The " Book It " thread!

[Brownsfan]

After brief mentions of an added 782 cases in 7 days, representing "nearly doubling" of the cases in San Bernardino County, California, and a 517% increase in Marshall County, Alabama, due to 217 new cases in 7 days, the article hones in on the 71% increase in DeSantis' Palm Beach (an increase that they note preceded even the beginning of Phase II of the county's reopening).

Update on the hot spots mentioned in the Yahoo exclusive, San Bernardino County, California, reported 152 new cases yesterday. This represents an increase of about 35% over the average for the previous seven days as given in the article, and, if the number of cases continues to increase, it may indicate that San Bernardino County could turn into a hot spot.

Palm Beach County reported 49 new cases and 4 deaths yesterday. Those numbers would not seem to indicate the beginning of an out of control problem with the virus. However, since the article didn't specify the actual number of cases for the past 7 day period, and I don't know how to access that information, it is hard to detect a trend either up or down at this point.

Marshall County reported 12 new cases and 0 deaths yesterday. It appears that Alabama had a problem with the virus in a meat packing plant in Marshall County and that the Alabama state health department has now taken care of the problem. But we can watch it for a couple of days to make sure.

 

[madmadworld]

update

Are new cases a result of more testing ?
If so more important ......number of hospitalizations and deaths ?

Watching and reading the past few weeks I find more cases are lasting 30 days and longer, these are recovered patients. 53 is the longest I recall.

 

[Brownsfan]

Are new cases a result of more testing ?
If so more important ......number of hospitalizations and deaths ?

Watching and reading the past few weeks I find more cases are lasting 30 days and longer, these are recovered patients. 53 is the longest I recall.

Actually no. Testing in the case of outbreaks in meat packing plants or manufacturing facilities where people work closely together typically involves state health departments quickly testing everyone in the facility plus families of the workers. This tends to bunch the discovery of cases which makes it seem that there are more cases due to testing.

However, when more cases are discovered quickly when the outbreak occurs, the exposure of more people which would otherwise occur is limited and the result is an actual reduction of cases overall.

My concern is not so much exposure of the virus in fixed facilities where testing leads to effective contact tracing to effectively eliminate the virus in a particular location, it is in regard to travel exposure such as on subways in major cities and air travel between major cities.

The same would apply to bars, restaurants and casinos. I think these could be contained as effectively as fixed facilities if there was a method of registering attendance when one frequents such establishments or travels on public transportation.

As someone who leans libertarian, I am basically uncomfortable with such an idea, but on a temporary basis I think it might be acceptable. In other words, make it possible for health departments to contact trace in the event of an outbreak and you should be able to gamble in Vegas. What do you think?

 

[Brownsfan]

Trump pushes 'warp speed' effort on coronavirus vaccine, ignoring lessons from a long-ago drug calamity

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pu...s-from-a-longago-drug-calamity-140324220.html

This article is basically another Yahoo hit job on Trump essentially suggesting that he is willing to take a chance on the health of Americans if he can gain a political advantage by delivering a quick vaccine. Never mind the lives a quick vaccine would save. However, it does contain an interesting paragraph:

Efficacy is more complicated: Researchers can detect if people inoculated with the vaccine produce antibodies to the coronavirus, but how do they know if they are actually immune from future infection. One way, obviously, is to just watch them and see if they get sick (technically, if they get sick less often, or less severely, than an unvaccinated control group). But that’s a slow process. The other way, which is gaining support among researchers, is a "challenge trial," in which volunteers receive an inoculation and then are exposed to an infectious dose of the virus — which clearly poses risks of its own. Challenge trials are usually done for diseases that are not as lethal as the coronavirus, or for which other therapies exist.

In regard to this the Yahoo article links an article in the Hill: Controversial idea to speed coronavirus vaccine gains ground

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...dea-to-speed-coronavirus-vaccine-gains-ground

The Yahoo article quotes a negative comment from the Hill article by Jeffrey Kahn, but neglects to mention a letter from a group of 35 House lawmakers, led by Reps. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) and Donna Shalala (D-Fla.), a former secretary of Health and Human Services to the Food and Drug Administration lending their support to the idea. Nor did it mention positive support for the concept in this case by Stanley Plotkin and Arthur Caplan.

Some will say it is unethical to do it with a virus with no known cure that is as deadly as the coronavirus. But proponents point out that people volunteer for the military and other hazardous duty for the benefit of others. Is allowing them to do that unethical?

A website set up to recruit volunteers, called 1 Day Sooner, says it has already had more than 2,000 people sign up.

