No Soccer - Bad / No School - Catastrophic!

San Francisco just got added to the watch list this afternoon. I was wondering about them and why they weren't on the initial list but announced a shut down around the same time as La and San Diego. Marin now too. Most of the Bay area it seems except San Mateo.
 
Grace T. said:
Denver School District has now reversed course and after being pressured by the teacher's union is going remote only. The entire state of Colorado, despite reopening, has averaged less than 7 deaths per day since June 1. If that's the standards the unions are holding up, we aren't opening up the schools until a vaccine, whenever that is. Anyone else see a trend?
Click to expand...
Either until a vaccine or November.
 
Grace T. said:
San Francisco just got added to the watch list this afternoon. I was wondering about them and why they weren't on the initial list but announced a shut down around the same time as La and San Diego. Marin now too. Most of the Bay area it seems except San Mateo.
Click to expand...
San Mateo will be added Tuesday.
 
Justafan said:
Hello, Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico . . . The problem is not that they are 3rd world countries or "shitholes," it's that Trump, and apparently you, think that all the people coming from there are "shitholes." And just as an FYI, 3rd world status does not mean it's a "shithole" culture.
Click to expand...
Actually all the places you mentioned are places people vacation.

Those are not the s hole countries.

I have been to each one you mentioned be it work or pleasure.

There are 3rd world countries that are not s hole. Granted the ones you mentioned have issues. But they are are a far cry vs Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan...etc. Truth be told there are 3rd world.. and then bottom of 3rd world.

So try again.
 
Grace T. said:
Errr....my folks are from Peru and Mexico. We're proud of our culture and la raza, we still speak the lengua, my folks still go to all the local restaurants and hangout with their generation and reminsice about the old days, they still wave their flags during the world cup. They miss their homelands. But they were part of the educated elite over there and still fled their shitholes. Now granted, my father wouldn't describe his country as a shithole. He left that to my brothers and me when we visited the joint when I was 6 and we all came down with something serious we suspect was cholera. He reserves the term "shithole" for Chile.
Click to expand...
I love Peru and Mexico. My wife is from Mexico. And the first time (out of many) going to Peru was a dream come true. Especially going to Cusco and Macchu Picchu.

Both those countries have issues...but both don't fall into anywhere close to let's say the Somalia example.

I get the Chile reference.
 
Grace T. said:
p.s. you guys want to see a good soccer series how soccer really operates in most of the world, during quarantine watch "Club de Cuervos" on Netflix. You want to see how racist the Mexicans can be and how they really and truly regard Central America as a shithole, watch the spin off "La Balada de Jugo Chavez"...they use far worse terms than shithole.

p.p.s. let's not forget while we are all distracted with our statutes and school closures, the Chinese are shipping off the Uigars in trains to concentration camps a la 1945 redux.
Click to expand...
In the theme of Mexican racists...when I lived in Costa Rica you should see how they treated the Nicas and the Hondurans.

The Ticos were not happy with their border situation.
 
Desert Hound said:
In the theme of Mexican racists...when I lived in Costa Rica you should see how they treated the Nicas and the Hondurans.

The Ticos were not happy with their border situation.
Click to expand...
That brings up a funny situation. Seems like in the middle of the pandemic mexico became much more tolerant of walls when our rates were higher than theirs.
 
Desert Hound said:
Cases yes. Notice deaths are not following along with that. That is why the press now talks cases and not deaths.

Spain is now starting to shut down Barcelona and the surrounding areas again as of yesterday or today.

So does Sweden

Except NY/NJ/CT? You mean the states where about 40% off all deaths were? So if your argument is they locked down hard enough and the rest of the US didn't, why did they experience so many deaths? And the rest of the US really hasn't experienced that?

By the way they are not back to a normal life yet. They rely heavily on tourism. Much of their tourism infrastructure is not fully open. They are attempting to phase stuff back in over the month of August. Yes they have started to let people in the Schengen zone in. But they are not for much of the rest of the world. And they are staggering tourism openings. They have a long way to go.

