OT: Brady caught in closed Tampa park

[oldrover]

It is not name calling, your stance that there is no proof that quarantine led to the viral spread slowing down is batshit insane. Just compare the growth rates and graphs. The numbers which show how the initial exponential growth rates slow down into a flatter curve are everywhere and have been shown independently in most countries around the world.

What else do you think caused this highly contagious virus to stop spreading from person to person ? Did the virus get bored and ****ed off to Pluto? Did humanity randomly lose all of their ACE2 receptors exactly at that time frame ?

I mean come this is not even some complicated scientific scenario. You lower the amount of social interactions, you lower the number of potential people you can unwillingly infect. Cause and Effect.

Be my guest if you want to argue that people are overreacting to its severity and what not. You'd still be wrong but whatever. But denying that social distancing had an effect on the infection curve is absolutely absurd.

Nobody's ever run a test for quarantining people who aren't sick. We don't have a control. Therefore, we don't know. It might have helped! But it might NOT have helped. We don't know. Pretty simple. And even if it did help, the virus hasn't gone away, and won't. We are still all going to come in contact with this thing eventually.

 

[Tony2046]

No, it’s not. And name calling is weak. I mean, I don’t care. But it’s weak when that’s all you can do. Look at the science that we actually have. This thing has spread big time despite quarantine.

The good news is that it appears way less lethal than we thought. So that’s a huge plus.

I agree that it appears to be less lethal but that also means it's more contagious. Either way it's capable of overwhelming our hospitals quickly.

Watching the new case charts indicates that the rate of spreading has slowed down and hopefully we're on the downward slope now. In couple of weeks or so we'll be able to do exactly what you're suggesting. But self quarantine etc has worked. But you're right in that I don't know what the exact numbers would have looked like otherwise.

This virus spread freely throughout the US for months before any real actions were taken. So we're playing catch up. Give it a couple of more weeks young man.

Just my opinion.

 

[primetime]

Nobody's ever run a test for quarantining people who aren't sick. We don't have a control. Therefore, we don't know. It might have helped! But it might NOT have helped. We don't know. Pretty simple. And even if it did help, the virus hasn't gone away, and won't. We are still all going to come in contact with this thing eventually.

Well, for one thing, if you were going to do an experimental design on this, the treatment would be either quarantining or not quarantining people who were exposed, so like if you're going to go on insane rants about the scientific methods, at least get the details right.

Second, there's already plenty of literature on quarantine and isolation for viruses ranging from the common cold (coronaviruses) to influenza to everything in between. The best evidence of efficacy of social distancing comes from the 1918 pandemic, when similar measures were implemented at a staggered rate. Cities where the measures were implemented later or not at all suffered more cases and deaths than cities where social distancing measures were implemented quickly; cities where they were raised too early suffered massive second waves. This is true even once you control for density and other factors. This is what we in the business call a "natural experiment" and it's the best possible world when an experimental design isn't feasible.

But, you know, keep at your mad ravings, they're really coming off well.

 

[primetime]

It won't be as high of a magnitude of difference since NY has a much higher percentage of people who have tested positive. I predict at least 100 of the 1,000 will test positive for antibodies, but I wouldn't be surprised if 200 (or more) do.

Why would the magnitude of asymptomatic cases change because the number of symptomatic cases is higher? Surely one would grow in step with the other. (I'm not really interested in your answer, just find it humorous that you're already walking back your assurances that this is 20-50x higher. If it was, we'd expect half or more of a randomly selected 1,000 New Yorkers to have antibodies.)

 

[Brewskies]

Just like Trump, always breaking the rules.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No, it’s not. And name calling is weak. I mean, I don’t care. But it’s weak when that’s all you can do. Look at the science that we actually have. This thing has spread big time despite quarantine.

The good news is that it appears way less lethal than we thought. So that’s a huge plus.

Let me guess. There's no science to suggest that the earth is warming. Oh wait no, I think they changed to "it is getting warmer, but humans have nothing to do with it."

Did the virus get bored and ****ed off to Pluto?

Pluto speaks.

 

[Jlaff]

Does this thread qualify as a double-blind placebo study proving coronavirus discussion can take place on this forum without getting political?

Obviously there are just a handful of people (the usual instigating bunch) missing from this thread...

 

[oldrover]

Well, for one thing, if you were going to do an experimental design on this, the treatment would be either quarantining or not quarantining people who were exposed, so like if you're going to go on insane rants about the scientific methods, at least get the details right.

Well, that's not what we did. We quarantined everyone, whether they were sick or infected or not. So that would be the experimental design. And actually the Italian study in Vo is helpful to that... I hadn't seen that. (of course it's only been out a few days) Some of the methodologies aren't according to Hoyle, but I'm cool with that. It's at least SOME evidence that we haven't ruined people's lives for nothing.

