Let's just agree to check back. When the test results of recent patients who came in with Covid like illness come back we will see who was correct.You have you facts wrong. Again.
Let's just agree to check back. When the test results of recent patients who came in with Covid like illness come back we will see who was correct.You have you facts wrong. Again.
Correct about what?Let's just agree to check back. When the test results of recent patients who came in with Covid like illness come back we will see who was correct.
The point was the cases in NY and PA are not rising.
How could the protests be the cause of the current spike in Texas, but NY which also had protests, continues to trend downward?
Nope. I didn't state that.Oh he thought Vent and ICU bed use was cumulative?
I gave him the link. Not sure what else I was supposed to do.
I thought the question was: Are AZ new covid hospitalizations rising?Correct about what?
Good call, have to figure that is a factor as well.Maybe since NY/NE had more antibody spread, it's possible that there was a partial herd immunity effect? Just positing a theory.
You are right, this is good news, these states learned how bad the virus was and took the measures to get it under control.Why are we always talking Florida, Texas, Arizona? How about the great progress in NY, NJ, Conn., Pa. etc. The fact that NYC is going to phase 2 Monday just 60 days from it’s peak is incredible. Connecticut all green now, Pa. days away from all green and NJ right behind. Great news and hardly ever mentioned on this board. Why?
Not really...Horowitz wasn't arguing that either--he was providing an explanation for part of the increase. Then you went crazy over an update to the June 3 case count--even though AZ is still well below the June 2 peak.I thought the question was: Are AZ new covid hospitalizations rising?
But maybe I just have no idea what you are talking about.
B.S--I never said rates were falling why must you lie? ru05 has had his panties in a bunch over the Jun 3 hospitalizations-by-date count being updated which is still well below the Jun 2 high.
3200 new cases in FL.
A week ago today, FL set a record high in new cases with 1698.
Again, in his article June 2nd was not the peak. Horowitz was noting how new covid hospitalizations for that week were near zero.Not really...Horowitz wasn't arguing that either--he was providing an explanation for part of the increase. Then you went crazy over an update to the June 3 case count--even though AZ is still well below the June 2 peak.
Yep 59 people in a state of almost 7.3 million...Yet 59 x's the number that Horowitz used in his article which thought was signifying a down ward trend.
June 2nd in his article was around 5.
So you are shifting your argument?Yep 59 people in a state of almost 7.3 million...
So how does that change the point of his article about why there were increases? Haven't the pre--Jun 2 numbers been revised upward also?Again, in his article June 2nd was not the peak. Horowitz was noting how new covid hospitalizations for that week were near zero.
Now it's the peak, at least in terms of reporting. In a couple weeks it won't be. The reality is the #'s have been increasing the whole time. The reporting will eventually show that.
Nope---59 out of 7.3mil is less than 75...like 50 on Jun 8 is less than both 75 and 59 out of 7.3mil. Look you can spend the rest of the day looking at AZ charts--I can't, so I'll check in periodically with your alerts ok. Thanks.So you are shifting your argument?
All green in PA doesn't mean alot. Bars and restaurants severely restricted among other business.Why are we always talking Florida, Texas, Arizona? How about the great progress in NY, NJ, Conn., Pa. etc. The fact that NYC is going to phase 2 Monday just 60 days from it’s peak is incredible. Connecticut all green now, Pa. days away from all green and NJ right behind. Great news and hardly ever mentioned on this board. Why?
DeSantis on now - big issue are migrant farm workers, live together in dorms. One farm tested 90 out of 100 workers were positive.
So you seem to have two arguments going here.Nope---59 out of 7.3mil is less than 75...like 50 on Jun 8 is less than both 75 and 59 out of 7.3mil. Look you can spend the rest of the day looking at AZ charts--I can't, so I'll check in periodically with your alerts ok. Thanks.
said no oneBased on some of the recent rhetoric, that must mean they are doing well and it's on the decline.
Well you have morphed the debate to that, which started with you misinterpreting the Horowitz article. Whatever.So you seem to have two arguments going here.
1)As evidenced by the dashboard the new Covid hospitalized cases are dropping.
My counter, which I've said a couple dozen times is that graph shows a lag. The June 8th number is going to rise as the test results come in and the data is allocated to the specific days. Just like the June 2nd # has risen since the time of the article.
