OT: COVID Science - Pfizer/Moderna vaccines >90% effective; Regeneron antibody cocktail looks very promising in phase II/III trial and more
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
I do,, actually, which is why I can conclude that it’s not a point at all.
People have really twisted the definition of "afraid." Taking precaution to avoid getting it, proportionate to your own risk factors, is not being "afraid." Neither is avoiding carcinogens. That's being cautious and proactive.
I've seen a lot of people being cautious and proactive, including you from the sounds of it. I've seen few to none being afraid.
cause of death is irrelevant to my point..you obviously don’t understand my point. That’s my fault for not making it clear enough.
Yeah, I was just going to address that and I don't really know the answer. I would imagine getting the 2nd dose would still be recommended, so that one had the best chance of having an immune system best primed to fight the virus, but I just don't know and haven't seen anything on that. Sorry, but will keep my eyes open.
I’d argue all who are for implementing a shutdown, business closed, schools closed, and life coming to a halt are “afraid”
About as nuanced as your original point. Nothing, if not consistent.
again you continue to make this about “me”.
Stick to the point.
That’s what I’d argue. Life has to go on. Life can go on..people just take extra-precautions.
You just made it about you by giving your very specific, narrow opinion. Don't get confused.
Life has gone on. Part of taking precautions is decisions you don't like. That's part of life.
so I gave my opinion..which you disagreed with.
instead of criticizing my opinion..you criticize me. Hence is life on social media and America these days. So sad.
Good night man.
He is criticizing your opinion, and it should be criticized because it’s wrong and based on flawed logic,
he didn’t criticize my opinion. He criticized me.After I called him about it he then criticized my opinion on his next post. But enough about him..again stick to the topic
No, I definitely criticized your opinion. Several times.
Here's a cool link to a FB post, which does the best job I've seen of explaining why an Rt (or R0, for transmission rate of the virus) as small as 1.1 or 1.2 can eventually lead to very large increases in case rates over time - for example, the Rt in NJ never went above 1.2, but the number of cases grew quickly recently, since the amount of increase over a time period (usually days or weeks) is a large function of the initial number of cases for each time period and as that number increases, even small Rt's over 1.0 will lead to large case increases.
The key is it's a geometric progression, with an exponential factor in it, i.e., y = a*r to the n power, meaning that it works somewhat like compound interest over time, where the "interest rate" (or Rt) may only be a small number, but over time that small number keeps getting multiplied by larger and larger numbers as the sum total increases (like the sum total of cases). It's why we need to get the Rt below 1.0 to slow transmissions and have cases per day decrease - our Rt went back below 1.0 recently, which is why we've apparently peaked in cases.
The key is it's a geometric progression, with an exponential factor in it, i.e., y = a*r to the n power, meaning that it works somewhat like compound interest over time, where the "interest rate" (or Rt) may only be a small number, but over time that small number keeps getting multiplied by larger and larger numbers as the sum total increases (like the sum total of cases). It's why we need to get the Rt below 1.0 to slow transmissions and have cases per day decrease - our Rt went back below 1.0 recently, which is why we've apparently peaked in cases.
I made clear your opinion was completely void of nuance. To elaborate, to say blankly that shutdowns equate to fear completely ignores the variation in circumstances in which shutdowns are used, and the equally large variation in specifics and degrees of shutdown actions.
I was having a convo about RT the other day? NJ’s RT (per Murphy’s pressers) was as high as 1.4 just a few weeks ago. It’s now 1.09. Isn’t this a better indication of the outbreak getting better than cases rising, which woukd inducste outbreak getting worse?
The point is that your comparison of COVID deaths to deaths that occur, for lack of a better term, in the normal course caused by many, non-contagious causes, is irrelevant, because each individual who ignores public health measures in part contributes to the spread and incremental deaths from COVID. Deaths caused by other causes lack that direct and near term causality.
Rt Live has had our Rt at just below 1.0 for a week or so, while NJ has had it just above 1.1 during that time, but the difference between the two sources is less important than the trend in both sources showing a significant Rt decrease over the past few weeks, which definitely is why NJ cases stopped rising so fast and appear to have just peaked, hopefully to start decreasing soon - they're calculations are a bit different, as has been discussed in the past, which is why the trends are far more important. I was simply illustrating how even slightly above 1.0, but constant Rt can lead to huge increases in cases eventually.
the thing is there’s no uniform public health measure. There’s really only 3 uniform public health measures in the country.
1-Social distance in public
2-if you can’t, wear a mask
3-wash hands often
I don’t know one person who doesn’t do this. Everyone I know is following public health measures.
Deaths are still occuring. It’s a virus and you cannot stopit
so is it safe to say with RT lower than it was 3 weeks ago, things are better in NJ than 3 weeks ago?
listening to the Governor and watching news you’d think things are much worse. But RT says differently, no?
1, 2, and 3 are basically correct, but where you're wrong is nowhere near everyone is doing these things, even in NJ. Just look at the CE board and even threads on this board where people said they were going to restaurants and bars and private gatherings without masking - and we know that many are doing that from reports we see. Yes, it's rare to see people ignoring masking in public indoor spaces like stores, but outside of that it's still substantial. The virus can absolutely be stopped or at least hugely slowed down - have you not looked at the data from a host of East Asian and sub-Saharan African countries, with very low death rates due to very low case rates, due to masking/distancing, combined with testing/tracing/isolating? It can certainly be done.
Kind of, but there's a lag in the number of cases and the number of new cases is hugely dependent on the number of new cases in the previous time period (day or week), so it'll take many days with an Rt less than 1.0 (or at least decreasing significantly) for new cases per day to decelerate, peak and then start declining, which is what we're seeing. And with high case numbers now, any increase in the Rt will have a large impact in new cases, as opposed to back in the summer, where the impact was small, as cases were low. Very hard to explain that all succinctly in a 15-second TV sound bite.
i don’t think it can. It’s going to be like the flu. A yearly thing..controlable with vaccines but won’t be erraticated.
You should look across the country to see where cases per capita and death per capita are worse and compare that to areas where mask wearing and social distancing are more closely followed. I’ll presume you live in the tri-state area, which likely explains your anecdotal experience. Adherence to those policies effectively contains the spread, but does not eliminate it. You will have fewer cases, hospitalizations and deaths in populations utilizing public health measures than in populations who do not adhere to said policies.
If enough people worldwide get vaccinated, it will be eradicated in time. It also will very likely not require an annual vaccine, as most virologists now believe that immunity will last a few to several years, but we won't know that absolutely for at least a year or two (posted about this 2 days ago). This coronavirus is quite different from endemic common cold coronaviruses and the flu.
florida Currently has less hospitalizations per capita than ny so not sure your post is accurate.
Not doubting, but how is it different? Why isn’t the flu eradicated with vaccines?
It is accurate. The weather plays an important role. Florida is obviously not subject to cold weather as the northern part of the country. the worst areas are where it’s cold and where public health measures have been followed less closely.
how is this irrelevant to what we are discussing currently? You brought up weather a post before it. C’mon man.
Because it presumes all virus are as contagious and serious as COVID. That’s why it’s irrelevant.
how you presumed that from the eight words I typed..I’m not sure.
viruses get worse in the winterS it’s a fact. And that’s a huge reason it’s getting worse.
Are you going to start that whole silly argument again? FL is slightly higher on the COVID tracker, while apparently today's Cuomo presser has NY slightly higher - they're essentially the same. If I had to guess, NY's better compliance with masking is being cancelled by FL still being warm with far more outdoor activities.
- Status