What I want to know is why the delay in getting it done. If we are to have football this fall, the President needs to act immediately and make it so.

 

[Brownsfan]

On the Season Schedule to be released this Thursday, 8pm topic on the Football board, Shep has again inserted his political BS by expressing his concern about Baker holding practices in Texas saying: "But Texas is really bumming me out right now. Reopenings are causing big spikes and I really wish somebody had a fucking clue."

I told him to come on over to church and state and we can talk, but otherwise STFU.

I doubt if he will show, but, in case I underestimate him, I would mention for his benefit that he is wrong and that big spikes are not being caused by the reopenings. Also, I would mention that if one is going to hold practices, Texas is one of the safer places to hold it.

For example, in Texas, the total cases of the coronavirus per 1 million population is 1,644. Contrast that with 1,991 in California, 2,086 in Florida, 2.351 in Ohio, 5,057 in Michigan, 7,296 in Illinois, 12,323 in Massachusetts, 16,481 in New Jersey and 18,408 in New York.

Texas also has a relatively low number for deaths with 46 deaths per 1 million population. For comparison, the number per 1 million population for California is 81, for Florida it is 91, for Ohio it is 138, for Michigan it is 489, for Illinois it is 326, for Massachusetts it is 828, for New Jersey it is 1,155 and for New York it is 1,446.

Only Alaska, Montana, Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, Vermont, West Virginia, Maine, Idaho, Oregon, Arkansas and Oklahoma have had a lower number of cases of the virus per 1 million population than Texas.

Among relatively large states, Texas is probably the safest state of all to hold the practices.

 

[Danamal]

Cliff,
You shovel shit for trump daily BS or not.
Trump was a bad idea,only made worse by
reality.Get a grip

 

[OconRecon]

We can’t continue to stay closed, and if you don’t want to go back out into society, stay home.

We have lived with annual influenza for years, and it still kills 10’s of thousands. And that’s with rapid and available testing, treatment, vaccine (which an insanely high number of people don’t get anyway, I’m looking at you Oregon and other west coasters), and a deep understanding of the infection.

Was it right to close? Absolutely in hot spots.
But in my county, we’ve had zero Covid deaths and the hospital has more crickets than patients.

You know who has died? Patients at home, dead of heart attacks. EMS is being told “he was having chest pain for a week but didn’t want to go to the ER”.

====

The Flats this past weekend:

View attachment 1864
View attachment 1865
View attachment 1866

 

[OconRecon]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is hilarious&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;<br>Congratulations to the winner&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;<a href="https://t.co/09uUIUqOQI">pic.twitter.com/09uUIUqOQI</a></p>— &#55356;&#57143;&#55356;&#56826;&#55356;&#56824;Ann&#55356;&#56826;&#55356;&#56824;&#55356;&#57143;&#55357;&#56327; (@tkag2020_ann) <a href="https://twitter.com/tkag2020_ann/status/1261769739291983872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[madmadworld]

Football/Sports Back

I haven't read about this or heard talking heads.

But what about the coaches/managers ?
in all sports many of them are old, some don't look to be in Great/Good health. Andy Reid, Mike McCarthy etc these people seem to at danger.

 

[madmadworld]

Contact tracing

Actually no. Testing in the case of outbreaks in meat packing plants or manufacturing facilities where people work closely together typically involves state health departments quickly testing everyone in the facility plus families of the workers. This tends to bunch the discovery of cases which makes it seem that there are more cases due to testing.

However, when more cases are discovered quickly when the outbreak occurs, the exposure of more people which would otherwise occur is limited and the result is an actual reduction of cases overall.

That might be wishful thinking.

My concern is not so much exposure of the virus in fixed facilities where testing leads to effective contact tracing to effectively eliminate the virus in a particular location, it is in regard to travel exposure such as on subways in major cities and air travel between major cities.

The same would apply to bars, restaurants and casinos. I think these could be contained as effectively as fixed facilities if there was a method of registering attendance when one frequents such establishments or travels on public transportation.

As someone who leans libertarian, I am basically uncomfortable with such an idea, but on a temporary basis I think it might be acceptable. In other words, make it possible for health departments to contact trace in the event of an outbreak and you should be able to gamble in Vegas. What do you think?

I am not for giving Gov any more ability to monitor us. they will never return it.
contact tracing is mostly a pipe dream unless you hire literally Thousands of new "Healthcops" creating a whole new fed/state/local bureaucracy. my whole life I've thought we could get by with 10% less Gov at a minimum.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...ontinues-while-federal-employee-numbers-hold/

 

[Brownsfan]

We can’t continue to stay closed, and if you don’t want to go back out into society, stay home.

We have lived with annual influenza for years, and it still kills 10’s of thousands. And that’s with rapid and available testing, treatment, vaccine (which an insanely high number of people don’t get anyway, I’m looking at you Oregon and other west coasters), and a deep understanding of the infection.

Was it right to close? Absolutely in hot spots.
But in my county, we’ve had zero Covid deaths and the hospital has more crickets than patients.

You know who has died? Patients at home, dead of heart attacks. EMS is being told “he was having chest pain for a week but didn’t want to go to the ER”.

I agree with everything you said. However, regretfully, we often do not have the authority to make our own decisions. Often, decisions are made for us.

And, unfortunately, some people, such as some governors, like to insist that they are following the science while having not the faintest clue of the science. Science may involve analysis of data. And often we rely on experts to evaluate the data for us. However, it appears that experts are often willing to offer advise in the absence of data, and experts offering advise in the absence of data is not science.

The problem is that people (including experts) like to be right and when it appears that they might be wrong, they search for any indication that they might have been right after all. So an outlier is evaluated as a trend and put into an article with seemingly great authority and someone like Shep goes off the deep end about it.

It isn't the greatest sin in the world, but, nevertheless, misinformation such as the misinformation he put on the football board needs to be corrected.

 

[Brownsfan]

That might be wishful thinking.

Actually it is just normal deductive reasoning. Take an example. Assume you have a particular quantity of cases, say 30, in a manufacturing facility. These cases exist and you discover 5 of them because those 5 get sick. That leaves 25 undiscovered cases that have the potential to infect other people. If left unabated, soon you will have 75 cases and then 150 cases and then...

However, suppose you choose to immediately test everyone in the facility and all the families of the people in the facilities and in the process of all that testing, you find 20 of those remaining 25. That leaves 5 to infect other people instead of 20. Hopefully, using contact tracing, you find some of the remaining 5. In other words, by testing and contact tracing, you have reduced the overall number of people having the coronavirus significantly.

I am not for giving Gov any more ability to monitor us. they will never return it.
contact tracing is mostly a pipe dream unless you hire literally Thousands of new "Healthcops" creating a whole new fed/state/local bureaucracy. my whole life I've thought we could get by with 10% less Gov at a minimum.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...ontinues-while-federal-employee-numbers-hold/

Your choice (or at least it should be). All I am saying is that if a trail is left for effective contact tracing, gambling should be permitted. And if it is voluntary, why should you object and prevent others from indulging in their favorite pastime. I don't gamble, but I don't wish to prevent you from doing it if you wish.

 

[Brownsfan]

I haven't read about this or heard talking heads.

But what about the coaches/managers ?
in all sports many of them are old, some don't look to be in Great/Good health. Andy Reid, Mike McCarthy etc these people seem to at danger.

The short answer is that we allow them to drive. There is a risk involved with driving. If they don't find the risk acceptable, they should not drive. Likewise, there are risks for most everything we do. People should have the right to accept whichever risks they wish to accept.

 

[madmadworld]

Coaches/Managers

The short answer is that we allow them to drive. There is a risk involved with driving. If they don't find the risk acceptable, they should not drive. Likewise, there are risks for most everything we do. People should have the right to accept whichever risks they wish to accept.

While We know no one will be forced to play/coach. how many players do We think will die ?
Yet we know there would be death in some of these coaches/managers.

 

[madmadworld]

Actually it is just normal deductive reasoning. Take an example. Assume you have a particular quantity of cases, say 30, in a manufacturing facility. These cases exist and you discover 5 of them because those 5 get sick. That leaves 25 undiscovered cases that have the potential to infect other people. If left unabated, soon you will have 75 cases and then 150 cases and then...

However, suppose you choose to immediately test everyone in the facility and all the families of the people in the facilities and in the process of all that testing, you find 20 of those remaining 25. That leaves 5 to infect other people instead of 20. Hopefully, using contact tracing, you find some of the remaining 5. In other words, by testing and contact tracing, you have reduced the overall number of people having the coronavirus significantly.

Just maybe we are forgetting how real life works. before you would find those other 25 they have had contact with ??? and then the ??? with !!!!! etc wack a mole. now your idea will work with very few cases on a landmass like the Aussies have done ?
now with just 563 cases. well it seems so.

