COVID-19 (f/k/a "the Coronavirus")

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Aww sorry, did I force you to post against your will again?

You guys see chicoses behind every tree. Not me.

[JWags85]

U of Minnesota report projects that the virus could be with us for another 18 months to 2 years.

https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/new-report-cidrap-university-minnesota-outlines-covid-19-realities-advises-next-steps

Their Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy is very well respected. I hope they are wrong, but....

I struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study. It's not proposing or sharing anything new or groundbreaking, just an bleak absolute worst case scenario. There's a big difference between "we shouldn't open tomorrow cause there are still big risks" and implying the end of life as we know it till 2022 laying out a scenario that will shatter many and sow nothing but seeds of despondency and despair.

We've had plenty of calls for caution and wariness of this not ending as soon as we'd like, so it's not some bold stance there. They may be quite respected, but this smacks of wanting to one up and be on the record with the most grave doomsday projection, like the other infectious disease expert from UPenn I believe

[Hards Alumni]

You guys see chicoses behind every tree. Not me.

If you don't see him behind the WarriorDad tree, then I seriously overestimated your intelligence.

[forgetful]

I struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study. It's not proposing or sharing anything new or groundbreaking, just an bleak absolute worst case scenario. There's a big difference between "we shouldn't open tomorrow cause there are still big risks" and implying the end of life as we know it till 2022 laying out a scenario that will shatter many and sow nothing but seeds of despondency and despair.

We've had plenty of calls for caution and wariness of this not ending as soon as we'd like, so it's not some bold stance there. They may be quite respected, but this smacks of wanting to one up and be on the record with the most grave doomsday projection, like the other infectious disease expert from UPenn I believe

Some people want to know what may be on the horizon, so they can plan and prepare accordingly.

Some in times of difficulty, only want to hear good stories to make them feel better, and so they can pretend nothing is going on. Some like to prepare.

Everyone deals with these stressful circumstances differently, there are a lot of people that want to see this and need to know what these experts think.

There is value in every angle.

[MU82]

Obviously he doesn't want to look like an idiot.  What is the point of Fauci's testimony?  It's political theater and it would probably lead to Fauci getting axed.

So what is there to gain?   Make Trump seem stupid?  I think he can handle that just fine on his own.

This makes sense, Hards, as does the following from Pakuni

Honestly, it's probably for the better. If people Ike Fauci are going to be believed and have their recommendations followed by a large portion of the populace, they need to be kept entirely separate from the political fray.

But then there's this ...

Dr Fauci will testify before the Senate Committee on Health on May 12th.

So ... what could possibly be the difference between the political make-up of the Senate and that of the House? Hmmm.

[GooooMarquette]

I struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study. It's not proposing or sharing anything new or groundbreaking, just an bleak absolute worst case scenario. There's a big difference between "we shouldn't open tomorrow cause there are still big risks" and implying the end of life as we know it till 2022 laying out a scenario that will shatter many and sow nothing but seeds of despondency and despair.

We've had plenty of calls for caution and wariness of this not ending as soon as we'd like, so it's not some bold stance there. They may be quite respected, but this smacks of wanting to one up and be on the record with the most grave doomsday projection, like the other infectious disease expert from UPenn I believe

The more experts we have giving their perspectives, the better prepared the governors can be to respond to different contingencies as they evolve. And in turn, the better prepared we can be as citizens to adjust to these shifting realities. The alternative is to ignore studies we don't like.

You can close your eyes if you prefer, but I'll keep mine open.

[Keithtisbarf]

Did cheeks succumb to covid? He/she has been mia.

[wadesworld]

Did cheeks succumb to covid? He/she has been mia.

No he hasn't.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

If you don't see him behind the WarriorDad tree, then I seriously overestimated your intelligence.

WD, yes.
Others, no.

[The Sultan]

I struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study. It's not proposing or sharing anything new or groundbreaking, just an bleak absolute worst case scenario. There's a big difference between "we shouldn't open tomorrow cause there are still big risks" and implying the end of life as we know it till 2022 laying out a scenario that will shatter many and sow nothing but seeds of despondency and despair.

We've had plenty of calls for caution and wariness of this not ending as soon as we'd like, so it's not some bold stance there. They may be quite respected, but this smacks of wanting to one up and be on the record with the most grave doomsday projection, like the other infectious disease expert from UPenn I believe

This type of report is literally what this group was created to do.

"About the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy is a global leader in addressing public health preparedness and emerging infectious disease response. Founded in 2001, CIDRAP is part of the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Minnesota."

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Did cheeks succumb to covid? He/she has been mia.

If only (the mia part, that is)

[tower912]

He said he was going to have surgery and be MIA for a while.

[Hards Alumni]

WD, yes.
Others, no.

Oh, I agree, I've never thought he was anyone else.

[wadesworld]

WD, yes.
Others, no.

So...rent free then, aina?

