Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

Based on the numbers released by Cuomo today, this study and others like it, it appears closed environments are making this all worse.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....28.20029272v2

---

That’s not what this is saying at all, did you read the study or just the abstract? Aside from poor wording it doesn’t really define a closed environment, but uses examples of sampling: “fitness gyms, a restaurant boat on the river, hospitals, and a snow festival where there were eating spaces in tents with minimal ventilation rate.” So realistically this is supporting mitigation in these closed public environments.

Staying at home prevents spreading to the community. It’s likely that close contacts in the house are going to contract the virus once someone in the house does. If they do contact tracing on the 66% they won’t be “shocked” at the data. What the NY data tells me is that people in certain communities are NOT social distancing very well. Look at the article XU ‘11 posted and you’ll see that the breakdown of hospital admissions is what is to be expected: older retired or unemployed, minorities, primarily downstate. Just because they are home does not mean they are not having contact with people who are infected. Clearly they are. Whether they are meeting with family members who are ill or carriers, or whether they are going to the grocery store etc they are not just sitting in isolation. We really need to promote masks and hand hygiene so we can have public gatherings in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

I don’t know how scientifically factual this is, but you lose most of your credibility when you use the term “socialist wet dreams”. Anyone with any intelligence will recognize that’s not the best way to be considered credible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU '11

Crowder is a right wing version of Trevor Noah. So no, I wouldn't consider him to be a credible news source. The linked CNBC article would seem to be credible though.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-g...ying-home.html

---

What? Because a guy is “Right Wing” doesn’t make a report “Credible”?
There are 3 different reports that say the exact same thing- Crowder, CNBC and Daily Mail. How many more report corroborations do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

That’s not what this is saying at all, did you read the study or just the abstract? Aside from poor wording it doesn’t really define a closed environment, but uses examples of sampling: “fitness gyms, a restaurant boat on the river, hospitals, and a snow festival where there were eating spaces in tents with minimal ventilation rate.” So realistically this is supporting mitigation in these closed public environments.

Staying at home prevents spreading to the community. It’s likely that close contacts in the house are going to contract the virus once someone in the house does. If they do contact tracing on the 66% they won’t be “shocked” at the data. What the NY data tells me is that people in certain communities are NOT social distancing very well. Look at the article XU ‘11 posted and you’ll see that the breakdown of hospital admissions is what is to be expected: older retired or unemployed, minorities, primarily downstate. Just because they are home does not mean they are not having contact with people who are infected. Clearly they are. Whether they are meeting with family members who are ill or carriers, or whether they are going to the grocery store etc they are not just sitting in isolation. We really need to promote masks and hand hygiene so we can have public gatherings in the near future.

---

“Clearly they are” (Having contact with family members who are infected). And how do you know that? Common sense would say that, but people who are staying holed up in their house and not getting out in the air to shop are having their food and other life necessities delivered rather than going out, living a normal shopping life and procuring things that way. The point being that living life in shutdown is just as, if not more dangerous than going out as usual, with a mask, of course. The shutdown life is killing both people and businesses so what is it really accomplishing?

And what say you about the Nobel Prize winning Structural Biology Professor at Stanford, Dr. Michael Leavitt, who has some solid theories, backed by his research, that the world, except for Sweden, is doing this all wrong?

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-pri...r-exponential/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

Based on the numbers released by Cuomo today, this study and others like it, it appears closed environments are making this all worse.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....28.20029272v2

---

I am actually a little confused how this is news? Of course in a closed smaller area it would spread easier than out in the open. The CDC states this when they talk about healthcare workers exposure to patients with COVID-19. The risk is greater of transmission (obviously without PPE) but also if you are in close prolonged contact.

To me this doesnt say staying home is bad. My family has been staying home this entire time really only leaving for walks in our neighborhood. We are a little more strict than most since I am immune-deficient. I am not at more risk because we are sheltering in place. My family doesnt have COVID-19. But is my wife did get it because she went to Kroger and got it from someone she came in contact with there then of course the rest of my family would be more susceptible to getting in from her all being in out home together than someone who might walk by her in our neighborhood.

That is just common sense and in no way to me means the sheltering in place isnt working or is bad. People are most likely to get this from their own family or co-workers, or patients that they are in close contact with. But you have to get in from somewhere. If I lived alone and never left my house I wouldnt be more susceptible because I was staying at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

That’s not what this is saying at all, did you read the study or just the abstract? Aside from poor wording it doesn’t really define a closed environment, but uses examples of sampling: “fitness gyms, a restaurant boat on the river, hospitals, and a snow festival where there were eating spaces in tents with minimal ventilation rate.” So realistically this is supporting mitigation in these closed public environments.

