a disaster the likes of which no American has ever seen with over 1 in 1500 Americans who were alive on Jan 1 now dead from it. Millions hospitalized from it and many with massive medical bills and trauma from the experience. Now add in it's not close to finished and shows signs of heart damage in the majority of survivors regardless of age and severity of symptoms and this will be damaging this country for decades to come. It takes some callous, stupid pieces of shit to downplay it just to watch a bunch of unpaid kids bash their heads into each other. 

    ~25% of all deaths have come from those in nursing homes/assisted living facilities, 82% of all deaths have been from 60 years old or higher, of the deaths <60 they have averaged 2.6 other issues wrong with them (mostly due to fact that if your BMI is >40 you are 12x more likely to die).

    ~40% of cases (per CDC) are asymptomatic especially among those that are younger where it has been estimated that upwards of 80% may be asymptomatic. I guess you could try and make point that the virus is hiding in their system to emerge years later, but as there haven't been any studies to this occurrence(and none show for SARS/MERS (that I have seen) that is fairly presumptive.

    I don't disagree that there will need to be studies on what long term effects this virus may have in the years to come, there will be years of research on all variety of attributes.

    I would state though it is not the athletes at risk here, it is the coaches, janitors, staff, fans etc.

    To me play games with no fans, include any support staff in the same rigorous testing protocol as players & coaches and you from a controls perspective are in good shape.

    As I have stated all along, it is not an issue re: playing football but rather opening campuses at all. Players are far safer than average student.

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 2
  7. 16 minutes ago, Chopper said:

    The same researchers studied both the drumpf oklahoma rally and the BLM protests in separate studies and concluded that neither drove an uptick in covid cases for a variety of reasons so it seems unfair to claim bias.

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w27408 blm protests

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w27522 sparsely attended political rally in OK

     

    I am just going off of the things they focused on that seem to be leading them down a pathway. I don't see "political" bias but more "public health" bias. (which I don't believe they are wrong in terms of wearing masks, social distancing etc)

    They then used this public health view to draw huge inferences that Sturgis would be a mass spreading event. I think Sturgis was a stupid, selfish event to hold and for people to attend in the manner they did. I don't doubt there will be cases that stem from it. I just don't believe that 276k or so cases will stem from  it.

  8. Those guys are making a LOT of assumptions in terms of how they are generating their information. They also are going off very small number base in SD and applying the % increase for what is effectively shock value when they report back local numbers.

    By no means am I saying that Sturgis won't contribute to an increase in CV19 cases, but the way they come to their conclusions (leveraging cell phone meta data & trying to track back to where folks stemmed from), using weather/temperature inferences to draw conclusions re: behavior, if a city had mask mandate etc etc cause me to question their outcomes. They spend a lot of time in their report discussing the public health decisions re: Sturgis in general. They are drawing a conclusion that 19% of all cases nationally derived from Sturgis in their timeframe of study which is ~260k cases. There were ~500,000 attendees at Sturgis. Basically they are saying that lots of folks caught CV19 at Sturgis and if they were from a "muh rights" state/city could have been superspreader. Challenge is how can they know which people that were at Sturgis caught CV19 and what state they are from.

    This report to me is classic example of CV19 "headline" grabbing. LOTS and LOTS of peanut butter spreading here.

  9. 69 cases yesterday so well below the new buoyancy range of 100-200. Still overweight in terms of a daily % contribution vs historical in the "school age" groupings.

    Age Bracket <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 >80 Total
    New Cases 9/7 vs 9/6 0 3 9 21 8 7 11 5 5 0 69
    % of Daily Change 0.00% 4.35% 13.04% 30.43% 11.59% 10.14% 15.94% 7.25% 7.25% 0.00%  
    % of Total Cases 0.50% 2.96% 8.33% 26.71% 21.37% 16.33% 11.55% 6.58% 3.27% 2.40%   27,030
    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 38 cases yesterday for Travis County but the ~58% of these were from the 10 to 19 & 20 to 29 cohorts. (Off small overall number but still)

    The 10-19 cohort in particular is far over their normal share of cases.

    Age Bracket <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 >80 Total
    New Cases 9/6 vs 9/5 1 0 13 9 4 4 3 2 0 2 38
    % of Daily Change 2.63% 0.00% 34.21% 23.68% 10.53% 10.53% 7.89% 5.26% 0.00% 5.26%  
    % of Total Cases 0.50% 2.96% 8.32% 26.70% 21.40% 16.35% 11.54% 6.58% 3.26% 2.41%   26,961
  11. 15 minutes ago, Lobo said:

    This reminds of the John Mulaney bit about seeing old photographs from the turn of the last century, and realizing the dumb shit people used to think up to do to just pass the time. 

    (Calling up his friend), "Hey, tomorrow...do you want to get dressed up and go to the docks to wave at boats as they disappear over the horizon?  (pauses) No, I don't know anybody on the boats...it's just something to do from 1-4pm." 

