291–300 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you part of Stanford Health Care or is the test site open to public?
Similar but more general question: is testing available to everyone, e.g. random asymptomatic passersby?
[0] https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/04/04/stanford-researcher...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t CA under lockdown? Only supposed to leave your apartment for groceries right?
No, you can go outside for exercise, walks, errands. etc.
I live in Iowa, and we keep getting shit on from the national media for not having gone into "official" lockdown.
Everything I've heard / read suggests we're in exactly the same amount of lockdown as anyone else. We just aren't calling it that.
It doesn't make any sense that we continue the lockdown in its current state. Hospitals in California aren't overrun. We were insisted upon that the "flattening the curve" was to prevent the medical system from being overwhelmed. With what we've been able to do, we're not even close to having overrun hospitals. By now, we should have ramped up the system to account for greater numbers of severe cases. Given that, we…
Agreed, and it's worth noting that the death rate from economic damage could be significantly higher than the death rate from coronavirus. For each 1% increase in unemployment, several thousand people die. Unemployment substantially increases the risk of mortality.
Mortality rates actually decreased during the Great Depression.
Also, this isn’t a normal “unemployment” situation either — disaster relief isn’t out of the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CFR in Italy is nearly 13%. Even if you make incredibly generous assumptions that there are no unreported deaths and they're only catching 10% of cases that still leaves the infection fatality rate at twice the number you propose
With an older population, a problematic medical system, and being caught totally unprepared, isn't Italy the worst case scenario? I don't think it would be representative of what's going to happen in other countries from here on out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is the travel between counties, at least in CA. There's a lot of travel that could cause reinfection.
I'm not too sure reinfection is as important mathematically as some think when you realize the goal will be to operate below a threshold of cases, not eliminate covid entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99% of the reduction in transmission comes from physical distancing alone while inside of closed spaces with strangers . hygiene is likely negligible outside of a very few high interaction zones inside those enclosed spaces. testing only improves targeting who to distance (isolate). it's a virus that rides on tiny masses of water to hopefully jump into the nasopharyngeal cavity of the next host. if it doesn't make it…
Substantial research contradicts your claims. See https://www.masks4all.co for links.
emergency personnel, medical professionals, and essential business workers should wear masks because they are at elevated, face-to-face risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plan ignores that because people working on this are consistently finding infection rates of less than a few percent. Stanford tested 2888 samples that were negative for flu and other respiratory viruses and didn't find any positive for SAR-COV2 until Feb 21st and Feb23.
14% of women giving birth in NYC test positive; 86% asymptomatic. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316
And you guys want to take it to 85%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CFR in Italy is nearly 13%. Even if you make incredibly generous assumptions that there are no unreported deaths and they're only catching 10% of cases that still leaves the infection fatality rate at twice the number you propose
With an older population, a problematic medical system, and being caught totally unprepared, isn't Italy the worst case scenario? I don't think it would be representative of what's going to happen in other countries from here on out.
Adjust your numbers for population. Per capita numbers for the US are far from the worse case scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's tough to have productive coordination when the president knows so little about civics and government. it's best to ignore the president in this case, especially since he constitutionally has very little say in a pandemic response. instead, focus on putting political pressure on your state and local politicians to come up with a concrete plan and timeline, as they're the ones who do hold power in this case.
I think this would be a very good advice in any other politically charged situation, that requires quick action. However, in the case of pandemic your own plan has to depend heavily on the worldwide plan. If my state would manage to kill 100% of the virus within its borders by quarantine-like measures, and then reopened the economy and everything else before other states and countries do the same, we'd quickly get th…
no governing body would open up everything immediately and let everyone go wild mixing it up. reopening will be controlled and coordinated enough to keep a lid on transmission rates (as implied by the CA roadmap), rather than attempting to eradicate all transmission in one globally-synchronous attempt. that would be wholly unrealistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on Italian serological and all cause mortality data I have seen, the death toll would more likely be about 1.4%. 0.5 IMO is quite optimistic. 0.1% of New York's population has already died. This also discounts the unknown possibility of disability, reinfection, and limited time immunity.
I was under the impression that NYC had a confirmed infection rate of ~1%. Have they really had a tenth of confirmed cases die already?