2)59 cases amongst a population of 7 million is very small and thus not a concern.
I have a few counters to this.
A)That is a one day total, multiply that times 30 and that is 1800 new hospitalizations in a month.
B)1800 out of 7 million doesn't sound like a big # either, but the 7 million is not the number we should focus on, it's the number of hospital beds. Back in March AZ had a total ICU bed capacity of around 800. They have raised that in light of the Covid threat to 1666 ICU beds. Currently 1407 of those beds are in use. 84%.
C)If 59 (June 3rd is now updated to 64)was the peak then maybe AZ would be OK. Unfortunately it's not the peak, the #'s will continue to rise.
^^^ THIS!What this has shown is that we have a very sick population.We need way fewer bars and restaurants and way more gyms and parks.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/signify-uv-light-coronavirus.html
UV light kills 96% of the virus in 3 seconds.
Wrong and wrong. Takes almost 7 minutes to deactivate 90% of SARS-CoV-2 with simulated summer solstice 40N sunlight (best case), meaning almost none of it would be deactivated in the 1-2 seconds it takes virus-laden droplets to go from person A to person B. Does anybody here actually look anything up? I could spend all day just correcting misinformation...
https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274/5841129
Previous studies have demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is stable on surfaces for extended periods under indoor conditions. In the present study, simulated sunlight rapidly inactivated SARS-CoV-2 suspended in either simulated saliva or culture media and dried on stainless steel coupons. Ninety percent of infectious virus was inactivated every 6.8 minutes in simulated saliva and every 14.3 minutes in culture media when exposed to simulated sunlight representative of the summer solstice at 40oN latitude at sea level on a clear day.
This is the title of the artricle:Well you have morphed the debate to that, which started with you misinterpreting the Horowitz article. Whatever.
1) We will see.
2) Yes of course we need to watch for a hospital system overload. However as we saw in NYC and even Cali the Fed gov't has enormous capacity to support states in this need.
This is the title of the artricle:
Horowitz: The new panic lie: Increased coronavirus hospitalizations and cases in the southwest
Is he not saying increased hospitalizations is a lie?
Then he says this:
"The truth is that new hospitalizations of people coming in for serious coronavirus infections are actually extremely low"
Then he points to the graph "which says it all".
After which he says this:
"As you can see, if you break down the new admissions by date of admission, as this chart does, the numbers are actually near zero over the past week."
Then he says this:
"Now you might wonder how cumulative numbers could be so high if the new daily intake is so low? It’s quite obvious that the first chart is only counting those who actually come in with new serious cases of COVID-19, for example those who have trouble breathing because the virus attacked their lungs. Those cases are extremely low relative to April."
I'm not misinterpreting anything here. He basis his whole argument on that graph. Which he didn't realize showed a decrease in cases, not because cases were decreasing, but because there is a lag in reporting. He then throws out other theories also based on the graph, which again, he misread.
If you want to keep going round and round on this, I'm obviously up to it(though I'm sure the rest of the board is tired of it), but the conclusion continues to be the same thing. AZ covid hospitalizations were, and are rising, as is the positivity rate, the ICU bed use, the vent use.
DeSantis on now - big issue are migrant farm workers, live together in dorms. One farm tested 90 out of 100 workers were positive.
Can you point me to your evidence that the virus could not have escaped the Wuhan lab? Genuinely curious, as I found Martensen’s evidence extremely compelling.You're arguing with a zealot who is blindly following an absolute moron, who has zero understanding of science or math, apparently.
Ease up old man. The Horowitz article cites a medical doctor, a public health official, an attorney in the healthcare field and others, and even news from a couple of your favs NYT and WaPo. Horowitz explains in part why cases are going up in SW. That's his argument--stop being so blinded by partisanship.You're arguing with a zealot who is blindly following an absolute moron, who has zero understanding of science or math, apparently.
Good lord guy---your cherry picking is beyond tedious at this point. 1) His data was the same the media had at the time. We'll see if the trends change. Relax. 2) See my previous posts about his sources for reasons the case counts were increasing.This is the title of the artricle:
Horowitz: The new panic lie: Increased coronavirus hospitalizations and cases in the southwest
Is he not saying increased hospitalizations is a lie?