And they will see covid cases rise again. As they move around more, more cases will rise again. As travelers start coming in, cases will rise again.

Back to Spain who you seem happy about. Barcelona just recorded over 1k cases again yesterday.

What is interesting about what is happening now is despite the rather large rise is positives in the West and South of the US, we are not seeing anything like the number of corresponding deaths that we saw up in the NE. NY has something like 420k cases and with that 32k deaths. Cal has 370K cases and only about 7k deaths.

NY/NJ/CT/MA/PA are close to half of all deaths in USA.

The press has been hyperventilating about AZ/TX/FL/GA for some time. Those states have about 10% of all deaths.

Now how many cases does NY/NJ/CT/MA/PA have? 880k confirmed cases.

AZ/TX/FL/GA have 921k cases.

Why is that despite more cases, those states have fewer deaths? And by a long shot. Did the lockdowns help the NE? It seems hard to argue that lockdowns in NY were the way to go, but somehow AZ has it wrong? Has the virus changed? What has changed? Is the virus less lethal? Have we already lost the most vulnerable?
Click to expand...
Yes, I also found it odd that CNN has a story about NY, NJ, CN, MA "taming" COVID. Not once does it mention the likelihood that a significant part of their "success" is that they failed miserably containing COVID earlier and many have immunity due to antibodies. The omission is stunningly misleading.
www.cnn.com

'From worst to first': These states have tamed coronavirus, even after reopening. Here's how they're doing it, and why they can't let up

While more than half the states have paused or backtracked reopenings due to increased Covid-19, several states have decreasing rates of infection, hospitalizations and deaths -- paving the way for full economic reopenings.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Consider the following estimates of antibodies and how it will effect transmission.

NYC: Estimate 20% have antibodies (14% statewide)
thehill.com

NY releases figures estimating 14 percent in state, 20 percent in NYC have had COVID-19

Preliminary data shows about 13.9 percent of the population of New York state — about 2.7 million people — have at some point been infected with the coronavirus.About 3,000 people were randoml…
thehill.com thehill.com

AZ: (June 13) 3.1% estimated to have antibodies
kvoa.com

Getting Answers: AZ percentage of positive COVID-19 tests more than double percentage of positive antibody tests

Why is the percentage of people testing positive for the coronavirus more than double the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus antibodies?
kvoa.com kvoa.com

Estimated % of population that has antibodies
NYC: 20%
NY: 14%
AZ: 3.1%

From the other thread, it states that
R > 1.1 it is accelerating growth
R between 0.9 and 1.1 is reasonably stable
R < 0.9 is decelerating
where R is the average number of people an infected person will infect.

Below is an example of how comparing areas with very different proportions of people with antibodies can lead to a misleading conclusion about how well or poorly a region is containing the spread.

To isolate the effect of those with antibodies, assume that all 3 areas are doing equally well in their mitigation - mask wearing, distancing, etc. - and the R value is 1.2 for a population that doesn't have any infections - well above the accelerating growth threshold of 1.1. Below is the calculation of the effective R which will be lower as some people have immunity.

To find the "effective R", take R, 1.2, and multiply it by the portion of people susceptible to COVID (0.8 in NYC, 0.86 in NY state and 0.969 in AZ)

For NYC
0.96 = 1.2*(0.8)

For the State of NY
1.032 = 1.2*(0.86)

For AZ
1.163 =1.2*(0.969)

Both NYC (0.96) and the state of NY (1.032) would have effective R values well within the stable range but AZ (1.163) is well over the accelerating growth threshold of 1.1. The only difference is the larger number of cases NY already had.

There are definitely other factors, but not mentioning this as a factor is a disservice.
 
Justafan said:
Another one bites the dust. Why did you change the subject? And really, it’s all about labels for you? The first sign of a weak argument is somebody who starts off labeling somebody as a lib, dem, alt right, etc.

Substance my friend, it’s all about the substance of the argument. Check all my posts, I’ve never labeled anyone. And for that matter I’ve never criticized Trump for misspellings, or gaffes. That’s for weak fucks.