    I love boating, but how sad is your life that you didn't even get on a boat for a boat parade?  You watched longingly from a half mile away, and what the fuck---it's Saturday on Lake Travis and nobody is drinking?  At least if they were drunk they'd have an excuse for being packed in like that.  And considering maybe 25% of the people in that photo are not overweight, that's probably not a good play considering Covid-19 likes the chubby olds.  Good news for these people are there are now four free boats for use in the next parade if they work together to pull them off the lake bottom.  At least these people are outdoors, but not really.  I mean it's covered on top, it opens back into the packed restaurant, they're way too many people per square foot, and that balcony is only maybe 5' deep.  That ain't a good recipe for staying safe.  

    I hope somebody has a photo of their facial expressions when the boats started sinking one another.  I would imagine it's like that famous Surly meme where the two women gasp in horror, and the tall dude behind them slowly reveals a massive grin.  

     

    We will see impact from this a couple of weeks from now if 50 year old + cases sky rocket

  12. Travis Co reporting site completely borked. They are pointing to single gender vs total in the mortality page, so I cannot update deaths etc accurately and plot mortality rate. They also still have cases for 50-59 pointing to just female but I can back in to that by subtracting the total case amount vs that one hole. Just frustrating.

    I have 81 cases for yesterday, which in big scheme of things is a solid number. Big volume in the 10-19 range compared to their regular contribution. Could be freshman at UT and/or back to school testing happening. Still small overall number but it is a large jump up % wise.

    Age Bracket <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 >80 Total
    New Cases 9/5 vs 9/4 1 1 24 23 7 8 9 4 2 2 81
    % of Daily Change 1.23% 1.23% 29.63% 28.40% 8.64% 9.88% 11.11% 4.94% 2.47% 2.47%  
    % of Total Cases 0.50% 2.96% 8.28% 26.71% 21.41% 16.35% 11.54% 6.58% 3.26% 2.41%   26,923
  13. ok so I am back-ending into the 50-59 cohort as Travis county still has their data table for that cohort pointed to just female positive CV19 cases. Will have the daily age compare back tomorrow.

    Another good day for Travis County in that we have now had 14 days in a row of <200 cases/day.(128)  We had seen a "buoyancy" point where we could count on between 200-300 cases a day, it is now squarely in the 100-200 a day range and the low end of that range to boot.

    So the official (which is totally unofficial) BrazilHorn CV19 Daily Buoyancy range for Travis County is now moved from 200-300 to 100-200 cases a day. (after 14 days of being <200/day)

    For those of you who care about AISD playing sports this fall, I am not saying give up hope as you never know but yesterday's hospital admits were 21 and the rolling 7 day average for hospital admits is 18.71. It needs to be <10 for a sustained (at least 2-3 weeks for AISD to play fall sports etc)

  14. 1 hour ago, touchthemonolith said:

    Well, no. It's a question I asked you because I'm curious about your answer.

    I have absolutely no idea how many players are going to die of COVID or COVID complications this season. And to be clear, nobody does. Least of all anyone on this message board. A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what it might look like to hold a college football season during this pandemic based on the data we have, but nobody really knows because nobody has ever tried it before. There will likely be consequences that nobody is even considering right now. Maybe no players or coaches will have any adverse health consequences whatsoever, maybe the health consequences for players and coaches will be catastrophic. Probably somewhere in between.

    That's why I shy away from making statements like, "The numbers will not be substantially higher this year."

    I hesitate to engage here as with the low post count you are probably a sock/troll. (but I am going to give benefit of doubt). While you are right that no one knows the exact count of deaths related to CV19 (or complications) from college football players this year we do have data going back in the US since the March time frame that shows incredibly low mortality rates for people in this age group. (this has been posted by me in detail further up this thread).  These incredibly low numbers are before you account for the overall fitness level of a college football player vs the typical American within that same age cohort.

    I completely agree there may be long term effects to them having CV19. I also believe that the testing/"bubbling"/screening these players receive as athletes is far greater than they would as a typical college student and you could easily make the argument that in fact from a statistical perspective their CV19 related outcomes will be far superior than those of a normal college student.

    To me people arguing whether to play or not play are having the wrong debate. The debate is to whether to allow students on campus at all. (and what their CV19 outcomes would be in doing so vs not).

    If you believe that having students 100% be at home will lead to lower CV19 infection rates/deaths etc then there you go. If you believe that their odds of getting CV19 remain the same whether on campus vs at home given that this age demographic will do what it does, then there you go.

    The debate centers around whether or not a college athlete in the course of playing football stands a HIGHER chance of contracting CV19 vs if they were not playing football and simply attending school or living at home.

    This can be easily tracked over time. There have been 13 UT football players that have tested positive for CV19 since March. To my knowledge all of the football player's cases were prior to fall camp starting. Since July 28th there have been Zero cases on the football team. UT has reported a significant (looks now to be >100) in past 4 days alone. If this continues then clearly football players in the manner they have been sequestered are far safer from CV19 then they would be as a general student.

