COVID-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (a non-political thread, see pg. 36 #1778)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This might make sense if we had really low death tolls but were just now starting to approach the levels that other countries have. That isn't the case. Population-adjusted we are 9th-worst in the world, and two of the other eight are San Marino and Andorra who obviously aren't comparable. Sizable countries like Germany, Romania, and Austria have a quarter of our deaths overall, and the numbers aren't getting closer together but further apart.

If current trends don't change, we're on a path to be #1 in the industrialized world despite all the horrid things that happened in Spain, Italy, etc. early on. That doesn't scream 'normal'.

What about state by state though? That was kind of my point. Is Hawaii 9th worst in the world? Wyoming? Tennessee? Seems like it's New York and the Eastern states. And personally my gut is telling me the New York case numbers from March/April were off by magnitudes of 10-20x. There is just no reconciling the total cases and deaths that are occurring now with the supposed 10% death rate in the official numbers. People keep saying just wait deaths are coming, but I'm not so sure.

[JPhillips]

Houston starting to look a lot like NYC with deaths before ambulance arrival starting to spike.

[RainMaker]

The UK has tested more per capita than the United States. Our death toll is likely lower because we didn't have testing early on and some states are doing their best to fudge the numbers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

What about state by state though? That was kind of my point. Is Hawaii 9th worst in the world? Wyoming? Tennessee? Seems like it's New York and the Eastern states. And personally my gut is telling me the New York case numbers from March/April were off by magnitudes of 10-20x. There is just no reconciling the total cases and deaths that are occurring now with the supposed 10% death rate in the official numbers. People keep saying just wait deaths are coming, but I'm not so sure.

Deaths are on the rise right now so it seems like that wave is coming.

You can also argue that different demographics are being infected now. We know that half the deaths have come from nursing homes. So perhaps we've done a much better job of keeping the virus out of those homes resulting in much less death. Essentially the high risk people are being protected more.

We are also getting better at treating it as we learn more.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by panerd

There is just no reconciling the total cases and deaths that are occurring now with the supposed 10% death rate in the official numbers.

Can you explain that to me? I genuinely don't understand what you're referencing as 10%.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So my very small ask is simply that we keep admitting to ourselves that it is a choice. That we are choosing to make tomorrow harder because we want today to be easier. And that today is harder than it had to be because we chose to make yesterday easier.

Quote of the Day for me. Agreed.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Can you explain that to me? I genuinely don't understand what you're referencing as 10%.

So the latest offical count in New York state was 30K deaths out of about 400K confirmed cases. 7.5%, I was just going from memory and knew it was around 10%. Nobody honestly believes only 400K people have had COVID in New York State do they? I mean I think 4 million is probably a low estimate.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think this brings up a great point, what do you do here?

While many college courses can be taught remotely, what do you do for college labs? Those courses which are important to the major, require significant investment in equipment, this is not something a student should be expected to provide themselves. So how do you get this level of teaching in a safe manner?

My daughter's organic chemistry lab was closed down a couple of times one semester for decontamination after 'explosions'. So yeah can't really get that experience remotely.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

So the latest offical count in New York state was 30K deaths out of about 400K confirmed cases. 7.5%, I was just going from memory and knew it was around 10%. Nobody honestly believes only 400K people have had COVID in New York State do they? I mean I think 4 million is probably a low estimate.

Definitely way more people had it in New York. But when the outbreak hit them it was near impossible to get a test unless you were in the hospital.

I think estimates have been around 0.4% to 0.6% on mortality rate. Obviously differs greatly by age and pre-existing conditions.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Definitely way more people had it in New York. But when the outbreak hit them it was near impossible to get a test unless you were in the hospital.

I think estimates have been around 0.4% to 0.6% on mortality rate. Obviously differs greatly by age and pre-existing conditions.

Which brings me full circle to comparing the United States as a whole with the European numbers. If they are saying 120 deaths a day and we agree on a death rate of about 0.5% they have approx 25000 cases a day not 700. They have contained nothing they just have inaccurate testing numbers.

[RainMaker]

Deaths are a lagging indicator. So those 120 deaths were likely people who contracted it in April, May or June. They likely had 25,000 cases a day back then. The UK is seeing their deaths drop (which is a sign cases tapered off weeks ago) while the US is seeing them rise back up again. Countries are going in different directions.

