5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

On 7/9/2020 at 8:23 AM, kallend said:

The U.S. sets another daily record for new cases, surpassing 59,000.

As President Trump continued to press for a broader reopening of the United States, the country set another record for new coronavirus cases on Wednesday, with more than 59,400 infections announced, according to a New York Times database. It was the fifth national record set in nine days.

The previous record, 56,567, was reported on Friday.

The country reached a total of three million cases on Tuesday as the virus continued its resurgence in the West and the South. At least five states — Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia — set single-day records for new infections on Wednesday.

Interesting that the data is wrong, eh?

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fox-35-investigates-hospitals-confirm-mistakes-in-floridas-covid-19-report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, billvon said:

The Trump administration is now going after Fauci.

Trump retweeted the following today: "So based on Dr. Fauci and the Democrats, I will need an ID card to go shopping but not to vote?" (Which of course isn't true.)  "The most outrageous lies are the ones about Covid 19. Everyone is lying. The CDC, Media, Democrats, our Doctors, not all but most, that we are told to trust. I think it's all about the election and keeping the economy from coming back, which is about the election. I'm sick of it."

So we are back to the "COVID-19 is a hoax" meme.  Most doctors and scientists and the CDC are all lying to us.  Only Trump knows what's really going on.

I am starting to think that Trump really might be able to push the death toll into the millions.

You cant really blame them when stuff like this happens.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fox-35-investigates-hospitals-confirm-mistakes-in-floridas-covid-19-report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, airdvr said:

So you want to compare Covid with 9/11?  I did get all flustered about it...most did.  

Exactly.

Now we have a disaster where fifty times as many people are dead, and it's affecting people all across the US.  And yet you claim that if someone is flustered about this much larger disaster (both in terms of number of dead and area it affects) it is because the media "likes to get folks all flustered with numbers."
 

No.  It's because people get flustered when their friends and family die - or are put at risk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

?? WTF are you talking about?  Two medical centers reported incorrect numbers - and now you believe that it's all a hoax and Fauci is all wrong?

If two counties in Nevada were found to have counted votes incorrectly during the 2016 election would you demand Hillary Clinton be installed as president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billvon said:

?? WTF are you talking about?  Two medical centers reported incorrect numbers - and now you believe that it's all a hoax and Fauci is all wrong?

If two counties in Nevada were found to have counted votes incorrectly during the 2016 election would you demand Hillary Clinton be installed as president?

To the third question: No - I personally wouldn't have jumped to that.  It would have sewn further doubt, and I would want to re-examine the results in a much wider search.

To the First - I'm talking abut your comment, I quoted it. You were speaking that people believe the Covid is a hoax, and that the CDC doctors are lying to them.  If someone wants to believe a bad thing isn't true, a bit of supporting evidence is a nice catalyst for furthering that thought.

I don't think you really read the article, though.  There are four labs (not two) mentioned in the article Centra Care, NCF Diagnostics, Orlando Health, and Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center were all mentioned to have admitted errors.

"Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate," puts a pretty heavy weight on the scale for non belief.

 

(Side note) Isn't OVMC a government run facility?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

To the third question: No - I personally wouldn't have jumped to that.  It would have sewn further doubt, and I would want to re-examine the results in a much wider search.

 

Ah, so just a few counties showing errors would not have invalidated anything.  I agree.  Same thing here.  People who think it DOES invalidate the science (or Fauci's guidance on it) are fools.

Quote

There are four labs (not two) mentioned in the article Centra Care, NCF Diagnostics, Orlando Health, and Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center were all mentioned to have admitted errors.

Nope.  Only the two Orlando centers admitted errors.  The other two merely had high positivity numbers.  FOX did not talk to them.  It even reminds you of this at the end of the article - "FOX 35 News has yet to hear from the other labs."

It behooves you to read the report before claiming someone else didn't.

Quote

"Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate," puts a pretty heavy weight on the scale for non belief.

A FOX News reporter saying there were more labs than he could count is a very low bar.  Can he count to ten?  Twenty?  There are hundreds of labs in Florida, thus that represents a small percentage of total sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, billvon said:

Because it was another catastrophe.  But with far fewer dead, and in a far smaller area.  And you got all flustered over it.

 

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

So you want to compare Covid with 9/11?  I did get all flustered about it...most did.  Are you just now realizing that?

Why? Were you afraid that more Saudi Arabians were going to hijack airplanes and fly them into downtown Cleveland? My then-wife was afraid of that very thing (a terrorist attack on our town, not Cleveland). It took a hell of a lot of arguing to finally convince her that we were very low on the target list. And that there were going to be a lot of measures put in place to stop the same attack from happening again. Of course, the terrorists then changed up (shoe bomb, underwear bomb, 2 part liquid bomb, ect). But overtaking the plane by simple force and using the plane as a weapon never was tried again. Not seriously.

I saw the 2nd plane hit. At that moment, I realized that it was an attack. A 'not-so-smart bomb', if you will. 
I also understood that we were going to see some very significant changes in air travel. 
And that it likely woudn't happen again. 
All of the shut downs, both air travel & border crossings, all of the precautions, all of the 'fears' were precisely what the attackers wanted. 
 

3 hours ago, normiss said:

Aren't you the one who started with the local numbers thing?

Why wouldn't it apply to other means of mass death?