    I get concerns, I just think the way UT (can only speak for what I am observing here) is handling player safety is good. I believe to some degree this is happening elsewhere as for S.Alabama & S. Miss last night 100% of players were CV19 negative. Doubt that can be said for universities as a whole.

  15. The 104 while higher than the handful of prior days is still well below the 200-300 range of daily cases that Travis Co was in early August. One more day <200 and I plan on moving the "buoyancy" point for cases down to the 100-200 range.

    The age group data is offline as someone at TCAD is pointing the 50-59 bucket to just females vs all. Once that remedied I will post. Encouraging thing (from potential deaths perspective) is only 6 of the 104 cases were from 60 years old & higher.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    spacer.png

    Some local/student-to-student transmission, some were the anticipated "they had it at home and brought it here!"  Still, shouldn't impact hospitalization too much unless they spread it to the profs.

    https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/ut-reports-42-positive-covid-19-student-cases-wednesday-up-from-17-the-day-before/

     

    UT has a good website that they are publishing their info on, looks like considering they are publishing weekly that it was a batching of cases vs all on one day (but who knows).

    https://coronavirus.utexas.edu/ut-austin-covid-19-dashboard

     

  17. Here is view of UT's contribution to total Covid Cases for Travis County. I will keep tracking this as it will be interesting to see going forward. I used the count of UT & Travis Co for the time period UT is tracking which barring one weird rolling 14 day period has been a rolling 7 day count. Then I simply divide UT's Positive Cases into Travis County's.

    Date UT Pos. Travis Pos UT % TC
    7-Jun 3 35 8.57%
    14-Jun 14 848 1.65%
    21-Jun 3 1665 0.18%
    28-Jun 0 2434 0.00%
    5-Jul 1 3218 0.03%
    19-Jul 0 5972 0.00%
    26-Jul 0 1834 0.00%
    2-Aug 0 1734 0.00%
    9-Aug 0 1510 0.00%
    16-Aug 0 1420 0.00%
    23-Aug 1 1592 0.06%
    30-Aug 18 698 2.58%
    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    UT only reported 42 new cases yesterday.   

    Is that new in total or cumulative? Reason I ask is Travis county had 57 yesterday in total so I cannot imagine UT made up 42 of them. (also Travis reported only 27 cases from people between 10-29 years of age)

    Unless cases are somehow being counted back in the student's home county/city etc

    -edit (It is Cumulative)

    image.png.733411f30da19f07c3f368e18eb56c00.png

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 1 hour ago, smoky said:

    Have we figured out what counts as a covid hospitalization?

    Meaning if an asymptomatic, expecting mom comes in to deliver a baby and tests positive, is that a covid hospitalization? Or just a mom and her newborn?

    That situation is going to be a fraction, but I don't see those situations going away.

    I think that as long as the hospitals have been consistent in how they have accounted for these scenarios then over time the data will normalize and it won't really matter from a reporting perspective (whether to the pos or neg)

    Since March 12th through Sept 2 the average % of Travis County CV19 Positive cases that end up in the hospital is 15.33%. So for every 100 cases ~15 people end up hospitalized.

    Hospitalizations to me are the key measure as it won't take into account the various things that can artificially move "Positivity Rate" up or down. This is absolutely in Travis Co moving in the right direction. The rolling 7 day # of hospitalizations is 142.14. Encouraging thing is the past four days have all been below this number so I would expect to see this rolling 7 day to improve. Since 7/21 the rolling 7 day avg (viewed per day) has declined day over day. This is a very positive trend.

    Now if hospitals have been inconsistent in how the report CV19 positive patients then all bets are off, but again the longer this data is viewed the more things should normalize.

     

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  20. There was talk in I believe the College 2020 in Danger thread about the dearth of CV19 related lawsuits due to difficulty of tracing exactly where someone got CV19 etc.

    I bet that will change around these vaccines that are being rushed to market. I see a spate of lawsuits coming down the pike in future years due to CV19 vaccine related stuff.

    Especially if CV19 vaccines are mandated in order to go back to school or travel etc etc etc. WIll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

  21. Another great day for Travis County with 57 cases yesterday.(Makes 12 in a row <200) They removed some from the 1 to 9 age group (this type of adjustment seems to happen 1-2x a week). 10 to 19 & 20 to 29 are higher than their normal share of cases (off small base though). For those of you tracking AISD and fall sports the daily admits yesterday was 13. Rolling 7 day admits is 17.85 (needs to be <10 for 2-3 weeks).

    Age Bracket <1 1 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 >80 Total
    New Cases 9/2 vs 9/1 1 -2 7 20 11 5 5 7 2 1 57
    % of Daily Change 1.75% -3.51% 12.28% 35.09% 19.30% 8.77% 8.77% 12.28% 3.51% 1.75%  
    % of Total Cases 0.49% 2.96% 8.10% 26.69% 21.50% 16.38% 11.56% 6.62% 3.28% 2.42%   26,622
    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...