Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#31,077
#31,077
allvol123 said:
0.1 percent of the US population has a confirmed diagnosis. Do you really think that is going to be a big help in a reemergence next fall?
Click to expand...

Do you believe total infected = confirmed cases?

This thing still has a ways to go though as well. I do find it incredibly interesting we might be already peaking in active cases in NY. I was pretty confident that wouldn’t happen yet. That must mean we are doing an even better job of social distancing there than I thought. But it also means unless infected is well over 10x the cases confirmed, it’s going to take a while to come back to normal without this lighting off again.
 
#31,078
#31,078
TennTradition said:
You know one way we won’t fix the issues? By deflecting that we had real problems and just accepting that we did the best we could do.
Click to expand...
No.... I feel any situations like this..... there are going to be successes and failures.... the initial test was a failure but all the tests plus the 15 minute test is a success..... you learn from the failures and correct them for next time.....
 
#31,079
#31,079
TennTradition said:
Do you believe total infected = confirmed cases?

This thing still has a ways to go though as well. I do find it incredibly interesting we might be already peaking in active cases in NY. I was pretty confident that wouldn’t happen yet. That must mean we are doing an even better job of social distancing there than I thought. But it also means unless infected is well over 10x the cases confirmed, it’s going to take a while to come back to normal without this lighting off again.
Click to expand...

No I dont, that's why I said confirmed.

So we are basically trying to balance a see saw here. Dont wont so much infection that you overwhelm the healthcare system, but you'd like enough so as to build up a larger pool of immune people. Hope we nail that.
 
#31,080
#31,080
UT_VOLS13 said:
Do you believe that the problem is due to a specific individual?
Click to expand...

Doubtful.

Could it be an individual? Maybe.

Something went very wrong within the CDC.

Did they just not have the manpower they needed? If not, who reduced their numbers?

Were they on autopilot and didn’t properly project plan to endure tests functioned? If not, who led it?
Was their project plan flawed? If so who wrote it?

My guess a series of problems occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#31,081
#31,081
allvol123 said:
No I dont, that's why I said confirmed.

So we are basically trying to balance a see saw here. Dont wont so much infection that you overwhelm the healthcare system, but you'd like enough so as to build up a larger pool of immune people. Hope we nail that.
Click to expand...

Haha. Yeah me too.
 
#31,083
#31,083
Rasputin_Vol said:
Where were we (USA) going to get more test kits or equipment when (apparently) China had been expats hoarding medical supplies from Australia, Canada and other places and sending those supplies back to China?
Click to expand...


From what I understand -- and I certainly hope that after this there is a full review of the Trump administration's mishandling of things, coming right form the top -- we initially rejected test kits coming in from the WHO and others. The stated reason was that we wanted to do our own.

Are you really going to be surprised if it turns out that the US makers of tests had something to do with that decision?
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga, Hunerwadel and Purple Tiger
#31,084
#31,084
allvol123 said:
Wouldnt a targeted approach have been better then? 50 and younger healthy people existing as normal. They get infected, while not being as likely to need healthcare, and simultaneously reducing the number of future vectors.
Click to expand...

England actually wanted to try something like this. That was the idea.

One thing I’m not certain of is hospitalization rate vs death rate for younger than 50. I know mortality rate seems to be quite low. Not sure of hospitalization rate.

The UK ultimately abandoned this approach but I’m not sure why.

It’s an interesting question, though. One I’ve wondered about.
 
#31,085
#31,085
TennTradition said:
England actually wanted to try something like this. That was the idea.

One thing I’m not certain of is hospitalization rate vs death rate for younger than 50. I know mortality rate seems to be quite low. Not sure of hospitalization rate.

The UK ultimately abandoned this approach but I’m not sure why.

It’s an interesting question, though. One I’ve wondered about.
Click to expand...

It seems we are playing the short game with current strategy rather than long game. Least amount of deaths right now as opposed to 18-24 months from now.

PPE is likely to be a common item of daily use for the next 2 years unless we see this thing mysteriously dry up and disappear.
 
#31,086
#31,086
allvol123 said:
No I dont, that's why I said confirmed.

So we are basically trying to balance a see saw here. Dont wont so much infection that you overwhelm the healthcare system, but you'd like enough so as to build up a larger pool of immune people. Hope we nail that.
Click to expand...

I still think a targeted quarantine for at risk folks makes more sense. It builds herd immunity faster while still limiting the risk for people in danger. It feels like we have see-sawed to much in the safe direction and the end result is we will have to do this again. The frustrating thing for me is it seems like it is for ratings and political maneuvering. Nobody wants to be the first to say “it really isn’t that bad” to only be skewered by the press when the first healthy person dies. Especially the doctors and scientists. It’s simply easier to sell the fear than the solution at this point.

I get the initial shock campaign to get it under control. I really do, and I agree with it.

However, given what we know now, anybody under about 45 that is healthy should be getting back to normal.
 
#31,087
#31,087
rjd970 said:
I still think a targeted quarantine for at risk folks makes more sense. It builds herd immunity faster while still limiting the risk for people in danger. It feels like we have see-sawed to much in the safe direction and the end result is we will have to do this again. The frustrating thing for me is it seems like it is for ratings and political maneuvering. Nobody wants to be the first to say “it really isn’t that bad” to only be skewered by the press when the first healthy person dies. Especially the doctors and scientists. It’s simply easier to sell the fear than the solution at this point.

I get the initial shock campaign to get it under control. I really do, and I agree with it.

However, given what we know now, anybody under about 45 that is healthy should be getting back to normal.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said. It makes me want to go on a facebook rant to all the people complaining everytime they see some kid in the neighborhood playing tennis or whatever activity.

It is just blind trust in media and government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#31,088
#31,088
lawgator1 said:
From what I understand -- and I certainly hope that after this there is a full review of the Trump administration's mishandling of things, coming right form the top -- we initially rejected test kits coming in from the WHO and others. The stated reason was that we wanted to do our own.

Are you really going to be surprised if it turns out that the US makers of tests had something to do with that decision?
Click to expand...
Snopes said that who never offered us tests and it was not uncommon for the US/countries to make their own tests.... the CDC tests were showing inconclusive and have since been fixed from what I understand
 
#31,089
#31,089
rjd970 said:
I still think a targeted quarantine for at risk folks makes more sense. It builds herd immunity faster while still limiting the risk for people in danger. It feels like we have see-sawed to much in the safe direction and the end result is we will have to do this again. The frustrating thing for me is it seems like it is for ratings and political maneuvering. Nobody wants to be the first to say “it really isn’t that bad” to only be skewered by the press when the first healthy person dies. Especially the doctors and scientists. It’s simply easier to sell the fear than the solution at this point.

I get the initial shock campaign to get it under control. I really do, and I agree with it.

However, given what we know now, anybody under about 45 that is healthy should be getting back to normal.
Click to expand...
I agree even though I would be one of the ones quarantined
 
#31,090
#31,090
lawgator1 said:
Intentionally misleading statistic.
Click to expand...
Stats arent your craft either it seems.

Tests vs population is irrelevant when the production of tests start at zero with logistical measures. As you are Floridian, I know you are aware of the town Celebration. When ground was first breaking and hundred to thousands of houses were scheduled to be built. Your argument with testing is analogous to saying Celebration wasnt a booming area because it had 100 house sales out of 40,000 available lots while Lakeland had 20 house sales out of 1000 lots. You can only go by what's being produced with logistical limitations, production limitations and implementation limitations.

Logistic limitations include size of this country and number of administers. All of which go against the US more than any other country providing accurate information.

Production limitations include an accurate test to a new virus without help from the breaking location (everyone had that limitation); widget production to meet demand, a factory is a factory and the time it takes to produce a single widget is consistent amongst countries.

implementation limitations include accuracy of tests, a significant amount of countries have had issues with this whether its their own science or buying from China and having unexpected failures; time it takes to gain a result which feeds into backlogs, all of which has improved from US ingenuity.

Yet despite the limitations, weve still tested more people and continue to test at large numbers as effective tests arrive and symptoms surface. What you are expecting is a magical wand to create the tests and another magical wand to administer them and because those dont exist, you call it an "intentionally misleading statistic". Another moment where you view something through the incredibly clouded lens of bias and irrationality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol
#31,091
#31,091
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#31,092
#31,092
lawgator1 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-what-went-wrong-with-coronavirus-testing-us/

Long, but a good read.

Lack of leadership was the problem. The White House, the FDA, and the CDC needed to coordinate, not work at odds with one another.
Click to expand...
You complain about the Admin, FDA and CDC and argue we should have leaned on WHO? Have you not seen their incompetence in line with China? Youd trust WHO with anything? As far as I'm concerned, this is a reason to withdraw from the shoddy org.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, hjeagle1vol, davethevol and 1 other person
#31,094
#31,094
lawgator1 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-what-went-wrong-with-coronavirus-testing-us/

Long, but a good read.

Lack of leadership was the problem. The White House, the FDA, and the CDC needed to coordinate, not work at odds with one another.
Click to expand...
That is serious Monday morning quarterbacking.... they had strict guidelines on who could get tested as they built up the amount of tests they had available.....they have tested lore people than anyone in the world including developing a test that gets the results back in fifte minutes.
 
#31,098
#31,098
NCFisher said:
You aren't even in the game.
Let's start here: When was the unit in question created and for what purpose?
Click to expand...
NCFisher said:
You aren't even in the game.
Let's start here: When was the unit in question created and for what purpose?
Click to expand...

It can be whatever you say it is. I don’t care. Not interested in this red herring.

Beth Cameron, who wrote the oped that preceded Morrison’s, saying that the WH pandemic office had been dissolved when/after she left NSC... she isn’t a medical doctor. She’s an analyst who likely wouldn’t have been in consideration for a position on the task force for the same reason nobody from the remaining NSC’s biodefense cadre was placed there.

I was making fun of you for slurping Cheeto Mussolini’s choice to appoint actual medical experts to a pandemic task force. Cameron is not a medical expert and likely not someone who would have been placed on the task force because it wouldn’t have required reassignment from her present duty station.

So what relevance is the dissolution of her bureau/position supposed to have to what I was saying? None. The correct answer is none.

You felt that the president of the United States appointing government medical experts to a task force to deal with a pandemic was worthy of praise. This proves that your expectation was that he would botch the task force assignments, too. He’s the metaphorical blind squirrel and you were impressed that he found a nut.

Even if we assume everything in Morrison’s oped to be true and impartial, it’s doesn’t disprove or change that. So... be my guest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76vol, titansvolsfaninga, luthervol and 1 other person
#31,100
#31,100
TennTradition said:
Test and contain - like we do every potential epidemic.

You can’t know where hotspots are if you aren’t testing.

You can’t enact targeted disease-specific protocols unless you know when and where to act.

You don’t have to test everyone. But you need accurate and available tests to find hotspots and then aggressively pursue cases there. Early.

This has nothing to do with January. The errors were made in February.
Click to expand...
Not every potential pandemic...

Quarantines to help reduce the spread of virus

And what do you mean "contain"? Would that have meant closing all ports of entry as well? In January?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top