BAD NEWS THREAD

Desert Hound

PREMIER
You used those same IMHE projections in your post two days ago. Why are they true for you but not for messy?
Actually if you read my follow up, I said I didn't believe them. I was curious if you are anyone else would wonder why if CA has 13k up to now, how are they suddenly going to jump to 49k deaths.

Go back and see what I said about them. I am skeptical.
 
So we are to assume that while it took 6-7 months to hit 190k deaths, in just 4 more months deaths will double?

This in spite of the fact that both infections and deaths are falling rapidly?
Yes. I'm one of those people who believe factual news media information. So, for example, when The Atlantic, back in February, informed us that between 250,000-1 million Americans would die, I believed them. The were correct...and that was February.

When University of Washington researchers, joined by other studies (including Worldometer, which the BBC and Morgan Stanley use), make that finding, I tend to believe it's accurate.
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
Well, the reality is with all except the harshest containment measures (see Australia) failing around the world, with vaccine compliance in taters unless the government forces the issue (which at this point likely requires dragging people out of their homes and forcibly injecting them and their kids), and with the 20% threshold proven to be very soft, we are left with the question what's to be done. The only thing left is learning to live with it while taking reasonable precautions to lessen viral loads, or Australia for years to come and repeated lockdowns.
 

The Outlaw

PREMIER
Yes. I'm one of those people who believe factual news media information. So, for example, when The Atlantic, back in February, informed us that between 250,000-1 million Americans would die, I believed them. The were correct...and that was February.

When University of Washington researchers, joined by other studies (including Worldometer, which the BBC and Morgan Stanley use), make that finding, I tend to believe it's accurate.
You're also one of the morons that think you speak for the majority of Americans and people in the military.
 

dad4

PREMIER
Actually if you read my follow up, I said I didn't believe them. I was curious if you are anyone else would wonder why if CA has 13k up to now, how are they suddenly going to jump to 49k deaths.

Go back and see what I said about them. I am skeptical.
But, if you dont believe there will be a huge December spike in cases, then you should also admit that Arizona will finish the year with disproportionately many deaths per capita.
The December spike was the only reason the year end predictions were even close.
 
But, if you dont believe there will be a huge December spike in cases, then you should also admit that Arizona will finish the year with disproportionately many deaths per capita.
The December spike was the only reason the year end predictions were even close.
You day “were” which is past tense.....did I miss something?
 

Desert Hound

PREMIER
just using the subjunctive as counterfactual, to express my doubt about a large December spike.
I dont think there will be a large spike either. CA however is adding deaths now at a faster rate. So the gap between AZ and CA will narrow.

Covid is a funny thing though. OR and WA have been doing essentially the same thing as CA and yet the rates are different. Utah has been wide open now for some time relative to CA. Easier regs vs AZ even. And yet we see a difference. Utah is back at sports, playing football with fans in the stadium (watched a fri night game on ESPN), restaurants have been open, bars, etc. In theory they should have worse issues. And yet they are one of the least affected states.

It seems much of the differences have less to do with gov policy vs how the virus thrives (climate? pop density? time indoors?, etc).
 

Desert Hound

PREMIER
And remember when we heard about how Europe nailed it and we didn't. Actually scratch that. We still do.

A strange thing happened on the way to the victory line.

useuropecovid.png
 

Desert Hound

PREMIER
And remember when we heard about how Europe nailed it and we didn't. Actually scratch that. We still do.

A strange thing happened on the way to the victory line.

View attachment 8993
And what does the leading person (Laurent Toubiana, a leading epidemiologist at the French Institute of Health and Medical Research) in France say one of the issues is?

“We have another epidemic. We have an epidemic of panic, of fear,” Toubiana said. “So this fear and panic makes us not reflect on what is really happening.”

That sounds rather familiar around certain parts of the US right now.
 