In part because this is an invisble threat. You can't see a virus. You can't put a face on it. You can't blame a large group of people who have nothing to do with it for it.
Trump is trying to when he blames the Chinese, but very few are falling for it. 

The problem with the 'local numbers thing' is that there's too much travel. Too many people are in one place today, another tomorrow. Myself included. 

I've seen folks in a small town in northern(ish) WI refuse to take precautions, because there are 'only a few' cases in their county. But it's a big tourist area. People come from all over. Places like Chicago, Milwaukee & Green Bay (Milwaukee County & Brown County - Green Bay - are the #1 & #2 for cases). 
So the chance that there will be infected tourists coming to visit is almost certain. 

Yet they don't think there's a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

To the First - I'm talking abut your comment, I quoted it. You were speaking that people believe the Covid is a hoax, and that the CDC doctors are lying to them.  If someone wants to believe a bad thing isn't true, a bit of supporting evidence is a nice catalyst for furthering that thought.

The data kallend was quoting was the number of positive results. The link you posted was showing an error in the positivity rate reported for a few testing labs. The second value can be wrong without the first one being wrong (for example, if they got their denominator wrong).

Edited by olofscience
said billvon instead of kallend
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The data kallend was quoting was the number of positive results. The link you posted was showing an error in the positivity rate reported for a few testing labs. The second value can be wrong without the first one being wrong (for example, if they got their denominator wrong).

"Can be wrong" is that a definitive scientific term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as “the other side” (of whatever - it just matters that you disagree and lump them all together) is wrong in any single point, one doesn’t have to change anything whatsoever. 
Kind of like being required to prove that someone will die of lung cancer to get them to quit smoking. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, turtlespeed said:

"Can be wrong" is that a definitive scientific term?

Given your disdain for things scientific, he was using general terms that you'd understand more easily.  If he'd said "low correlation coefficient" you would have mocked him for using a scientific term.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Given your disdain for things scientific, he was using general terms that you'd understand more easily.  If he'd said "low correlation coefficient" you would have mocked him for using a scientific term.

 

One out of three correct.  You improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Given your disdain for things scientific, he was using general terms that you'd understand more easily.  If he'd said "low correlation coefficient" you would have mocked him for using a scientific term.

well it's even simpler than that...the number of positive cases is X. The total number of tests is Y. The positivity rate is X/Y.

Kallend posted something which said "X equals 60,000 cases". Turtle posted "too bad the data is incorrect - some labs are reporting the value X/Y incorrectly!" so I pointed it out.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Um...any of the three being correct isn't very flattering. Just saying...

Just because you felt you needed to use a more easily understandable term, doesn't mean it was necessary, or even warranted.  He simply stated what he assumed was a fact.

I do not have disdain for science.

I would not have mocked you for using "low correlation coefficient".

His assumption that you used a more common term, warranted, or not, was likely, so I counted that one correct.

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Just because you felt you needed to use a more easily understandable term, doesn't mean it was necessary, or even warranted.  He simply stated what he assumed was a fact.

I do not have disdain for science.

I would not have mocked you for using "low correlation coefficient".

His assumption that you used a more common term, warranted, or not, was likely, so I counted that one correct.

Ok, no worries then, let's get back to the topic.

What's likely happening is that those labs simply do not report negative results, which is a natural thing to do - if negative there's nothing to worry about, but of course they should still report this correctly as the positivity rate is quite important to the health officials trying to control the outbreak.

Forgetting to report the negative results correctly, which probably happened here, doesn't suddenly make the tests that come back positive, inaccurate.

Edited by olofscience
punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2020 at 2:22 PM, airdvr said:

Covid remains a very regional problem.  In Ohio the 5 counties with the highest numbers are under a mask-wearing order.  Remove those counties and the Ohio death toll is 1,254.  In my little slice of Ohio there have been 1,244 cases, 213 hospitalizations, and 116 deaths.  That's in a county with a population of just under 371,000.

While not to be toyed with you need to take a closer look at what's happening around you on a local level.

We live on a world. You were told, right? Maybe you can just hop your backyard fence and land in the 7-11's parking lot for some Covid free shopping, good for you.  But there isn't anything stopping other "I get it but reserve the right to make my own decision" free spirits like yourself from crossing county lines and delivering a little infection with their bottle returns to your little slice of heaven. That's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

We live on a world. You were told, right? Maybe you can just hop your backyard fence and land in the 7-11's parking lot for some Covid free shopping, good for you.  But there isn't anything stopping other "I get it but reserve the right to make my own decision" free spirits like yourself from crossing county lines and delivering a little infection with their bottle returns to your little slice of heaven. That's the problem.

Again I ask - Is it "My Body - My Choice" anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Yes. When dealing with infectious disease, your choices impact on other peoples bodies, so the connection you are trying to make is invalid.

The concept of societies is essentially, as currently defined, a liberal one. The idea being that self interest is mutual interest. Conservatism, again as currently defined and professed by some SC posters, concludes that self interest is superior to mutual interests. Liberals overlay time frames that might go beyond their own lifetimes. Conservative mostly worry about today. Asking them to make connections about their choices that affect others, especially these days, is a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

The concept of societies is essentially, as currently defined, a liberal one. The idea being that self interest is mutual interest. Conservatism, again as currently defined and professed by some SC posters, concludes that self interest is superior to mutual interests.

As a liberal author recently said, "I don’t know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people."  That may be something that some conservatives are simply incapable of processing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5