Then he says this:
"The truth is that new hospitalizations of people coming in for serious coronavirus infections are actually extremely low"
Then he points to the graph "which says it all".
After which he says this:
"As you can see, if you break down the new admissions by date of admission, as this chart does, the numbers are actually near zero over the past week."
Then he says this:
"Now you might wonder how cumulative numbers could be so high if the new daily intake is so low? It’s quite obvious that the first chart is only counting those who actually come in with new serious cases of COVID-19, for example those who have trouble breathing because the virus attacked their lungs. Those cases are extremely low relative to April."
I'm not misinterpreting anything here. He basis his whole argument on that graph. Which he didn't realize showed a decrease in cases, not because cases were decreasing, but because there is a lag in reporting. He then throws out other theories also based on the graph, which again, he misread.
If you want to keep going round and round on this, I'm obviously up to it(though I'm sure the rest of the board is tired of it), but the conclusion continues to be the same thing. Horowitz was wrong, AZ covid hospitalizations were, and are rising, as is the positivity rate, the ICU bed use, the vent use.
Can you point me to your evidence that the virus could not have escaped the Wuhan lab? Genuinely curious, as I found Martensen’s evidence extremely compelling.
I watched the video and he simply pieces together parts of what is known about viruses and then tries to convince people that somehow people in a lab, who had zero knowledge of what SARS-CoV-2 was (since the outbreak hadn't started yet), knew to take pieces from other viruses most closely related to CV2 and link them together into a new chimeric virus that became "almost CV2" and then evolved that chimeric virus into CV2 somehow. How the hell could they know to shoot for that endpoint out of the nearly infinite number of amino acid sequences that are possible for both the RNA and protein parts of the virus? That's simply not credible.
As per today's excellent article published by CIDRAP, another top-notch infectious disease research group out of the U of MN (led by world expert Michael Osterholm), the idea that someone was able to "create" CV2 is preposterous. Sure, if they were given the blueprints to CV2, someone could likely make it, but how would anyone know to make it out of so many possibilities? And as per the comment below, if someone were trying to create a bioweapon in a lab, why wouldn't they start from SARS or MERS, which were very close to being pandemic-worthy (and far deadlier than CV2)? And even if they somehow "made" CV2 in the lab, why would they have released it in their own country?
Furthermore, he questions why anyone would go through the work of creating a new virus when they could simply take an existing virulent pathogen like the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) or MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) coronaviruses and make them even worse, as all bioweapons programs so far have done.
"It doesn't make any sense to make a new virus that you don't know can cause disease in humans and try to create a bioweapon out of it," Andersen said. "That would be a really bad bioweapons person."
And with regard to the other possibility people talk about, i.e., that they had somehow obtained CV2 from the wild and were working with it and accidentally released it, there's also no evidence for that. Dr. Shi Zhengli (the "batwoman") published all kinds of genetic sequences from various bat coronaviruses she and her research group have found and they published nothing that close to CV2 - if they had, perhaps lab release could be an issue.
Even Kristian Anderson (an expert virologist and lead author on the Nature paper), who originally thought it possible that the virus could have been accidentally released from a lab, said that while "he can't completely rule out the possibility that the virus came from a lab, the odds of that happening are very small. He says the new coronavirus clearly originated in nature, no question about it by now."
Lastly, Martenson's use of Occam's Razor is what's laughable. What's more likely: that CV2 came into being in the same way every other virus in the history of the planet did, i.e., by evolution in some species, like bats, and probable zoonotic transfer to humans either directly or through an intermediate host, or that some researchers in a lab, not knowing the endpoint blueprint for CV2 somehow figured out a way to construct CV2? Hint: it's not the latter.
Also, there's no proof of a blackout at the lab in October, either and Dr. Shi Zhengli is not missing. The Chinese have acted very badly with regard to lying and covering up the true extent of the outbreak, but they almost certainly didn't create the virus in a lab.
Shi Zhengli, PhD, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) lab in China relatively close (25 to 35 kilometers [15 to 22 miles]) to the Wuhan live-animal market at the epicenter of China's outbreak, has extensively published the genetic sequences of isolates from the bat coronaviruses she studies.
