Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Uh, why don't you just scroll up to like 20 posts ago where you wrote that the virus is going to run it's course no matter what we do. " I feel like the virus is going to do what the virus is going to do..." - your words.

So what does that have to do with your statement "The only ones on this thread that purport to know exactly what happened in Sweden are you and the "masks don't do anything!!" crowd."

I wear my mask at work/every time I'm in public. I have no idea what the outcome of Sweden is nor have I speculated. But keep shit talking because that's what low information trolls do.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

Booo hoooo my fake internet points. Oh no. The snowflake is melting.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

So what does that have to do with your statement "The only ones on this thread that purport to know exactly what happened in Sweden are you and the "masks don't do anything!!" crowd."

I wear my mask at work/every time I'm in public. I have no idea what the outcome of Sweden is nor have I speculated. But keep shit talking because that's what low information trolls do.

Good for you wearing your mask. I'm glad to see that you're not as selfish as you are stupid. 

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Booo hoooo my fake internet points. Oh no. The snowflake is melting.

Don't care about my fake internet points. Just pointing out that the person calling someone else a troll is running around like a little bitch negging posts that hurt his feelings. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

[Js1 85,296]

Low effort gif bc you post it 18 times a day 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Js1

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Or both are important and create an exponential driver.

Isn't that a golf club ?

[elfenix 34,227]

virus is mutating, but we're not sure of the significance, if any, of that, i guess:

Quote

 

That mutation is associated with a higher viral load among patients upon initial diagnosis, the researchers found.

The new report, however, did not find that these mutations have made the virus deadlier or changed clinical outcomes. All viruses accumulate genetic mutations, and most are insignificant, scientists say.

The new study, which has not been peer-reviewed, was posted Wednesday on the preprint server MedRxiv. It appears to be the largest single aggregation of genetic sequences of the virus in the United States thus far. A larger batch of sequences was published earlier this month by scientists in the United Kingdom, and, like the Houston study, concluded that a mutation that changes the structure of the “spike protein” on the surface of the virus may be driving the outsized spread of that particular strain.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Low effort gif bc you post it 18 times a day 

Better?

[Message Board User 12,395]

Indiana to be the first to take the plunge.

 

[Hefeweizen 5,310]

Thoughts and prayers to Indiana.  I appreciate the science experiments.

[South Austin 52,458]

Little pink houses ventilators for you and me.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Little pink houses ventilators for you and me.

Bunch of American Fools.

[Guest Lobo]

People aren't even wearing masks down at the Tastee-Freez. 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

I'm actually curious to see the results of a full open with masks required. 

(glad it's not here)

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I'm actually curious to see the results of a full open with masks required. 

(glad it's not here)

[South Austin 52,458]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I'm actually curious to see the results of a full open with masks required. 

(glad it's not here)

I think one of the weak links will be the bars.  Drunk people won't social distance.  Drunk people won't wear masks.  Bar employees won't do anything about that.

Rarely do I laud Greg Abbott for anything, but in the latest plans to allow for increased capacities at restaurants, gyms, etc., at least he recognizes that we as a society aren't responsible enough to have bars yet.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

12 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I think one of the weak links will be the bars.  Drunk people won't social distance.  Drunk people won't wear masks.  Bar employees won't do anything about that.

Rarely do I laud Greg Abbott for anything, but in the latest plans to allow for increased capacities at restaurants, gyms, etc., at least he recognizes that we as a society aren't responsible enough to have bars yet.

Totally agree. Bar's are the main spreaders. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

14 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Drunk people won't social distance. 

BUT I LOVE YOU MAAAAAAN!!!!!

[BradInATX 9,208]

37 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I'm actually curious to see the results of a full open with masks required. 

(glad it's not here)

Same. Bars and family/friend gatherings seem to be the weak links, but gatherings were already happening and the type of folks that are going to go to loud bars and yell/gleek on each other probably weren't the types being super cautious anyway. 

I actually expect that it will go fairly smoothly, assuming that people take the mask thing seriously and it's enforced. 

[Armybrat 40,826]

40 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I'm actually curious to see the results of a full open with masks required. 