Our death rate is also likely much higher. Whether it be unable to get a test, refusing to get treatment, or just playing with the numbers.

Deaths at home suggest coronavirus is hitting Houston harder than reported | The Texas Tribune

I think you'll see in the next few weeks death tolls either plateau or rise in this country as others see theirs continue to go down.

Worth pointing out that the UK did a horrible job in regards to the pandemic too. Their leader is a bumbling bafooon who didn't take this seriously either. Lot of blood on his hands.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by panerd

Which brings me full circle to comparing the United States as a whole with the European numbers. If they are saying 120 deaths a day and we agree on a death rate of about 0.5% they have approx 25000 cases a day not 700. They have contained nothing they just have inaccurate testing numbers.

Umm ... No ?

First off "they" i presume is the UK. Which indeed is a shitshow in it's own (terribly at shielding Home settings, Tests done by private firms and home-made by patients, many who fail or don't bother, data not being shared with local officials etc). Not to mention the criminal negligence in March, relying on myrical numbers to convince them they knew more than everybody else only to then find out that shockingly their numbers were indeed too good to be true.

Also, there is science based informstion on this question of missed cases and deaths in the early going available, no need to go to ones gut (Seroprevalence/Antibody testing, excess deaths)

March/April most countries likely missed vast numbers of cases and also deaths btw, nowadays less so.

That is where positivity rate is telling: First know that 1) everybody tests people with symptoms, these are only missed when they don't raise their hand (which unfortunately for a variety of reasons is quite likely in the US). And 2 tests is not "people tested". A large portion will actually be people tested regularly because you know they have high exposure likelihood and lots of people they expose (like HC workers, First responders, people in retirement facilities or heck, politicians. In Germany also f.e. workers in meatpacking plants).
Now you have areas testing a lot and getting 1 case for maybe every 50 tests (germany or italy about 100), which means a lot of tests are done with a wide net: In addition to the one mentioned these are then contacts of known cases with a widely cast net.
Now if you get like 1 case for 7 or 8 tests, this means your net is cast less wide and comprehensive for contacts and the ratio of case/infection is worse than those that get 1 for 50 or a 100. That's just how testing/tracing works. And that matters more than just for some statistic, at least when done right (meaning fast turnaround of tests, comprehensive contact tracing and strict quarantine, even before test results. In the US it is apparently, from numerous reports, barely possible to get cases to stay home, much less contacts).

Right now the US is testing equal or more than European nations but it is still less comprehensive and adequate for the size of the outbreaks. As much as cases follow tests, tests also follow cases because those are the starting point to test known contacts. Germany or Italy right now test way more contacts (tier 2 group in terms of likely positive after those already showing symptoms), likely test more HC workers etc and still find less cases per test.

I could also say the same in a different way about Texas btw re "missed stuff" which even 3 weeks ago (data imcomplete after) had already about 700-900 Excess Death (over 5 year high or average) acording to CDC data and registered 136 Covid deaths for that week.

All of which is beside the point: The US response has been largely bad. If some numbers are less bad than expected, that does not make the response good. The US DID have advantages, like more warning and the huge distances. Same reason why Sweden producing less deaths than Italy is less telling than them producing vastly more than say Norway or Denmark which had similar playing field. Or why the UK should be seen in contrast to Germany as both had similar buffer time to bunker down.

Other countries also were not hit uniformly btw. This is Italy and France for example:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...es_map.svg.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hs_map.svg.png

I don't think anybody will argue the Virus doesn't 'wander' (though it has zero to do with latitude but with how people move and travel and then how timely/effective the response).
But other countries managed to avoid far away regions (from the initial outbreaks, which were hardest to prevent by circumstance) being hit after reopening and resumal of travel, because they put infrastructure in place to manage it and pushed cases their down from few to nearly none. And that extra high distance (the virus had to travel) in the US ought to have helped and arguably did help. I mean, that isn't just a disadvantage.

Are the problems with the US purely a federal issue ? Of course not. Did they do their part as called for ? Not really.