 

[luuked]

But self quarantine etc has worked. But you're right in that I don't know what the exact numbers would have looked like otherwise.

Of course it worked. The only thing one has to do is compare the estimated R_t values from now with the values 2-3 a weeks ago to see how well the quarantine worked.

rt.live

Just toggle between the two and the effectiveness is pretty blatant.

Similarly we know exactly what the alternative would look like because thats the exponential growth we had before taking action. That would have continued until it settled at a much higher equilibrium which would have completely overwhelmed the medical facilities.

 

[Joker]

so now, Pontificatus Blabberati not only is spewing his vitriolic ,board dividing virus hysteria,he's managed to insinuate the patented "global warming!" red herring into a thread about Brady at Tampa stadium. W-H-A-C-K-J-O-B inVa

 

[Brewskies]

Just maybe the Gronk may join Brady in the park breaking the rules. I hope so, Pats might get something for Gronk, better than nothing.

 

[Tony2046]

Of course it worked. The only thing one has to do is compare the estimated R_t values from now with the values 2-3 a weeks ago to see how well the quarantine worked.

rt.live

Just toggle between the two and the effectiveness is pretty blatant.

Similarly we know exactly what the alternative would look like because thats the exponential growth we had before taking action. That would have continued until it settled at a much higher equilibrium which would have completely overwhelmed the medical facilities.

Yes I completely agree. And I agree with the process we've chosen with the exception for the late start.

But I do think it's interesting what Sweden has done. At least for now. I don't think it would have been possible here in the US because a lot of the dynamics are different. Population density, 50% live alone, etc etc. Anyway I find it interesting.

 

[Tony2046]

Of course it worked. The only thing one has to do is compare the estimated R_t values from now with the values 2-3 a weeks ago to see how well the quarantine worked.

rt.live

Just toggle between the two and the effectiveness is pretty blatant.

Similarly we know exactly what the alternative would look like because thats the exponential growth we had before taking action. That would have continued until it settled at a much higher equilibrium which would have completely overwhelmed the medical facilities.

Thanks for the link.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

wonder if brady feels appreciated now ?

 

[XLIX]

Why would the magnitude of asymptomatic cases change because the number of symptomatic cases is higher?

Because the testing per capita in NY is far more widespread than the testing per capita in CA

Surely one would grow in step with the other. (I'm not really interested in your answer, just find it humorous that you're already walking back your assurances that this is 20-50x higher. If it was, we'd expect half or more of a randomly selected 1,000 New Yorkers to have antibodies.)

If you're not interested in learning, that's on you, but here's the explanation anyway:

They would not grow in step with each other if one state had higher amounts of testing per capita than the other. I read an interesting stat the stuck with me: NY State has administered as many tests as California, Texas and Florida COMBINED.

Population of NY State: 19.5 million
Population of CA, TX, FL: 90 million

So basically the testing-per-capita in NY is roughly 4.5 times the number of those 3 other states. As such, NY is going to catch a far greater proportion of the low/no symptom people than those other states.

It is perfectly reasonable to have a multiplier of 25x in a low tested state but something closer to 10x is a highly tested state.

 

[primetime]

Because the testing per capita in NY is far more widespread than the testing per capita in CA
If you're not interested in learning, that's on you, but here's the explanation anyway:

They would not grow in step with each other if one state had higher amounts of testing per capita than the other. I read an interesting stat the stuck with me: NY State has administered as many tests as California, Texas and Florida COMBINED.

Population of NY State: 19.5 million
Population of CA, TX, FL: 90 million

So basically the testing-per-capita in NY is roughly 4.5 times the number of those 3 other states. As such, NY is going to catch a far greater proportion of the low/no symptom people than those other states.

It is perfectly reasonable to have a multiplier of 25x in a low tested state but something closer to 10x is a highly tested state.

But the testing in New York is of people who show up to hospitals and demonstrate symptoms. They're not just testing randomly. (Nor is everyone symptomatic tested.) The Santa Clara sample didn't contain people were overtly symptomatic.

 

[PP2]

Yes I completely agree. And I agree with the process we've chosen with the exception for the late start.

But I do think it's interesting what Sweden has done. At least for now. I don't think it would have been possible here in the US because a lot of the dynamics are different. Population density, 50% live alone, etc etc. Anyway I find it interesting.

 

[RobertWeathers]

So.......who was Tom throwing footballs to in the park yesterday?

 

[PP2]

So.......who was Tom throwing footballs to in the park yesterday?

How dare you change the subject?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

so now, Pontificatus Blabberati not only is spewing his vitriolic ,board dividing virus hysteria,he's managed to insinuate the patented "global warming!" red herring into a thread about Brady at Tampa stadium. W-H-A-C-K-J-O-B inVa

Watch the personal attacks, and if you're gonna call yourself Joker, get a better sense of humor, because, damn.