(glad it's not here)

But Snacks has family there, IIRC.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

CDC test finds Oregon's youngest reported COVID-19 victim didn't have the virus

 

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) - State health leaders listed him as the youngest Oregonian to die from COVID-19, but it turns out 26-year-old Matthew Irvin of Yamhill County didn’t have the virus when he died in July.

https://www.kptv.com/news/cdc-test-finds-oregons-youngest-reported-covid-19-victim-didnt-have-the-virus/article_13e5cb30-fe07-11ea-9bfa-1b9b05b64870.html?fbclid=IwAR2JRd8xGR1Mrg3M9tbxcwS33j5pwkkChAeM7mW6Z7xZRl8mNIR1fwxEEq0

[dcar00 14,159]

I expect Indiana to blow up, especially with bars open.  France had a mask requirement(indoors) on July 20th and they are blowing up.

[Pato del Muerto 52,487]

20 hours ago, elfenix said:

virus is mutating, but we're not sure of the significance, if any, of that, i guess:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/23/houston-coronavirus-mutations/?arc404=true

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/09/18/2017726117?fbclid=IwAR30uWaZE6-iaJgwb0x1WurVg7Tb2aUNfOtKF6O-bk20TR85be2N2trireo

This link seems to think that the parts of the virus that antibodies recognize and target (natural immunity, vaccine) are stable and therefore mutations are not likely to impact vaccine efficacy. 

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

Has anyone played out (I'm sure they have) the effects of a vaccine by % efficacy?  For example, the various adenovirus-based vaccines may be less effective than other types due to cold-based antibodies in the recipients, but if that vaccine is available and 40% effective, is that better or worse than an 85% vaccine with more limited availability?  Where are the breakovers for that stuff?  I'd love to see a link for that if it exists. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Liquor and Poker
I don't know - I just do stuff sometimes

[Incredulity 11,657]

12 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Has anyone played out (I'm sure they have) the effects of a vaccine by % efficacy?  For example, the various adenovirus-based vaccines may be less effective than other types due to cold-based antibodies in the recipients, but if that virus is available and 40% effective, is that better or worse than an 85% vaccine with more limited availability.  Where are the breakovers for that stuff?  I'd love to see a link for that if it exists. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

19 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Has anyone played out (I'm sure they have) the effects of a vaccine by % efficacy?  For example, the various adenovirus-based vaccines may be less effective than other types due to cold-based antibodies in the recipients, but if that vaccine is available and 40% effective, is that better or worse than an 85% vaccine with more limited availability?  Where are the breakovers for that stuff?  I'd love to see a link for that if it exists. 

[Brisketexan 105,082]

21 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Has anyone played out (I'm sure they have) the effects of a vaccine by % efficacy?  For example, the various adenovirus-based vaccines may be less effective than other types due to cold-based antibodies in the recipients, but if that vaccine is available and 40% effective, is that better or worse than an 85% vaccine with more limited availability?  Where are the breakovers for that stuff?  I'd love to see a link for that if it exists. 

[elfenix 34,227]

1 hour ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Has anyone played out (I'm sure they have) the effects of a vaccine by % efficacy?  For example, the various adenovirus-based vaccines may be less effective than other types due to cold-based antibodies in the recipients, but if that vaccine is available and 40% effective, is that better or worse than an 85% vaccine with more limited availability?  Where are the breakovers for that stuff?  I'd love to see a link for that if it exists. 

afaik you'd use those as coefficients on the percentage of population immunized with those vaccines.  unfortunately the simulator i've flogged doesn't explicitly have that math, but 40% efficacy with 100% of the population getting the vaccine is the same non-susceptible rate as 100% efficacy and 40% of the population immunized.  so set the vaccination slider to 40% and run with it, i guess.  or 40% of 75%, 85% of 33%, etc. and you have to eyeball that.   i'd say start the run with no vaccinations, hit pause at one year, then start playing with the vaccination rate.  also play with the R0 number a bit. 

https://ncase.me/covid-19/

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by elfenix

[DDD Dad 14,331]

Please point to that post, smart guy. Oh..you can't. Can you? Nah. because you are a shit talking troll. 