Only can speak for Germany, but we also have federal system where the main responsibility in the field is on local agencies and politicians but the federal government mediates and sets an overarching strategy and our version of the CDC organises the response. And when shit hit the fan mid march.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by panerd

hat about state by state though? That was kind of my point. Is Hawaii 9th worst in the world? Wyoming? Tennessee? Seems like it's New York and the Eastern states. And personally my gut is telling me the New York case numbers from March/April were off by magnitudes of 10-20x.

As has been discussed many times, case numbers are almost completely irrelevant because of widespread differerences in testing. As mentioned by others, other nations have variances in how hard the virus has hit different regions of those countries. It's not as if the US is unique in this.

New York and New Jersey on their own wouldn't qualify to be 9th worst. They'd qualify to be 1st and 2nd worst, about 3x as bad as Italy. If you want to give other states credit for being better, then you have to also blame us for having a lot of areas worse than the worst of other nations in the world, and not by a small margin. We still look really bad in that comparison. A few states further down, Louisiana would be near the top. Michigan and Illinois also have a worse death rate than the national average. 70% of the states in the country are worse than the other nations I mentioned (Germany, etc.) And that's right now. The trend is going in the wrong direction.

[Brian Swartz]

Ivy League cancelling all fall sports. That's the first domino; I expect others will fall as well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by whomario

Umm ... No ?

First off "they" i presume is the UK. Which indeed is a shitshow in it's own (terribly at shielding Home settings, Tests done by private firms and home-made by patients, many who fail or don't bother, data not being shared with local officials etc). Not to mention the criminal negligence in March, relying on myrical numbers to convince them they knew more than everybody else only to then find out that shockingly their numbers were indeed too good to be true.

Also, there is science based informstion on this question of missed cases and deaths in the early going available, no need to go to ones gut (Seroprevalence/Antibody testing, excess deaths)

March/April most countries likely missed vast numbers of cases and also deaths btw, nowadays less so.

That is where positivity rate is telling: First know that 1) everybody tests people with symptoms, these are only missed when they don't raise their hand (which unfortunately for a variety of reasons is quite likely in the US). And 2 tests is not "people tested". A large portion will actually be people tested regularly because you know they have high exposure likelihood and lots of people they expose (like HC workers, First responders, people in retirement facilities or heck, politicians. In Germany also f.e. workers in meatpacking plants).
Now you have areas testing a lot and getting 1 case for maybe every 50 tests (germany or italy about 100), which means a lot of tests are done with a wide net: In addition to the one mentioned these are then contacts of known cases with a widely cast net.
Now if you get like 1 case for 7 or 8 tests, this means your net is cast less wide and comprehensive for contacts and the ratio of case/infection is worse than those that get 1 for 50 or a 100. That's just how testing/tracing works. And that matters more than just for some statistic, at least when done right (meaning fast turnaround of tests, comprehensive contact tracing and strict quarantine, even before test results. In the US it is apparently, from numerous reports, barely possible to get cases to stay home, much less contacts).

Right now the US is testing equal or more than European nations but it is still less comprehensive and adequate for the size of the outbreaks. As much as cases follow tests, tests also follow cases because those are the starting point to test known contacts. Germany or Italy right now test way more contacts (tier 2 group in terms of likely positive after those already showing symptoms), likely test more HC workers etc and still find less cases per test.

I could also say the same in a different way about Texas btw re "missed stuff" which even 3 weeks ago (data imcomplete after) had already about 700-900 Excess Death (over 5 year high or average) acording to CDC data and registered 136 Covid deaths for that week.

All of which is beside the point: The US response has been largely bad. If some numbers are less bad than expected, that does not make the response good. The US DID have advantages, like more warning and the huge distances. Same reason why Sweden producing less deaths than Italy is less telling than them producing vastly more than say Norway or Denmark which had similar playing field. Or why the UK should be seen in contrast to Germany as both had similar buffer time to bunker down.

Other countries also were not hit uniformly btw. This is Italy and France for example:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...es_map.svg.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hs_map.svg.png

I don't think anybody will argue the Virus doesn't 'wander' (though it has zero to do with latitude but with how people move and travel and then how timely/effective the response).
But other countries managed to avoid far away regions (from the initial outbreaks, which were hardest to prevent by circumstance) being hit after reopening and resumal of travel, because they put infrastructure in place to manage it and pushed cases their down from few to nearly none. And that extra high distance (the virus had to travel) in the US ought to have helped and arguably did help. I mean, that isn't just a disadvantage.