You want an intellectualy honest discussion, you’re on. Let’s see if you can hang tough guy. I can’t stand Trump, but he was right on the China ban, Biden was wrong, 3.5 unemployment was great, Soleimani & the other fuck were good to taken out.

I’m assuming you hated Obama, so give me a couple of good things about Obama. I’ll be waiting.
Click to expand...

His dick might be bigger than his wife's? He was smart enough to move to a white neighborhood when he retired?
 
Justafan said:
You really thought I was serious? Outlaw knows I was being facetious and he knows I got him, hence his “your speaking my language.”

The telling thing here is why you’re calling me out and don’t call Outlaw out for saying the EXACT same thing about Black shooting victims. They all had it coming for one reason or another.
Click to expand...

The only thing you've got is anal warts and a low balance on your commissary account.

You DON'T think black shooting "victims" had it coming? Tell me, moron, who was innocent?
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Yes, I also found it odd that CNN has a story about NY, NJ, CN, MA "taming" COVID. Not once does it mention the likelihood that a significant part of their "success" is that they failed miserably containing COVID earlier and many have immunity due to antibodies. The omission is stunningly misleading.
www.cnn.com

'From worst to first': These states have tamed coronavirus, even after reopening. Here's how they're doing it, and why they can't let up

While more than half the states have paused or backtracked reopenings due to increased Covid-19, several states have decreasing rates of infection, hospitalizations and deaths -- paving the way for full economic reopenings.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Consider the following estimates of antibodies and how it will effect transmission.

NYC: Estimate 20% have antibodies (14% statewide)
thehill.com

NY releases figures estimating 14 percent in state, 20 percent in NYC have had COVID-19

Preliminary data shows about 13.9 percent of the population of New York state — about 2.7 million people — have at some point been infected with the coronavirus.About 3,000 people were randoml…
thehill.com thehill.com

AZ: (June 13) 3.1% estimated to have antibodies
kvoa.com

Getting Answers: AZ percentage of positive COVID-19 tests more than double percentage of positive antibody tests

Why is the percentage of people testing positive for the coronavirus more than double the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus antibodies?
kvoa.com kvoa.com

Estimated % of population that has antibodies
NYC: 20%
NY: 14%
AZ: 3.1%

From the other thread, it states that
R > 1.1 it is accelerating growth
R between 0.9 and 1.1 is reasonably stable
R < 0.9 is decelerating
where R is the average number of people an infected person will infect.

Below is an example of how comparing areas with very different proportions of people with antibodies can lead to a misleading conclusion about how well or poorly a region is containing the spread.

To isolate the effect of those with antibodies, assume that all 3 areas are doing equally well in their mitigation - mask wearing, distancing, etc. - and the R value is 1.2 for a population that doesn't have any infections - well above the accelerating growth threshold of 1.1. Below is the calculation of the effective R which will be lower as some people have immunity.

To find the "effective R", take R, 1.2, and multiply it by the portion of people susceptible to COVID (0.8 in NYC, 0.86 in NY state and 0.969 in AZ)

For NYC
0.96 = 1.2*(0.8)

For the State of NY
1.032 = 1.2*(0.86)

For AZ
1.163 =1.2*(0.969)

Both NYC (0.96) and the state of NY (1.032) would have effective R values well within the stable range but AZ (1.163) is well over the accelerating growth threshold of 1.1. The only difference is the larger number of cases NY already had.

There are definitely other factors, but not mentioning this as a factor is a disservice.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity --- why did you choose R0 = 1.2 for your calculations?

Also, what do you mean when you say "R value is 1.2 for a population that doesn't have any infections - well above the accelerating growth threshold of 1.1"?
 
Lionel Hutz said:
Out of curiosity --- why did you choose R0 = 1.2 for your calculations?

