406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,301
Don the con would just have the secret service pay exorbitant rates at Maro Largo for their rooms.
Corona virus
- Thread starter Mudder
- Start date
- Status
Don the con would just have the secret service pay exorbitant rates at Maro Largo for their rooms.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,301
Trump repeatedly compared the virus to being no worse than the flu. He called the criticism of his response a hoax, perpetrated by his political opponents.
It does not advance your argument to just smear people as ass hats.
The buck stops with the guy in charge. There's your ass hat.
BlakeA
Well-known member
Does anyone have a link or any intel on the ages of those who have died in the U.S. so far? I know it's up to about 40 people but just wondering if there is anything that discloses the ages yet.
dcopas78
Well-known member
Most have been in the nursing home that was compromised. Worldometer page has some stats of you search about the ages of US deaths but it isn't easy to find
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
A bunch were in that one Washington eldercare facility so the early stats will definitely be skewed old with such small numbers.
Mudder
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
- Messages
- 159
In DC that is chump change. I get it you hate Trump. Show me a better alternative. I sure don't see any on the Dem side. So Trump and team tried to damp down the hysteria. IMO the Dems started right in trying to figure out a way to turn the situation into a payday. Set up a new bureaucracy to ravage the relief funds on the way through the system.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
All corona viruses and influenza viruses (of which there are many) are transmitted via aerosolized droplets when you cough and sneeze - this is viewed as the primary form of transmission. If you are in proximity of that sneeze that is an air-borne transmission - hence the "social distancing, cover your mouth with the inside of your elbow and sneeze into a kleenex advice". A separate question is "how long does it stay in the air and viable beyond the obvious coughing in someones vicinity"? The big question around airborne is whether it would linger in rooms for a long period of time or if it would be able to be transmitted through HVAC systems to other areas of the building (or ship). No one really knows the answers to this, but typically corona viruses do not get transferred via HVAC
So, why the hand washing? Because the secondary way of transfer is surface contamination. The sick person gets virus all over their hands by touching their nose/mouth area, sneezes/coughs into their hands, etc and then touches a countertop. The next person who follows them touches the countertop and picks up virus, then touches their own nose/mouth/eyes and the infection is transmitted. Hence the "wash your hands, don't touch your face, clean surfaces frequently" advice. There is an open question here about how long the virus remains viable on the surface. It looks fairly certain it can last 8-9 hours in normal indoor conditions. One study suggested as long as 9 days but that seems very unlikely based on what we know about corona viruses in general. I told my wife last night, if she goes to a store and touches the visa card reader she is essentially interacting with all other customers that touched that device today - a little hand sanitizer seems in order.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The most recent ones are pretty tight, but the first batch out of the CDC had big false positives. China also had a spike in positives mid-stream, some due to poor diagnosis some due to questionable tests.
Natural selection...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
The problem with DC and government in general is too many chiefs and not enough indians.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Montana Gov Declares State Of Emergency Over Coronavirus
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock Thursday afternoon signed an executive order declaring a state of emergency over the novel coronavirus. While there are still…
www.mtpr.org
ImBillT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 3,921
What’s pretty tight? Even .1% means that if you test 1000 people out of an abundance of caution that you’re gonna find one case even if no one you tested even had it.
With the number of tests that have been done, and the seemingly few cases we’ve found, I’m really curious about how many people may have been false positives. 75%, 50%, 10%?
With .001% false positives, if you test 1,000,000 people, you get 10 false positives. At .01% that’s 100 false positives. With only 500ish cases, and all the tests we’ve done, that’s got to be one good test.
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Why are we short masks and who should we blame?
www.npr.org
Not Enough Face Masks Are Made In America To Deal With Coronavirus
A global shortage of face masks is prompting concern for the safety of health care workers. Now the U.S. government is trying to bring back an industry that largely left the country years ago.
www.npr.org
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I don't know, and frankly they won't have much statistically useful data for some time. I would guess +/-0.5% error rate for such a quickly developed assay, but I would guess sample preparation/handling error is a bigger part of the error rate than technical test capabilities. All medical testing has an error rate - it is the normal governing all testing. Seems like low impact in this situation. For example lets assume 0.5% error rate (meaning 0.025% false positive and 0.025% false negative) applied to the MN data that was announced yesterday. Those results showed 319 sick people (not general population) tested with 9 ending up positive. The statistics tell is that less than one of the 9 could be a false positive and less than one of the 310 could be a false negative, but probably one of the results is wrong. So does anything change if the results where 8 out of 319, 9 out of 319 or 10 out of 319? Not at a public health level it doesn't. Of course for the individual error it sucks, but nothing is 100% in the world.
dcopas78
Well-known member
Trudeau's (Canadian prime minister) wife tested positive for it. I don't want to sound like a tin-foil hat wearin, gonna-start-bottlin' air conspiracy theorist but does anyone else find it odd that so many celebrity types are all the sudden testing positive? I mean, most celebrities live a pretty guarded life. I understand they attend large functions but reported cases in Canada and Australia (Hanks) are low. Just seems odd. Like we are way, way off on the numbers across the entire globe.
Tradewind
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,224
BrentD
Well-known member
If this country was to get out in front on this thing, what should it do?
1. Make tests available and test strategically to help predict where the virus is and where it will be getting worse the fastest. There is a science for this sort of sampling and plenty of smart people that know how to do it. The CDC would be the logical place to coordinate this, but you know who cut you know what, so they aren't exactly running on full strength
2. Gather up all the gear in the federal (military and otherwise) that would be useful in setting up emergency care centers and have it ready to roll on the push of a button.
3. Negotiate with the NBA, NFL, NCAA to obtain use of their enclosed stadiums and any other large facilities that can be converted into emergency care units (ala the Superdome and Hurricane Kate).
4. Start training military, National Guard, and kneecapped EPA and other federal employees to work in these centers in coordination (sort of an oxymoron for the federal gov) with state agencies.
5. Sit back and wait for the testing and rejuvenated (funded) CDC to direct where to begin with the first of these emergency systems.
A speech to that effect would almost certainly have not resulted in a 2000+ drop in the DOW yesterday, and that would probably have bought him more votes than the deficit spending that he wants.
1. Make tests available and test strategically to help predict where the virus is and where it will be getting worse the fastest. There is a science for this sort of sampling and plenty of smart people that know how to do it. The CDC would be the logical place to coordinate this, but you know who cut you know what, so they aren't exactly running on full strength
2. Gather up all the gear in the federal (military and otherwise) that would be useful in setting up emergency care centers and have it ready to roll on the push of a button.
3. Negotiate with the NBA, NFL, NCAA to obtain use of their enclosed stadiums and any other large facilities that can be converted into emergency care units (ala the Superdome and Hurricane Kate).
4. Start training military, National Guard, and kneecapped EPA and other federal employees to work in these centers in coordination (sort of an oxymoron for the federal gov) with state agencies.
5. Sit back and wait for the testing and rejuvenated (funded) CDC to direct where to begin with the first of these emergency systems.
A speech to that effect would almost certainly have not resulted in a 2000+ drop in the DOW yesterday, and that would probably have bought him more votes than the deficit spending that he wants.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Probably at a higher than normal risk given international travel, exposure to others who travel internationally, number of people they are around, etc. Plus, if we expect 20-60% of all people to be exposed over the next 4 months, not surprising we are seeing celebs even if they weren't more likely.
- Status