Are the problems with the US purely a federal issue ? Of course not. Did they do their part as called for ? Not really.

Only can speak for Germany, but we also have federal system where the main responsibility in the field is on local agencies and politicians but the federal government mediates and sets an overarching strategy and our version of the CDC organises the response. And when shit hit the fan mid march.

Not really sure why I am getting a "um, no". The arguement I responded to was this...

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But if you look at Europe, it's gone down in essentially every country. France and the UK are at the high end seeing about 600-700 cases a day (we had 60,000 today). Even countries like Sweden who botched things early on have gotten it under control.
.

I replied with this...

Originally Posted by panerd

Which brings me full circle to comparing the United States as a whole with the European numbers. If they are saying 120 deaths a day and we agree on a death rate of about 0.5% they have approx 25000 cases a day not 700. They have contained nothing they just have inaccurate testing numbers.

He brought up the UK. He brought up the number of new cases a day. I simply responded with math.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As has been discussed many times, case numbers are almost completely irrelevant because of widespread differerences in testing. As mentioned by others, other nations have variances in how hard the virus has hit different regions of those countries. It's not as if the US is unique in this.

New York and New Jersey on their own wouldn't qualify to be 9th worst. They'd qualify to be 1st and 2nd worst, about 3x as bad as Italy. If you want to give other states credit for being better, then you have to also blame us for having a lot of areas worse than the worst of other nations in the world, and not by a small margin. We still look really bad in that comparison. A few states further down, Louisiana would be near the top. Michigan and Illinois also have a worse death rate than the national average. 70% of the states in the country are worse than the other nations I mentioned (Germany, etc.) And that's right now. The trend is going in the wrong direction.

As I replied to whomario... if the argument is going to involve case numbers than there is nothing wrong with replying with case numbers.

I just feel like this is a local disease. For me living on the edge of St. Louis County... St Louis City is the worst spot in the state, North St. Louis County is also really bad, the rest of St. Louis County isn't good but much better, my area in far west St. Louis County is better than that, people living in other parts of Missouri are experiencing something completely different than St. Louis entirely.

What's the point? All I see is United States this or even Texas and Florida this but it seems like it is Houston, Texas or Miami, Florida and probably even more localized than that. (I am admittedly not that familiar with either area) You need a strong federal and state response (neither of which have seemed to happen) but then it also needs to be local. My guess is Northwest Florida and North Central Texas are not hotspots. It sounds good to blame "red states" etc but it seems to be a fairly equal mix of idiots. I'm guessing Houston and Miami don't carry the GOP vote in presidential elections. I could be totally wrong just a hunch?

[Brian Swartz]

On case numbers; I think RainMaker is just as wrong to use them as you are. That's why I've been talking about the death rate.

Even if it is local, that has nothing to do with the original question which was about how we're doing compared to the rest of the world. If you aggregate the European population, more than twice that of the US, and use that because of the regional/local argument, their total death rate is far better than ours. So I'm just saying no matter how you look at the data, it still points in the same direction; our response overall sucks compared to the global average, tens of thousands have already died because of it and hundreds of thousands more almost certainly will, and we largely wasted the shutdown period because we didn't set up more effective testing & contact tracing during that period. Has nothing to do with red state/blue state and everything to do with nonsensical overall policy.

[PilotMan]

I can tell you that if the virus ever exploded in the smoker belt, KY/WV/TN/NC, that you'd have crazy high mortality rates. The incidence of lung damage from the high number of smokers would simply compound the problem.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

On case numbers; I think RainMaker is just as wrong to use them as you are. That's why I've been talking about the death rate.

Even if it is local, that has nothing to do with the original question which was about how we're doing compared to the rest of the world. If you aggregate the European population, more than twice that of the US, and use that because of the regional/local argument, their total death rate is far better than ours. So I'm just saying no matter how you look at the data, it still points in the same direction; our response overall sucks compared to the global average, tens of thousands have already died because of it and hundreds of thousands more almost certainly will, and we largely wasted the shutdown period because we didn't set up more effective testing & contact tracing during that period. Has nothing to do with red state/blue state and everything to do with nonsensical overall policy.