Also, what do you mean when you say "R value is 1.2 for a population that doesn't have any infections - well above the accelerating growth threshold of 1.1"?
Click to expand...
I could have selected any value for the example, but I intentionally selected the value of R0 = 1.2 to demonstrate how the number of previous infections can make the difference between a stable situation where infections are not growing and a situation where there is accelerating growth. The point being, it was a mistake for CNN to leave this out of the consideration of why those states are doing well now. Again, it's not the only factor, but it is a significant one.

Yes, I am referring to R0 when I write "R value is 1.2 ...". It is assumed to be for a population that does not have any resistance to the virus. In other words, if you get enough viral load, you get it. In practice, R0 is the number of people who will receive enough of a viral load to catch the virus from an infected person. Technically, anything above 1 is accelerating growth and anything below 1 is decelerating growth. In the model shown on the thread below, they use the following to ranges

From the other thread (link below), it states that
R > 1.1 it is accelerating growth
R between 0.9 and 1.1 is reasonably stable
R < 0.9 is decelerating
where R is the average number of people an infected person will infect.

CA County by County Covid-19 Key Metrics: Rate of CV-19 Spread over Time and Hospitalizations as % of Total Care Capacity

Here's a solid tool posted from state of CA to status on a county by county basis. https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/ Can look up status on the bug on a county by county basis - i.e. is the spread accelerating, stable or decelerating - as well as current # of hospitalizations as % of...
www.socalsoccer.com

Maybe that was enough to clarify what I was trying to say, but if not, maybe a decent example will clarify it. Let me know if this one is decent.

Example:
Consider an R value of 1.2 with 10 people infected.
Also, assume the only way you can avoid getting the virus is if you have antibodies.
Answer the questions: How many new infections can we expect and what is the "effective" R in the population?

In this case, the R = 1.2, meaning, the average number of people an infected person will infect is 1.2. Since we have 10 infected people, we can expect them to infect 10*1.2 = 12 people in the population. However, what it really means is that these 10 people will transmit enough virus to infect 12 others who don't have the virus. So, R = 1.2 means that 12 people get coughed on by the 10 infected folks. Now, consider two different populations where these 12 people get coughed on.

(a) Population 1: No one in the population has antibodies.
In this case, no one in the population can avoid getting the virus. All 12 people that get coughed on get the virus. The "effective" R will be 12/10 = 1.2, the same as the initial R (known as R naught). You can see the new infections, 12 is greater than the original number of infections, 10. This is a case of accelerating growth. Those 12 go out and infect around 14 or 15 (12*1.2 = 14.4) and so on. This gets ugly. But, it doesn't go on forever because eventually, sick people cough on people with antibodies who won't get sick, such as in the next population.

(b) Population 2: 1/3 of the population has antibodies
In this case, 1 out of the 3 people to have antibodies. So, of the 12 people that get coughed on, we'd expect 4 of them to have antibodies. Those 4 don't get sick. So, only 8 get infected. This is fewer than the original number of infections and the rate of spread is decelerating. The "effective R" will be 8/10 = 0.8. If this continues, the virus is soon (eventually) extinguished. (Herd Immunity)
 
 
Let's review, the following organizations/medical professionals say that kid's should be back at school physically because the other risks of not being in class outweigh the risks of Covid:



www.hsph.harvard.edu

Expert: Children should return to school in the fall

Joseph Allen, assistant professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, believes that schools can safely reopen in the fall during the COVID-19 pandemic i…
www.hsph.harvard.edu www.hsph.harvard.edu

The youth services organization that I'm involved with has been open for a couple of months with dozen of kids running around all day long in the clubhouses. The risk of exposure is as great or greater than schools. We take common sense precautions and haven't had any issues with Covid. Our employees were excited to come back to work when the clubhouses were reopened, but then our employees aren't unionized. When online school resumes in the fall our staff will be helping kids with their homework in our class rooms without hesitation.
 
Fact said:
You should watch Glenn Beck. While I don’t agree with all his preaching, he provides all the sources for his show so you can do your own fact checking.
Click to expand...
Are you clowns are aware that those shows are classified as “entertainment” and NOT “news?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top