None of them match those of COVID-19, Andersen said, something Shi herself confirmed in a recent interview in Scientific American. "If she would have published a sequence for the virus and then this pops up, then we would have known it came from the lab," Andersen said. "There's no evidence for this, but there is plenty of evidence against it."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...tists-exactly-zero-evidence-covid-19-came-lab
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...wn-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
Martenson has been an interesting watch since the beginning, being one of the first to say this would likely become a full blown pandemic and getting many other things right, but he also has his blind spots, such as his bias for HCQ (he only ever discusses studies that make it look good) and his giving credence to the rumor mongering about the virus being created or released from a lab.
I prefer to go with Fauci, as per the excerpted interview below, and the best evolutionary virologists in the world who mostly say that this evolved naturally, as as per the post I made on this awhile back, linked below, and nothing has changed since then on this that matters that I know of.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...he-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd/
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-61#post-4496710
One topic in the news lately has been the origins of SAR-CoV-2. Do you believe or is there evidence that the virus was made in the lab in China or accidentally released from a lab in China?
If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats, and what's out there now is very, very strongly leaning toward this [virus] could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated—the way the mutations have naturally evolved. A number of very qualified evolutionary biologists have said that everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that it evolved in nature and then jumped species.
Sure, but what if scientists found the virus outside the lab, brought it back, and then it escaped?
But that means it was in the wild to begin with. That's why I don't get what they're talking about [and] why I don't spend a lot of time going in on this circular argument.
It's impossible to "prove" that the virus couldn't have come from a lab (hard to disprove a negative), but Trump/Pompeo and others ought to have more evidence than internet sources, especially when the top infectious disease expert in the US and US intelligence have dismissed the idea - frankly it's embarrassing.
Also, given the threat of future pandemics from other coronaviruses that likely could originate from bats in China (~7MM people in SE Asia eat bats) and/or intermediate hosts, like pangolins, it's disappointing that we're axing funding of EcoHealth, which had been working with the Wuhan Lab on investigating potential future virus threats. China has been a very bad actor in many ways with its lack of transparency and lies about the outbreak, but we have future threats that are possibly even worse and could very easily come from China - I'd much rather remain engaged in those efforts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d0d642-8f3c-11ea-8df0-ee33c3f5b0d6_story.html
Thanks, that’s what I was looking for.Hate retyping if I don't need to, so here you go. It'll never be possible to "prove" the virus couldn't have come from a lab (nearly impossible to prove a "negative"), but the papers/arguments I've read have convinced me that it's extraordinarily unlikely. Here are a couple of posts on this from last month - haven't seen any new relevant evidence on this.
Citing the title of the article is cherry picking?Good lord guy---your cherry picking is beyond tedious at this point. 1) His data was the same the media had at the time. We'll see if the trends change. Relax. 2) See my previous posts about his sources for reasons the case counts were increasing.
Very misleading article from CNBC (they've been doing a lot of that lately; not your intention, I'm sure). Signify is referring to UVC radiation used in industrial UV disinfection systems. It's well known that UVC quickly deactivates viruses (there is no "killing" of a virus as, they're not "alive" per se), which is great, but it would be easy for the public to think the article is referring to sunlight/UV and viruses outdoors. It's not.
https://www.signify.com/global/our-...ces-on-inactivating-virus-that-causes-covid19
UVC is a much shorter wavelength than the UVA/UVB rays that do reach the earth's surface (all of UVA does and 5% of UVB does, as most of it is absorbed by the ozone layer) - all of the UVC radiation from the sun is absorbed by the ozone layer (thankfully or it would kill everything). As per the post I made last month, a great study using simulated sunlight at 40N showed that the sunlight deactivated 90% of virus particles in about 7 minutes.
What this means is that sunlight will greatly reduce surface virus viability (which is probably only a source of 1% or less of infections), but will do nothing to reduce the vast majority of transmissions, which occur from respiratory droplets for people within a few feet (from sneezing, coughing and even talking), as those droplets will only take a second or two to get to someone close by.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa274/5841129
No that's fair game--but note the word "Panic" in the title.Citing the title of the article is cherry picking?
That was his word.No that's fair game--but note the word "Panic" in the title.