I would counter (and I can move to another thread if this violates the non-political part) that both the non-mask wearers and the protesters were components of both politics and right and left leaning mass media encouragement. These are by far our two biggest problems leading to the huge number of cases.

[whomario]

No, the Protests being a big problem is conjecture i would argue.
For starters, I don't think people realize how many damn more people generate how many more 'contacts' going to places almost certainly much more conducive to transmission every day than all the protests combined: bars, restaurants, gyms, offices/workspace (also hospitals, care homes etc).

For what it's worth: Beaches are also massively overblown as an issue i'd argue. Sporting events are more iffy due to a few factors even in stadiums rather than indoor (like the inclined seating, lack of movement, generally less air flow, congestions to/from seat/stadium and simply the cheer mass of different events)

Originally Posted by panerd

Not really sure why I am getting a "um, no". The arguement I responded to was this...

I did write a whole litany as to why exactly i thought that was "no" with regards to how testing is structured That may be Math, but this isn't a math problem. The UK isn't somehow missing 25k cases a day. Probably missing more than they should as their testing and tracing efforts are disorganised as hell as well, but the still relatively high death toll (7 day average down to 85 though) has other reasons that were mentioned and even more possible ones that weren't (like this still being more widespread in the older population/home settings). Everybody is missing cases and if anything, the US is missing more than most. Again, i tried to lay out why.
More likely is that 3-4 weeks ago they were missing 5-6k and their IFR really is higher due to proportionately more at-risk patients being infected.
There's a reason a lot of people try not to boil it down to 1 number but look at other numbers as well to judged a situation.

My best guess based on available data and information i have would be those casting a really wide net on top of symptomatic diagnosis are getting between 1/2 and 1/3 of all cases. There's a few "groups" you never get, like asymptomatic cases not infecting anybody you notice and also quite simply those with mild symptoms just staying at home.
Which is still a tolerable amount when you have other measures, an overall low level and are good at containing those you do find. Heck, in Germany a lot of the time you will have people in quarantine without testing them (say a spouse or kid who had no close/long contacts outside the household) and those you do test, all go into quarantine until the results are back.
All these things are stuff the US doesn't really do well, both due to a lack of a legal framework, data availability, speed (labs are swamped) or lack of ressources. That is why the positivity rate is high, not because they are more efficient at testing/finding cases.
And a lot of this is not sth that can be fixed at a truly local level i think.

Even if you assume they are directly connected with no variation (which simply isn't the case, Fatality Rate is dependent on a mio factors) all you could actually calculate really is that sometimes in the past X weeks 25k infections were missed.


And as for the "local" part in general: I mean, of course local circumstances and 'behavior' of that population matter. Of course it is less likely to cause outbreaks/spikes in Nowhereville than Houston. And likely less so in the Northeast than areas for which it stayed more abstract in the first wave (nothing shapes behavious like personal experience/connection).
For one, it only stays local if people stay local. The more movement of people you get, the more it spreads. The Summer holiday period may very well contribute massively. And the big citie's hospitals take in a lot of sick people from the surrounding areas as well, not just with Covid but this is definitely in the upper category as far as need to transfer goes.

Bay Area hospitals receiving Imperial County COVID patients

For years, the company has helped the state move patients from hospital to hospital, flying people who had suffered bad heart attacks or traumatic injuries that required more care than the county’s two hospitals could provide to places like San Diego or Palm Springs. Then COVID-19 hit. In recent weeks the company has been transferring patients overwhelmingly battling the highly infectious disease to distances farther than before — including to places such as Silicon Valley.

At least 500 patients have been transported out of Imperial County during the pandemic. One night, Cardenas said, his team mobilized five or six helicopters and three or four planes to move patients.

And that's not an outlier or even a US specific thing. Treating Covid19 patients is complicated and ressource intensive.
And there's a reason why normally hospitals operate way below capacity, to be able to accomodate all sorts of patients (for all sorts of wards) on short notice.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2020

The 1/100th time.

From the other thread. Just to illustrate what i mean by testing following cases, aside from again reminding that Tests is NOT People tested. Lots of people get tested regularly and more than once (which the president ought to know, since he is one of them). Unfortunately no country i know of makes those data sets available seperately, but at the very least there will be tests of plenty of people done every time a HC worker gets sick and returns positive.