Ironic post is ironic.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 hour ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Has anyone played out (I'm sure they have) the effects of a vaccine by % efficacy?  For example, the various adenovirus-based vaccines may be less effective than other types due to cold-based antibodies in the recipients, but if that vaccine is available and 40% effective, is that better or worse than an 85% vaccine with more limited availability?  Where are the breakovers for that stuff?  I'd love to see a link for that if it exists. 

I don't think I'd ever attempt this, even though it's the type of thing I love to nerd out on. There's too many things you can't account for. In a limited-quantity scenario, who is getting the limited supplies? We know that almost half of the population won't take the vaccine right out of the gate, so what's the actual uptake of it? How long are people waiting to see if it's "safe"? Political implications too; we're legitimately at a point where whether or not some people (#BothSides) will decide whether or not to take the vaccine based on who wins in November - "whose vaccine it is". 

I think we'd be slightly better with a more effective vaccine with a slow trickle than a less effective one with more doses. Using an incredibly silly and basic scenario:

300mm doses (entire country), 50% uptake, 50% effectiveness = 25% coverage

100mm doses, 100% uptake, 80% effectiveness = 26.4% coverage

But if you move the slider on any variable even a bit, it changes all of the math. 

So who fuckin' knows.

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

 

35 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I don't think I'd ever attempt this, even though it's the type of thing I love to nerd out on. There's too many things you can't account for. In a limited-quantity scenario, who is getting the limited supplies? We know that almost half of the population won't take the vaccine right out of the gate, so what's the actual uptake of it? How long are people waiting to see if it's "safe"? Political implications too; we're legitimately at a point where whether or not some people (#BothSides) will decide whether or not to take the vaccine based on who wins in November - "whose vaccine it is". 

I think we'd be slightly better with a more effective vaccine with a slow trickle than a less effective one with more doses. Using an incredibly silly and basic scenario:

300mm doses (entire country), 50% uptake, 50% effectiveness = 25% coverage

100mm doses, 100% uptake, 80% effectiveness = 26.4% coverage

But if you move the slider on any variable even a bit, it changes all of the math. 

So who fuckin' knows.

Yeah, that's where I'm going - it's an IBM Watson ad. 

Then factor in that many of these vaccines require 2 shots but a pretty sizeable % won't come back for shot 2.  Then is a one-shot 40% vaccine really less effective than the 2-shot 70%, etc.?

I think a lot of people I know have this generic idea that vaccine availability is like the armistice in a war - it's just over that day. As if on "Vaccine Day" we'll have big party and then go about our lives.  I'm trying to figure out how much it really even matters given that those same people all want to wait and see if the vaccine will make people grow a third arm before they get it.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

13 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

As if on "Vaccine Day" we'll have big party and then go about our lives.

Dammit. I've already printed the invitations.

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Dammit. I've already printed the invitations.

I was going to say "big orgy" but then I remembered my audience.

[Pato del Muerto 52,487]

I’m calling it vaccine-extermination day. Or V-E day for short. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

11 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

I was going to say "big orgy" but then I remembered my audience.

[Hate 20,107]

I was going to say "big orgy" but then I remembered my audience.

There is a thread for that.

[atomheartbevo 89,630]

So the guidelines the FDA was going to be pushing, where vaccine makers would have to wait 60 days after he second dose was applied to vaccine trial participants to check for side effects and efficiency, before they could apply for the emergency use authorization (EUA), the White House clarified that they, and not the FDA, make final decisions on when they can start mass production   

Can’t say more because it would be CR, so just know that aggy could be using their $265 million grant to start pumping out vaccines really soon.

I think I will pass, and just keep using a mask and washing my hands.  And I’m also not going to let my kids have said vaccine.  We will wait a few months.  

[Jiggy-Z 3,432]

5 hours ago, South Austin said:

I think one of the weak links will be the bars.  Drunk people won't social distance.  Drunk people won't wear masks.  Bar employees won't do anything about that.

Rarely do I laud Greg Abbott for anything, but in the latest plans to allow for increased capacities at restaurants, gyms, etc., at least he recognizes that we as a society aren't responsible enough to have bars yet.

I think the bars are a really weak link.