[JWags85]

The more experts we have giving their perspectives, the better prepared the governors can be to respond to different contingencies as they evolve. And in turn, the better prepared we can be as citizens to adjust to these shifting realities. The alternative is to ignore studies we don't like.

You can close your eyes if you prefer, but I'll keep mine open.

Yes, that's exactly what I said  I've been respectful regardless of who I agree with, no need to be an arrogant tool. FFS

[injuryBug]

I struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study. It's not proposing or sharing anything new or groundbreaking, just an bleak absolute worst case scenario. There's a big difference between "we shouldn't open tomorrow cause there are still big risks" and implying the end of life as we know it till 2022 laying out a scenario that will shatter many and sow nothing but seeds of despondency and despair.

We've had plenty of calls for caution and wariness of this not ending as soon as we'd like, so it's not some bold stance there. They may be quite respected, but this smacks of wanting to one up and be on the record with the most grave doomsday projection, like the other infectious disease expert from UPenn I believe

I agree we have known it will be around for the next 18-24 months.  Tell me how my Junior in HS will have a senior year of football, basketball and golf.  What can we do to live outside of our homes with this going around that would be helpful to all.  The only thing this does is create more panic and more division which we do not need at this point

[GooooMarquette]

Yes, that's exactly what I said  I've been respectful regardless of who I agree with, no need to be an arrogant tool. FFS

You did not say that in the post I was responding to. You actually began with the statement that "[you] struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study" so my post explained that it was important because it gave us another reputable data point. And by the way, researchers don't know what the result will be when they begin a project...so it does yield a scientific benefit to see if multiple studies show the same results. Because science....

And is calling me an 'arrogant tool' your way of being respectful?

[JWags85]

You did not say that in the post I was responding to. You actually began with the statement that "[you] struggle to see the benefit in this sort of study" so my post explained that it was important because it gave us another reputable data point. And by the way, researchers don't know what the result will be when they begin a project...so it does yield a scientific benefit to see if multiple studies show the same results. Because science....

And is calling me an 'arrogant tool' your way of being respectful?

I was respectful until you implied i was close minded or purposefully ignorant to things outside my viewpoint in that passive aggressive endIng. There were plenty of ways to share the idea that you like to take in all the data points or studies you can without coming off the way you did, but you knew exactly what you were doing.

Maybe I should have phrased it about sharing the results the way they did versus the study itself.  I understand how science works. I understand how studies work. I also understand the impact that they can have on public sentiment depending on how they are handled. But thanks for patting me on my clearly naive head.

But that doesn't change my previous point. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the way things go around here lately.

[GooooMarquette]

I was respectful until you implied i was close minded or purposefully ignorant to things outside my viewpoint in that passive aggressive endIng. There were plenty of ways to share the idea that you like to take in all the data points or studies you can without coming off the way you did, but you knew exactly what you were doing.

Maybe I should have phrased it about sharing the results the way they did versus the study itself.  I understand how science works. I understand how studies work. I also understand the impact that they can have on public sentiment depending on how they are handled. But thanks for patting me on my clearly naive head.

But that doesn't change my previous point. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the way things go around here lately.

If you understand how science works and truly want to see both good and bad results, why the criticism when I shared the study? No, it wasn't new or groundbreaking, but it was another data point on a very important issue. That alone should have answered your question about why I posted it.

I get that you're stressed and maybe that got the better of you, but whatever.

Anyhow, peace.

[MU82]

nm

[GooooMarquette]

nm

Wrong thread.

[MU82]

Wrong thread.

I musta gotten catatonic due to lack of Arby's.

[Jockey]

Florida state officials have blocked medical examiners from releasing coronavirus death totals after it was found the examiners' death count was 10% higher than the state said it was.

The list of deaths, which had been released in real time by the state's Medical Examiners Commission, is no longer being published, after the Florida Department of Health intervened, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The vital data, which includes demographic information and probable cause of death, has now been withheld for the last 11 days.

[Jockey]

Trump got rid of another career official in the Department of Health and Human Services last night. Her crime? Highlighting critical medical shortages in her report of April 6, as well as inadequate testing for the coronavirus. Since such facts aren't allowed within this criminal enterprise known as the Trump administration, her days were numbered as soon as Trump was made aware of the report. Christi A. Grimm has been in government since the Clinton administration.


For all of you pessimists out there, things will get better. Sadly, it won't be until next year when we have new leadership.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Florida state officials have blocked medical examiners from releasing coronavirus death totals after it was found the examiners' death count was 10% higher than the state said it was.

The list of deaths, which had been released in real time by the state's Medical Examiners Commission, is no longer being published, after the Florida Department of Health intervened, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The vital data, which includes demographic information and probable cause of death, has now been withheld for the last 11 days.

Yeah, I've thought for some time Florida's numbers looked unrealistic. Between an older population and the extremely slow social distancing measures which seemed to be frequently ignored, it seemed the numbers were way too low.

DeSantis, Kemp, and Noem are vying for title of Worst Governor of the U.S.