Staying at home prevents spreading to the community. It’s likely that close contacts in the house are going to contract the virus once someone in the house does. If they do contact tracing on the 66% they won’t be “shocked” at the data. What the NY data tells me is that people in certain communities are NOT social distancing very well. Look at the article XU ‘11 posted and you’ll see that the breakdown of hospital admissions is what is to be expected: older retired or unemployed, minorities, primarily downstate. Just because they are home does not mean they are not having contact with people who are infected. Clearly they are. Whether they are meeting with family members who are ill or carriers, or whether they are going to the grocery store etc they are not just sitting in isolation. We really need to promote masks and hand hygiene so we can have public gatherings in the near future.

---

Yes just seeing your post. You said what I was hoping to say as well, just better.

The idea that staying at home is now debunked is hilariously stupid. The people who get it at home are getting it from someone who didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Yes just seeing your post. You said what I was hoping to say as well, just better.

The idea that staying at home is now debunked is hilariously stupid. The people who get it at home are getting it from someone who didn't.

---

I resent you attempting to bring common sense to this thread. (swallows flashlight, and starts chewing clorox tablet)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

Yes just seeing your post. You said what I was hoping to say as well, just better.

The idea that staying at home is now debunked is hilariously stupid. The people who get it at home are getting it from someone who didn't.

---

It’s actually not hilariously stupid at all. Read my post above yours and listen to the interview with Nobel Prize winning Stanford Biology Professor Dr. Leavitt

I read that article. It does present some interesting ideas.
I think he also didn't address how somebody like South Korea did well because of adequate testing and contact tracing,...two things we seem to be lacking.
They did this, I think, with quick lock down strategies.

However, can I quote him in the other thread, since he attributes global warming to the actions of people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

“Clearly they are” (Having contact with family members who are infected). And how do you know that? Common sense would say that, but people who are staying holed up in their house and not getting out in the air to shop are having their food and other life necessities delivered rather than going out, living a normal shopping life and procuring things that way. The point being that living life in shutdown is just as, if not more dangerous than going out as usual, with a mask, of course. The shutdown life is killing both people and businesses so what is it really accomplishing?

And what say you about the Nobel Prize winning Structural Biology Professor at Stanford, Dr. Michael Leavitt, who has some solid theories, backed by his research, that the world, except for Sweden, is doing this all wrong?

https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-pri...r-exponential/

---

If you look at how this data is reported, “home” does not mean they are staying holed up in their house. The data was reported as “retired and/or unemployed.” That is very different than being holed up in their house. Most hospitalizations are those over the age of 50, we know that. What’s the percentage of NYC residents over the age of 50 that are not working right now? I imagine it’s not far from 66% but I could be wrong. So really this shouldn’t be news at all, but hey, if we can twist words and data to create a story then why not, right?

When I say “clearly they are” having contact with someone who was infected I say that because this is a contagious disease that requires contact with someone that is infected. The transmission rate from contact surfaces is pretty low, so to imply that food delivery is the method of transmission for the 66% goes against all evidence we have from this. That’s pretty clear IMO.

Regarding Michael Leavitt, we do not have a “placebo” per se to see what the exponential growth would be without a lockdown, because every country has done drastic mitigation. Even Sweden and Germany, when you really look to see what they have done is not THAT different than many other countries. They have limited public gatherings, closed many businesses, and their unemployment rate is steadily increasing just like everywhere else. So while some may like to pain the picture of them having very lax restrictions it does not necessarily equate to lax lifestyle. Again as I stated in the last post, I think every region/state/country/province has an ideal way to manage it that is likely unique to that region. Just like we in Ohio cannot compare ourselves to New York City and say that would happen here, does not mean we can take a positive outcome and presume the same results here. There are way too many variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun

If you look at how this data is reported, “home” does not mean they are staying holed up in their house. The data was reported as “retired and/or unemployed.” That is very different than being holed up in their house. Most hospitalizations are those over the age of 50, we know that. What’s the percentage of NYC residents over the age of 50 that are not working right now? I imagine it’s not far from 66% but I could be wrong. So really this shouldn’t be news at all, but hey, if we can twist words and data to create a story then why not, right?

When I say “clearly they are” having contact with someone who was infected I say that because this is a contagious disease that requires contact with someone that is infected. The transmission rate from contact surfaces is pretty low, so to imply that food delivery is the method of transmission for the 66% goes against all evidence we have from this. That’s pretty clear IMO.

Regarding Michael Leavitt, we do not have a “placebo” per se to see what the exponential growth would be without a lockdown, because every country has done drastic mitigation. Even Sweden and Germany, when you really look to see what they have done is not THAT different than many other countries. They have limited public gatherings, closed many businesses, and their unemployment rate is steadily increasing just like everywhere else. So while some may like to pain the picture of them having very lax restrictions it does not necessarily equate to lax lifestyle. Again as I stated in the last post, I think every region/state/country/province has an ideal way to manage it that is likely unique to that region. Just like we in Ohio cannot compare ourselves to New York City and say that would happen here, does not mean we can take a positive outcome and presume the same results here. There are way too many variables.

---

So, due to a hypothesis and models based on data from over a hundred years ago where the world was a much different place, we decided instead to destroy the economy and continue to do so.