Anyway:

1) From early May to June 11th, Tests went up 80% but cases went down 25%.

2) Since June 11th, Tests have gone up roughly a further 45%, but cases have gone up roughly 180% nationally.

You can find similar trends to one degree or other locally.

And along with this you have frequent reports of rising turnaround time of test results and a lack of available preventive tests on site for health care workers (which definitely needs to be a thing). This isn't a designed and strategic increase of testing to use as a containment tool anymore as was the case till June, but an increase of actually sick people and those assumed to be exposed presenting for testing. Which then drives up positivity rate because those are the most likely group to actually test positive.

In Germany, about 1 in 100 tests comes back positive and a lot of them can be preventive due to low actual case load. Heck, we actually put in place a national test strategy for meatpacking plants (every worker 1-2 times a week, depending on density of workers in the plant) on top of testing HC workers and people in homes, which is why tests went up considerably in recent weeks.

On the other end of the spectrum you have Mexico, where in recent days 65 % of tests come back positive, which means that they really only test people showing symptoms (with the odd person just having the sniffles or a cold) in the hospital and maybe the odd doctor.

[NobodyHere]

So the mayor of Toledo just ordered that masks are mandatory in public places, but the order "does not carry the force of law"

So it's mandatory to wear masks but not really?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by panerd

Nobody honestly believes only 400K people have had COVID in New York State do they? I mean I think 4 million is probably a low estimate.

Really? Most of the Trumpers I've had the misfortune to discuss this with uniformly argue that both cases and deaths are being artificially pumped up by local/state officials to get more money and to make Trump look bad. I've seen the "X had Covid and got shot in a drive-by so +1 for the 'died by Covid' list" memes all over FB.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So the mayor of Toledo just ordered that masks are mandatory in public places, but the order "does not carry the force of law"

So it's mandatory to wear masks but not really?

We had 370 and 400 positives in KY the past 2 days and Beshear is making an announcement of new mandatory requirements today at 4. I expect masks to be one of them, but the question - as is the case everywhere - is how do you enforce? Put the onus on businesses to enforce or risk being shut down? Fine individuals?

These people who are for freedom and choice forgot the responsibility part, so now Big Brother is being forced to tell you to eat your spinach because you wouldn't do it on your own.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We had 370 and 400 positives in KY the past 2 days and Beshear is making an announcement of new mandatory requirements today at 4. I expect masks to be one of them, but the question - as is the case everywhere - is how do you enforce? Put the onus on businesses to enforce or risk being shut down? Fine individuals?

These people who are for freedom and choice forgot the responsibility part, so now Big Brother is being forced to tell you to eat your spinach because you wouldn't do it on your own.

I think you may have missed my point.

I'm simply wondering what's the point of a "mandatory" order that has no enforcement mechanism as far as I can tell.

[Ksyrup]

No, I'm asking the same question about any mandates here. Are they going to be toothless, or are they going to add some sort of enforcement mechanism.

Beshear has been sued numerous times here - several involving other state officials against his administration - so I'll be interested to see how they handle this.

[Ksyrup]

It is stupid to mandate something but admit ahead of time that it won't be enforced. Seems like a CYA move.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It is stupid to mandate something but admit ahead of time that it won't be enforced. Seems like a CYA move.

agreed

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We had 370 and 400 positives in KY the past 2 days and Beshear is making an announcement of new mandatory requirements today at 4. I expect masks to be one of them, but the question - as is the case everywhere - is how do you enforce? Put the onus on businesses to enforce or risk being shut down? Fine individuals?

I would hate to be the cops that enforce this, especially if it involves a fine against individuals.

At least one person has been shot over being asked to wear a mask. You know that many people aren't going to be compliant, and the cop will have to escalate the situation to enforce compliance.

[HerRealName]

Our mask order excludes outdoor situations where distancing is possible. So, if you're out on a jog or walking your dog then you don't need a mask. This effectively works to push enforcement on business owners. Cops aren't going to be patrolling the local Kroger but Kroger has people checking to make sure masks are worn.

I suppose there are some that may refuse to wear a mask indoors but it's much easier for police to handle that situation. I think it becomes trespassing if a customer refuses to leave for not wearing a mask. I think there was a lady at a Home Depot that was arrested for that the other day.