Your choice (or at least it should be yea sure). All I am saying is that if a trail is left for effective contact tracing, gambling should be permitted. And if it is voluntary, why should you object and prevent others from indulging in their favorite pastime. I don't gamble, but I don't wish to prevent you from doing it if you wish.

Man we are just too far gone. it's gamble till the death. then go on. and on till we are Herd

 

[Brownsfan]

Just maybe we are forgetting how real life works. before you would find those other 25 they have had contact with ??? and then the ??? with !!!!! etc wack a mole. now your idea will work with very few cases on a landmass like the Aussies have done ?
now with just 563 cases. well it seems so.

Well, we don't know to find them until the 5 turn up sick. But once we know about the 5, we can surmise what the other 25 are doing and time is of the essence. The sooner we test and get the results, the sooner we can take corrective action for the purpose of stopping or, at least, slowing the spread. And it all starts with testing. Thus while testing exposes cases you would not otherwise know about and appears at first to increase the count, the overall effect is the opposite: testing reduces the number of cases to be counted.

 

[madmadworld]

I'm just not buying

Well, we don't know to find them until the 5 turn up sick. But once we know about the 5, we can surmise what the other 25 are doing and time is of the essence. The sooner we test and get the results, the sooner we can take corrective action for the purpose of stopping or, at least, slowing the spread. And it all starts with testing. Thus while testing exposes cases you would not otherwise know about and appears at first to increase the count, the overall effect is the opposite: testing reduces the number of cases to be counted.

I'm just not buying what "These people are selling".
There is likely 3-5 million Covid zombies outside my house. so there's that.

Something else
did you see Barr & Ray ?
bragging about busting the phone of Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani. my question is why/how does this happen ?
our intelligence is so poor that this sandman gets thru it. kills the best people we have. 20+ years of this and we Still can't gather the information we need, tells me these people can't use $$$$$ properly. trillions wasted

 

[Danamal]

Sorry Mad,
Our intelligence doesn’t work for trump,it’s corrupt and fake.
IG’s are a dime a dozen
Testing and reporting is being down played because there’s
an election coming.
Ten percent less Govt?, line starts at the pentagon.
Now go get Pompeo’s dry cleaning and stfu,lol!!!

 

[Brownsfan]

A voice of sanity.

Adding to Dr. Fauci's diagnosis: The critical case for ending our shutdown

By Dr. Scott W. Atlas, Opinion Contributor — 05/18/20 08:30 AM EDT

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...icide-if-we-dont-adjust-our-pandemic-response

There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York. Specifically, two curves, hospitalizations per day and deaths per day, have flattened. The goal was to prevent hospital overcrowding and, aside from a few in the New York area, hospitals were not overcrowded. Today, most hospitals stand under-filled, necessitating layoffs of personnel. More importantly, it was never a policy goal to eliminate all cases of COVID-19. That is impossible, unnecessary and illogical, when 99 percent of infected people have no significant illness from it.

In summary:

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end — smartly, without irrational, unnecessary requirements contrary to medical science, common sense and logic. The goal of the strict isolation was accomplished in the overwhelming majority of places. We have direct data on risk and extensive experience, individually and as a nation, with managing it, even as new cases arise. We know that gradually relaxing total isolation will lead to more infections, but that’s acceptable, given that we know whom to protect and this disease is not harmful to the vast majority of infected people.

 

[Brownsfan]

From observations of charts displayed on and accessed from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

the new cases for the United States and several of the larger states are estimated from the charts as follows:

USA from about 32000 to about 22000
New York from about 10,000 to about 1500
New Jersey from about 4000 to about 1000
Massachusetts from about 2000 to about 1000
California on relative plateau of about 1500.
Pennsylvania from about 1800 to about 800
Texas from about 1200 to about 1000 (neglecting 3 day spike May 13-15)
Florida from about 1200 to about 750
Louisiana from about 2000 to about 350.
Ohio from 3 day spike in April of about 1200 to plateau of about 500

Not available from above site, but from collected data and charted in Excel spread sheet:
Georgia from about 750 to about 550

It should be noted that most states except New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Lousiana, essentially did not peak but instead effectively obtained a plateau (they flattened the curve as intended). However, new cases in most states, whether peaking or not, have started dropping in the past couple or three weeks. One exception is California which though varying substantially has essentially maintained the plateau level previously established and has neither risen nor fallen significantly in the last couple of weeks (see chart by selecting link on about link).

This was not expected. It was expected that when the states started reopening, there would be spiking that one hoped would be moderate. It was not expected that the number of cases would actually go down with the re-opening. And yet, that is what seems to have happened.