From the NY Times

IDEA OF THE DAY: LOST LEARNING
Whenever schools around the world manage to reopen, children in many countries will emerge from the coronavirus lockdowns having lost large amounts of classroom time.​
Two economists — Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann — have just published a paper that tries to quantify the costs of that lost time and lost learning. This past weekend, the O.E.C.D, the international organization that published the paper, presented the finding to education ministers from around the world. It’s a sobering piece of analysis.​
“Students in grades 1-12 affected by the closures might expect some 3 percent lower income over their entire lifetimes,” Hanushek and Woessmann write, citing previous research on the economic benefits of education. “These economic losses would grow if schools are unable to restart quickly.”​
They add that lower-income students are likely to face disproportionate losses, because remote learning is more difficult for them. And merely restarting schools will not erase the gaps. To do that, countries will need to put in place specific programs to help children make up for lost time.​
“We are frankly concerned that nobody has been talking about these issues,” Hanushek told me.​
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
One of the better rebuttals showing: a) masks haven't really done much on a meta level, and b) there isn't a whole lot of science supporting them. Re the notion of them reducing viral loads....maybe....the argument against is that it doesn't appear asymptomatic spread is that big of contributor or outdoorspread....therefore masks would seem to make a difference in viral loads where you might find sympatomatic people who need to be out and about: medical facilities, groceries, maybe schools, maybe airlines and other transport, maybe churches (you'd wish people didn't show up sick but superspreader experience is contra)....because people don't wear them in their own homes or at parties you'd guess they don't impact much there.

 
One of the better rebuttals showing: a) masks haven't really done much on a meta level, and b) there isn't a whole lot of science supporting them. Re the notion of them reducing viral loads....maybe....the argument against is that it doesn't appear asymptomatic spread is that big of contributor or outdoorspread....therefore masks would seem to make a difference in viral loads where you might find sympatomatic people who need to be out and about: medical facilities, groceries, maybe schools, maybe airlines and other transport, maybe churches (you'd wish people didn't show up sick but superspreader experience is contra)....because people don't wear them in their own homes or at parties you'd guess they don't impact much there.

Have you seen any study that accounts for the differing rates of testing of asymptomatic people that supports the idea that we are seeing a lower percentage of cases that are severe? I see some anecdotal evidence here and there, but nothing that I have seen that indicates that this is definitely happening.
 

dad4

PREMIER
One of the better rebuttals showing: a) masks haven't really done much on a meta level, and b) there isn't a whole lot of science supporting them. Re the notion of them reducing viral loads....maybe....the argument against is that it doesn't appear asymptomatic spread is that big of contributor or outdoorspread....therefore masks would seem to make a difference in viral loads where you might find sympatomatic people who need to be out and about: medical facilities, groceries, maybe schools, maybe airlines and other transport, maybe churches (you'd wish people didn't show up sick but superspreader experience is contra)....because people don't wear them in their own homes or at parties you'd guess they don't impact much there.

Your author agrees with you, but he appears to have absolutely no credentials. The point when he discussed virus particle size instead of aerosol size was a dead giveaway.

The people with credentials are saying masks reduce, but do not eliminate, transmission.
 

Desert Hound

PREMIER
Your author agrees with you, but he appears to have absolutely no credentials. The point when he discussed virus particle size instead of aerosol size was a dead giveaway.

The people with credentials are saying masks reduce, but do not eliminate, transmission.
He was reporting on what the various studies have shown and what various experts have come out on. The article then links to what he references.

Do you dispute the findings/experts?
 

dad4

PREMIER
He was reporting on what the various studies have shown and what various experts have come out on. The article then links to what he references.

Do you dispute the findings/experts?
The author lost my attention when he discussed the size of the virus instead of the size of the aerosol particles in which the virus travels.

He has no clue what he is talking about with particle sizes. Why would I trust his summary of someone else's study? Chances are, he does not understand it. At best, he accurately reports the studies that agree with him and ignores those that do not.

Ok. You and Grace want to be told that masks and distance are irrelevant. And you seek out anyone who will tell you what you want to hear.

I get it. Go to Breitbart or the Blaze. They will tell you what you want to hear.
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
\

Ok. You and Grace want to be told that masks and distance are irrelevant. And you seek out anyone who will tell you what you want to hear.

I get it. Go to Breitbart or the Blaze. They will tell you what you want to hear.
Hey please don't put words in my mouth. You're better than that. I never said they weren't relevant. I'm open to the idea they might reduce viral loads but I'm skeptical that they'd help much except in indoor locations where you might find ill people and get stuck interacting randomly with them: grocery stores, buses and subways, schools (with the exception of younger kids where they might not transmits though more study still needs to be done), airplanes, sadly church. I've also written that we need to stop using the bandanas (which might be worse than nothing) and paper masks and focus on geting really good masks. I also think the evidence is clear they can't stop an outbreak. I'm open to the idea they help...but because the big transmissions are in private events or in the home (where people don't wear masks) or in medical settings (where there's a lot of virus potenitally) I don't think they help very much.

As to news sources, I read everything from The Nation to Breitbart. Sadly, when it comes to this topic the right leaning papers have just generally been more well thought out, though at the beginning when they were arguing this was "just the flu" I was also skeptical.
 
Top