Case in point:  I run a concrete construction company, and have had zero cases among my employees.  We usually get a a wheelbarrow full of ice and cold beer and hang out at the yard on Friday's after the crews come in for the week.  It is amazing to see the transformation from properly social distanced to not giving a shit  that occurs just after a couple of cold ones.  And this is among some pretty big dudes that can handle their booze with plenty of room to roam outside.

I think this will end poorly for Indiana and I suspect they might have some plan to tweak their numbers, but I will say no more given the nature of this thread.

[Jiggy-Z 3,432]

Question for those paying attention:

I follow COVID on Worldometer and their death count seems to be 5-6K ahead of what everybody else who  is reporting. I'm wondering if it was a one time bump that occurred somewhere or if they have metrics that allow them to count COVID deaths sooner than others and if the difference will be permanent and growing or if the other sites will catch up.

[Trey3216 15,345]

On 9/23/2020 at 10:17 AM, Lobo said:

The United States has more coastline than Japan does, why hasn't that protected us?  

I'll quit asking stupid questions...spoiler alert...we are the World Class Leader in Covid-19 deaths and will continue to be.  And we will be remembered in history books as 4% of the world's population and 24% of its pandemic deaths.  Always and Forever.  Not because of Islands, Ages, nor Numbers.  For one very simple reason. 

We died in large numbers because we chose to die in large numbers.  

My God you’re an obtuse motherfucker.  This may be the most ignorant argument I’ve ever seen.   

[elfenix 34,227]

1 hour ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Then factor in that many of these vaccines require 2 shots but a pretty sizeable % won't come back for shot 2. 

why would you not go back for the second shot?

[Captainant 27,639]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

why would you not go back for the second shot?

Why don't people finish their entire course of antibiotics once they start feeling better? People are generally pretty fucking stupid and shortsighted.

[Hate 20,107]

I think the bars are a really weak link.
Case in point:  I run a concrete construction company, and have had zero cases among my employees.  We usually get a a wheelbarrow full of ice and cold beer and hang out at the yard on Friday's after the crews come in for the week.  It is amazing to see the transformation from properly social distanced to not giving a shit  that occurs just after a couple of cold ones.  And this is among some pretty big dudes that can handle their booze with plenty of room to roam outside.
I think this will end poorly for Indiana and I suspect they might have some plan to tweak their numbers, but I will say no more given the nature of this thread.

They can’t tweak hospitalizations can they? That is the only thing that matters at this point.

[Trey3216 15,345]

On 9/23/2020 at 11:39 AM, Brisketexan said:

Maybe.

Here's the challenge: sound science requires good data, and objective study.  That's even harder when the data sets (infected people, immune people, people wearing masks) are wildly moving targets.  It's one of the things that pisses me off when folks keep saying "see, the scientists got it wrong!"  No, in most cases, science was working within the constraints that real-world conditions imposed on it.

Science is much more effective in after-the-fact analysis -- when the data sets are known and established, as opposed to moving targets.  When a scientific event of previously unknown mechanism is unfolding, sound decision making is guided by science, but also by a shitload of educated guesses overlaid with agreed-upon policy goals.  Really, it's better at ruling some things out than coming up with a single definitive answer.

That’s correct in that science is best in the after the fact observation.   When you add so many variables to an equation, you can’t just claim one thing is working or not working, because science.   Or we have to do one thing because “Science says so”.   
 

which is what many of us have said all along.   The shutdowns and masks are part of the equation, but tell the people who had hard shutdowns and strict mask laws that they are the only thing that’s gonna get us through this while they’re having secondary major outbreaks with these policies implemented.  
 

it’s disingenuous and horrifically naive.   
 

Should we wear masks and distance and wash and sanitize, yes.   But you can’t have “science is settled” and “consensus says” when it’s showing to not exactly work that way right in real-time.   It’s almost like it’s a fucking virus and 6 feet of distance or paper masks meant to stop someone from spitting their dip on you don’t mean shit to the virus.   It’s gonna infect people, and we have to learn how to move forward and around it with medicine, treatment, and vaccines at some point.   

