skevinp Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 15 minutes ago, Guitar1974 said: Yes, good points indeed. The Kawasaki syndrome is very debateable at this point, but kids bringing the virus home is a valid concern for sure. Such a tough situation. They used to send your kid home with a note. Now the send your kid home with Covid 19. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 6 hours ago, DAvery said: So you are saying they are lying and under reporting the number of cases? No. What is happening is that there are a significant number of C-19 infections that cause no symptoms at all. There are also a significant number of people who have never been tested for C-19. Result - a significant number of C-19 infections go undetected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E3D Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 12 hours ago, GUARDLING said: I have homes in the NE as well as Florida. I'm stuck here for a while. ( Florida) I was just in a Walmart and now Walmart requires masks, No exceptions. I got in line to pay and for the 1st time everyone did have masks on. ( most were not in compliance before ) The couple in front of me ( probably around mid 30s to late 30s ) NO MASKS. Not sure how they got in being someone was checking. Of course now attracting attention. I think( not sure ) someone went to customer service , they brought over security and escorted the couple out. I truly do not get the issue wearing a mask, especially in a state who was supposed to be the beacon of what to do and success ( yeah right) and now what's happening WEAR A #### MASK, I can see it getting ugly as more states and businesses say see ya to those who do not comply. PS: and I don't want to hear about rights. I hate wearing a seat belt but I do . Some real gems on TV today from a pretty wealthy area refusing to wear a mask...good don't, maybe they need to be in lock down to protect everyone else. Or get to the back of the line if they get sick. ughhhh Frustrating.,...sorry It is their right to not wear a mask. Stores also have the right not to allow anyone entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpbobcat Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, E3D said: It is their right to not wear a mask. Stores also have the right not to allow anyone entry. its not quite that simple. I posted yesterday about the problems my wife has wearing a mask because of her Asthma. She's never had an issue when she takes it off. But ,if anyone said anything,she was told by our atty. that,legally ,all she has to say is that she has a medical condition ,that prevents her from keeping a mask on. Under HIPAA that ends the discussion. Don't think a store would want to risk the P.R. and legal nightmare forcing her to leave, because she had to take her mask off to be able to breathe ,would create. The problem is,anyone can make the same statement and,under HIPAA the store is just as stuck. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 8 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: well ####. i wanted to call you a woodwind lover, but haven't found the right opportunity Oh, compliments are just fine! 🙃 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, rpbobcat said: its not quite that simple. I posted yesterday about the problems my wife has wearing a mask because of her Asthma. She's never had an issue when she takes it off. But ,if anyone said anything,she was told by our atty. that,legally ,all she has to say is that she has a medical condition ,that prevents her from keeping a mask on. Under HIPAA that ends the discussion. Don't think a store would want to risk the P.R. and legal nightmare forcing her to leave, because she had to take her mask off to be able to breathe ,would create. The problem is,anyone can make the same statement and,under HIPAA the store is just as stuck. Difference I’m sure is your wife says it nicely. Seen some vids of people flipping out claiming they have a medical condition. Just makes it so much harder on people who do have issues. (Like HC placards when condition is really laziness but I digress) Edited July 16, 2020 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 17 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: Since it was the subject of some back and forth here recently, the CDC now estimates the infection fatality rate for Covid-19 is 0.65%: https://reason.com/2020/07/13/cdcs-latest-estimated-covid-19-infection-fatality-ratio-0-65/ I had said it was somewhere between 0.5% and 1.0%. As a reminder: the IFR for the flu is 0.1%. So the CDC is saying Covid-19 is 6.5 times deadlier. Wait. The IFR was 0.26% two days ago, and now it is 0.65%? It just multiplied by 2.5 overnight? I find that in-credible (i.e. not credible). Your link was such a brief little snippet, it provided insufficient context for me. So I went to the CDC website. I could not find this number in their C-19 counts. So I dug deeper. Another news outlet linked to the source document, "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios", where this number appears. Every page of this document is watermarked "Planning purposes only". And it includes the following disclaimer: "The parameters in the scenarios: • Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning. • Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19. • Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions." (The boldface is as it appears in the document.) This is a pandemic response plan. The numbers are deliberately padded to ensure preparation for worse-case scenarios. That 0.65% number is not the real IFR. And therefore, jumping to the conclusion that C-19 is 6.5 times deadlier than the flu is not substantiated. Do not panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) There are confirmed cases. There are presumed cases. Hard not to become confused . . . . but, isn’t that the goal? I believe so. 🤔 Edited July 16, 2020 by Fred Windish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keystone3ply Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 10 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: well ####. i wanted to call you a woodwind lover, but haven't found the right opportunity Actually he prefers plastic clarinets. 😀😷 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Wait. The IFR was 0.26% two days ago, and now it is 0.65%? It just multiplied by 2.5 overnight? I find that in-credible (i.e. not credible). Your link was such a brief little snippet, it provided insufficient context for me. So I went to the CDC website. I could not find this number in their C-19 counts. So I dug deeper. Another news outlet linked to the source document, "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios", where this number appears. Every page of this document is watermarked "Planning purposes only". And it includes the following disclaimer: "The parameters in the scenarios: • Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning. • Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19. • Do not reflect the impact of any behavioral changes, social distancing, or other interventions." (The boldface is as it appears in the document.) This is a pandemic response plan. The numbers are deliberately padded to ensure preparation for worse-case scenarios. That 0.65% number is not the real IFR. And therefore, jumping to the conclusion that C-19 is 6.5 times deadlier than the flu is not substantiated. Do not panic. It does say plan for .65 is based on their current best estimate though. The others are lower and higher. But people plan for disasters and not normalcy, so that might explain why they would use a worse case estimate for this purpose than for a purely objective one. One thing that comes through loud and clear though is they are aware they have no idea what the real number is and that they could be way off. Maybe the best way to describe it would be an educated wild guess within a “plan for the worst” environment. Edited July 16, 2020 by skevinp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts