USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020
- Thread starter Handyman
- Start date
- Status
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Way to remove all doubt.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Lol, Chucky arguing with an actual physician on medical definitions.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Registered User
I also liked when flaggy said that osterholm doesn’t know how to run models. Funny I remember models in multiple languages being hammered at me until it became second nature while studying epi much less osterholm lol
It is really, really, really, really Scary. (Les did I get in enough really's in there?).
The virus that no one would know existed if it wasn't on loop 24/7.
Really and I mean really scary.
Really solid argument you have made here. Really clears a lot up, the Models that were created for MN that they are basing decisions on must be iron clad...
MN was going to be at 30,000 deaths in August! lmao, lmfao.
https://twitter.com/covid_clarity/st...24804099489793
The Minnesota covid model #MNmodel forecasts 29,000 deaths. What’s causing these high estimates? Click HERE… for a DEEP DIVE THREAD that explains it.
More LMFAO
7/ It doesn’t take into account the possibility that some groups may be more vulnerable to infection. The #MNmodel treats a 14 year-old healthy teenager & a 90 year-old in a nursing home as equally susceptible to becoming infected.
This is on par with Neil Ferguson level, awful modeling.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Golf clap.
leswp1
Well-known member
THis provided a much needed laugh.
The saga of does my kid go be an RA at college is a soap opera. The kid backed out and resigned. With in the last couple of days a number of the RAs tested positive but they decided return was still OK. Message today- 4 of the 6 heads RA's, an RD, AC, assistant director, and several RA's all walked out. Hoo nelly!
net presence
Active member
Mr. 1820.... Seriously, you need to go back and take a remedial reading class. Either that or you didn't actually read it. Please see the following from the Op Ed:
"The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country. For example, Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential. To be effective, the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible."
Please see the following paragraph, sure looks to me like they addressed the consequences of lockdowns...
"We know that a stringent lockdown can have serious health consequences for patients who can’t get access to routine care. But over the past six months, medical professionals have learned how to protect patients and staffs from spreading the coronavirus; therefore we should be able to maintain access to regular medical care during any new lockdown."
Also, I guarantee you he's familiar with modeling as an epidemiologist. And, your claim that all the modeling was absurd is just patently false. In fact, some of the models predicting how many deaths we would have come August, were actually lower than what actually occurred. Also, your claim that the type of lockdown Osterholm is suggesting have never occurred in anyone's lifetime, is so ignorant of the facts it's laughable. He explains in the piece how numerous other countries enacted the exact same level of lockdown he's suggesting. In fact, despite saying we've never seen a lockdown of that type in our lifetime, you then contradict yourself and link to an article that talks about how ineffective the stringent lockdown in Peru was. You also seem to ignore the fact it was co-authored by the president of the Minneapolis Fed. You really need to get off whatever drugs you're on.
"The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country. For example, Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential. To be effective, the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible."
Please see the following paragraph, sure looks to me like they addressed the consequences of lockdowns...
"We know that a stringent lockdown can have serious health consequences for patients who can’t get access to routine care. But over the past six months, medical professionals have learned how to protect patients and staffs from spreading the coronavirus; therefore we should be able to maintain access to regular medical care during any new lockdown."
Also, I guarantee you he's familiar with modeling as an epidemiologist. And, your claim that all the modeling was absurd is just patently false. In fact, some of the models predicting how many deaths we would have come August, were actually lower than what actually occurred. Also, your claim that the type of lockdown Osterholm is suggesting have never occurred in anyone's lifetime, is so ignorant of the facts it's laughable. He explains in the piece how numerous other countries enacted the exact same level of lockdown he's suggesting. In fact, despite saying we've never seen a lockdown of that type in our lifetime, you then contradict yourself and link to an article that talks about how ineffective the stringent lockdown in Peru was. You also seem to ignore the fact it was co-authored by the president of the Minneapolis Fed. You really need to get off whatever drugs you're on.
net presence
Active member
1820....What the hell do mean by saying, "you don't test positive for Covid-19"? That's literally contrary to what EVERY person in the medical community world wide says about a positive test.
Also, in regards to "And so often that "case" is asymptomatic and most likely not an active infection." Take a look at this;
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53946420
From the article...
"The study, based on 91 children, found that even among those with few or no symptoms, virus could be found in their swabs as much as three weeks later.
The fact they had detectable virus in their noses, the authors concluded, suggested they were capable of passing it on. The study was therefore able to give us some new information about children as carriers of the virus, and their potential capacity to be spreading it onwards."
"Logic dictates that in both children and adults, people with no or few symptoms - who aren't coughing and projecting the virus into the air - are likely to be less infectious, and children generally get milder cases of the disease. But significant numbers of asymptomatic people could still have a noticeable effect on the infection rate."
"Dr DeBiasi believes that while the "vast majority of infected children have mild or unrecognised disease," they may play an "important" role in enabling the spread of infection through communities.
But hey 1820, you and Chuck keep spouting your inaccurate garbage. You both continue to prove your lack of intelligence with every post you make.
Also, in regards to "And so often that "case" is asymptomatic and most likely not an active infection." Take a look at this;
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53946420
From the article...
"The study, based on 91 children, found that even among those with few or no symptoms, virus could be found in their swabs as much as three weeks later.
The fact they had detectable virus in their noses, the authors concluded, suggested they were capable of passing it on. The study was therefore able to give us some new information about children as carriers of the virus, and their potential capacity to be spreading it onwards."
"Logic dictates that in both children and adults, people with no or few symptoms - who aren't coughing and projecting the virus into the air - are likely to be less infectious, and children generally get milder cases of the disease. But significant numbers of asymptomatic people could still have a noticeable effect on the infection rate."
"Dr DeBiasi believes that while the "vast majority of infected children have mild or unrecognised disease," they may play an "important" role in enabling the spread of infection through communities.
But hey 1820, you and Chuck keep spouting your inaccurate garbage. You both continue to prove your lack of intelligence with every post you make.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Don't mention it, guys.
Here to help fill in some of the gaping holes in the Lounge's collective knowledge.
For example ...
"Life expectancy" is a statistical (actuarlal) analysis - NOT a "medical definition", Gomer ...
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Chuck...I was not conflating ****. I was simply commenting on much of the stupidity on downplaying deaths in those over age 77 since they lived "beyond life expectancy" that is quite prevalent.
I understand the terms quite well and actually do something every day to try to increase the average life expectancy. But thanks for the huffy lecture!
Actually I was downplaying the absurdity of posting about a single "positive case." Then I posted actual factual information about the State of MN. And your initial response tried to get me on some sort of technicality about Life Expectancy not down playing deaths. Chasing your tail a bit WildCard.
Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
My wife just heard a school district near Les(not sure exactly what town she’s in) went back Wednesday and they’ve already had someone test positive. They’ve now shut it completely down and are going online. How can people expect anything else?
^^#TeamAppocalypse
Sounds really, really Scary. I mean really.
Back in reality.
https://mobile.twitter.com/covid_cla...15451378696192
With 70,000+ infected people studied in MN…
> There are more deaths age 90+ than age 70 and below
> 99.9% covid survival outside long term care
> 99.97% covid survival for ages under 60
> Avg age of death is 6 yrs beyond life expectancy
Do Better WisconsinWildCard.
Last edited:
PCR tests look for pieces of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the nose, throat, or other areas in the respiratory tract.
The presence of Sars-Cov-2 or a fragment of it does not necessarily mean that someone has an active infection which is Covid-19.
On another topic, let me know if you want to talk false positives? Or do you think those only happen to Professional Athletes, Governors and other famous people?
Also, let me know if you want to take lab contamination which is all but a guarantee to be an issue on some level with mass testing like this.
Last edited:
1. That is why I shared the Country that took the most stringent lock-down measures. Peru whet as strict as possible and it didn't amount to squat for them except one of the largest death rates in the world. The curves are showing that it doesn't matter if a Country or State takes strict lock down measures some measures or no measures, masks/ no masks, or other arbitrary measures the virus doesn't give a rip. Let me know if you want other examples, there are plenty.
2. I am sure he is familiar with modeling. Doesn't mean the models his team built are any good, in fact the MN models turned out to be complete junk. Feel free to look at all the issues with his modeling. https://twitter.com/covid_clarity/st...24804099489793 here is one example. Based on looking at how they were built there is almost no question they were building them so they could enact the measures they wanted.
7/ It doesn’t take into account the possibility that some groups may be more vulnerable to infection. The #MNmodel treats a 14 year-old healthy teenager & a 90 year-old in a nursing home as equally susceptible to becoming infected.
Gee I wonder how they game to this awful forecast? The Minnesota covid model #MNmodel forecasts 29,000 deaths. What’s causing these high estimates? Click HERE… for a DEEP DIVE THREAD that explains it.
3. Some Examples would help your argument.
4. No we haven't played this lockdown game before where we can look back and measure all the effects. What is going on now, we are living in real time, right in the middle of it. And it is proving to be disastrous, hence the info posted about Peru.
This is absurd by the way. False negatives along would ensure this is an impossible parameter to ever meet.
To successfully drive down our case rate to less than one per 100,000 people per day, we should mandate sheltering in place for everyone but the truly essential workers.
From a public health perspective there is zero reason to shutdown the Country right now based on how that article lays it out just three weeks ago. Unless they have some other motive other than a public health perspective.
Last edited:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/opini...ion/index.htm
4/22/2020 Michael Osterholm
The second thing we need to address is: What is our long-term strategy? I believe we have really two choices at the edges and some additional options in between. One choice is to try to lock down our society and economy like Wuhan did. Most of us understand that adopting that approach means we're not only destroying the economy but also destroying society as we know it.
The other alternative is to let viral transmission go willy-nilly until it burns through the population. I am strongly against that approach for two reasons. First, that would mean we could potentially experience millions of deaths just in the United States. It would bring down our health care system as we know it; it would mean severely compromised care for Covid-19 patients and fewer care options for anyone else with other serious health issue such as a heart attack, acute asthma attack, cancer or an injury from an accident. So, that is not a viable alternative.
There's got to be an approach in the middle. I call it "threading the rope through the needle," where we open our economy and everyday life in a way that is capable of rapidly detecting the emergence of new waves of infection. Then we do whatever we can again with physical distancing to limit the new infection's spread.
This is your guy net presence. Quite the shift in opinion.
And man are you really held up on this massive, strict, full scale lockdown.
4/22/2020 Michael Osterholm
The second thing we need to address is: What is our long-term strategy? I believe we have really two choices at the edges and some additional options in between. One choice is to try to lock down our society and economy like Wuhan did. Most of us understand that adopting that approach means we're not only destroying the economy but also destroying society as we know it.
The other alternative is to let viral transmission go willy-nilly until it burns through the population. I am strongly against that approach for two reasons. First, that would mean we could potentially experience millions of deaths just in the United States. It would bring down our health care system as we know it; it would mean severely compromised care for Covid-19 patients and fewer care options for anyone else with other serious health issue such as a heart attack, acute asthma attack, cancer or an injury from an accident. So, that is not a viable alternative.
There's got to be an approach in the middle. I call it "threading the rope through the needle," where we open our economy and everyday life in a way that is capable of rapidly detecting the emergence of new waves of infection. Then we do whatever we can again with physical distancing to limit the new infection's spread.
This is your guy net presence. Quite the shift in opinion.
And man are you really held up on this massive, strict, full scale lockdown.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Registered User
I thought the right loved private business ability to deny service???
jfc
https://mobile.twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1299874056318210050
jfc
https://mobile.twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1299874056318210050
- Status