[Brisketexan 105,082]

18 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

That’s correct in that science is best in the after the fact observation.   When you add so many variables to an equation, you can’t just claim one thing is working or not working, because science.   Or we have to do one thing because “Science says so”.   
 

which is what many of us have said all along.   The shutdowns and masks are part of the equation, but tell the people who had hard shutdowns and strict mask laws that they are the only thing that’s gonna get us through this while they’re having secondary major outbreaks with these policies implemented.  
 

it’s disingenuous and horrifically naive.   
 

Should we wear masks and distance and wash and sanitize, yes.   But you can’t have “science is settled” and “consensus says” when it’s showing to not exactly work that way right in real-time.   It’s almost like it’s a fucking virus and 6 feet of distance or paper masks meant to stop someone from spitting their dip on you don’t mean shit to the virus.   It’s gonna infect people, and we have to learn how to move forward and around it with medicine, treatment, and vaccines at some point.   

This isn't incorrect.....but it creates a false and dangerous dilemma.

When reacting to a novel crisis in real-time, you act on the BEST AVAILABLE information.  And yes, because the data and analysis is unfolding in real time, the BEST AVAILABLE information can (and certainly will, in some respects at the very least) change.

But the counter given to that is a false one that functionally argues in favor of "do what you want" -- and that counter is "it isn't PROVEN!"  No, it's not proven, at least not by the standard imposed by the scientific method.  But interim analysis DOES show strong evidence in favor of some things.  

If I had never seen rain fall, and I got caught out in a storm, I would quickly associate rain with getting wet, and I would also quickly associate clouds with being associated with the rain that gets me wet.  And I may even prepare guidance: when you see clouds, go inside to avoid getting wet.  Now, that guidance would be overly broad at first, because (I would later learn) not all clouds are rain clouds.  So, over time, and after gathering more data, I would refine it to say "when you see gray clouds, or low clouds, or you can see rain falling from a large cloud heading towards you, head inside."  And I would also be COMPLETELY unprepared for automatic sprinklers, so my "avoid getting wet" strategy would have a big hole in it when I walk across a golf course early one morning.

The best available information, and it is indeed backed up by both common sense and observation, is that a virus spread by droplets and breath can have its transmissibility reduced if 1) people stay farther away from each other, and 2) they wear a barrier meant to prevent large quantities of the virus from traveling away from them in droplets/their breath (that's what masks are for, by the way -- not to keep you from getting someone else's droplets, although they do have some marginal performance in that respect, but to keep your droplets from getting too far out and about).  So, YES, those things DO mean shit to the virus.  They aren't 100% effective at stopping all transmission, but they can and do reduce transmission which, if enough people follow them, reduces the rate of transmission.  The science on that, while not perfect, double-blind, detailed peer-reviewed for this specific virus, points reasonably strongly in that direction.  

So, "it's not yet proven" is not a sound rebuttal.  It is a piece of information, of more or less usefulness depending on the specific thing being discussed.

[BradInATX 9,208]

51 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

That’s correct in that science is best in the after the fact observation.   When you add so many variables to an equation, you can’t just claim one thing is working or not working, because science.  

Actually you often can. It's part of how the whole science thing works. When there is enough data you can create enough controls to isolate one factor. We are there with masks. They work. While we don't necessarily know whether or not they significantly reduce spread, we do know that they significantly reduce viral load, and we know that lower viral loads = better outcomes. We also know that when analyzing the entire data set, countries that use masks fare better than those that don't.

It's not even under scrutiny or debate by anybody that's a serious scientific person. The videos and crap that you're seeing on Facebook that seem to sort of push you back across the line between "reasonable skeptic" and "conspiracist" from time to time are junk science and literal fake news. You should stop watching that stuff.

Edited September 24, 2020 by BradInATX

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

My God you’re an obtuse motherfucker.  This may be the most ignorant argument I’ve ever seen.   

Serious question, why have we had such a disproportionate number of deaths?  I'm not talking gross numbers, you know that.  I'm talking per 1mm people.  If it's obesity, then why aren't Palau, Marshall Islands, Kuwait, and Jordan up alongside us?  

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Serious question, why have we had such a disproportionate number of deaths? 

Because we measure differently?

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Because we measure differently?

By height?  

I know there are differences in reporting mechanisms all over the world, but that's a pretty bizarre difference.  Suddenly the U.S. has all this shit in common with Belgium and Peru?