[Ksyrup]

That's what I am expecting. There's no reason to require a mask outside unless the circumstances require it. Indoors is another situation.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm simply wondering what's the point of a "mandatory" order that has no enforcement mechanism as far as I can tell.

I wonder if more people will wear them, even if there is no enforcement mechanism, as a desire to 'follow the law'. That may be what they are banking on - more people are likely to mask up than when it was suggested they do so.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Really? Most of the Trumpers I've had the misfortune to discuss this with uniformly argue that both cases and deaths are being artificially pumped up by local/state officials to get more money and to make Trump look bad. I've seen the "X had Covid and got shot in a drive-by so +1 for the 'died by Covid' list" memes all over FB.

The misinformation is stunning on this. One of the common things I'm seeing now is people claiming 1 positive test results in 15-20 or more cases because they just label everyone you've been in contact with as a positive case. People are also dropping bullshit anecdotal stories of knowing someone that's fighting to have a cause of death changed because they just automatically made it Covid.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I wonder if more people will wear them, even if there is no enforcement mechanism, as a desire to 'follow the law'. That may be what they are banking on - more people are likely to mask up than when it was suggested they do so.

I guess the mayor wants the city council to make the law enforceable, but a third of the city council recently got slapped with federal bribery charges. And the city council president basically won't conduct any council business with accused present.

Go Toledo!

[Ksyrup]

It all seems to stem from a legitimate question of how you classify cases where someone has an underlying condition that Covid likely exacerbated and resulted in their death. Did they die from Covid for purposes of these counting statistics, or did it just contribute to their death and really shouldn't count in the stats - or should, depending on what you're trying to capture with these numbers. But from there, it's turned into a bunch of politically-driven BS, from what I can see.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Ivy League cancelling all fall sports. That's the first domino; I expect others will fall as well.

I think the difference is the Ivy League loses money on sports and have huge endowments so it is an easier decision. Lot of these other schools rely heavily on football for revenue.

[Lathum]

If one P5 conference calls it I think they all fall like dominoes, with the SEC being last.

what will be interesting is if a mid major calls it. That would create holes in the P5 non conference making things interesting. I wonder if that would cause it all to fall down.

Either way I don't think we have a CFB season, and certainly not a traditional one in the fall.

[RainMaker]

I think the P5 would just play a lengthier or exclusive conference schedule. Most are big enough now that they could fill in the gaps and it might be nice to see.

With there either being no crowds or limited attendance, it doesn't seem like the out of conference games will generate much revenue. So I can see schools not worrying about losing them.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Really? Most of the Trumpers I've had the misfortune to discuss this with uniformly argue that both cases and deaths are being artificially pumped up by local/state officials to get more money and to make Trump look bad. I've seen the "X had Covid and got shot in a drive-by so +1 for the 'died by Covid' list" memes all over FB.

Oooh. Good for the bonus racism, too: "You know how it is with the Blacks, always getting shot in drive bys"

[Ksyrup]

Well, Big 10 is going with a conference-only schedule.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the difference is the Ivy League loses money on sports and have huge endowments so it is an easier decision. Lot of these other schools rely heavily on football for revenue.

Aren't only about 20 college football teams profitable? And the situation will only be worse this year since stadiums won't be allowed to pack in the fans.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It all seems to stem from a legitimate question of how you classify cases where someone has an underlying condition that Covid likely exacerbated and resulted in their death. Did they die from Covid for purposes of these counting statistics, or did it just contribute to their death and really shouldn't count in the stats - or should, depending on what you're trying to capture with these numbers. But from there, it's turned into a bunch of politically-driven BS, from what I can see.

That’s why excess deaths is a key metric - unless people are so deeply deluded you can’t claim that all of a sudden around 100,000 extra people died to normal completely unrelated to Covid... what am I saying? Of course they can!

[Ksyrup]

Exactly.

[Ksyrup]

What are some big Big 10 non-conference games this year? Or is it mostly directional school filler?

EDIT: Here we go:

P5 games that would be affected by a reported conference-only football schedule for the Big Ten:
• Iowa - Iowa State
• Maryland - West Virginia
• Michigan - Washington
• MSU - Miami
• OSU - Oregon
• Penn State - VT
• Purdue - BC
• Rutgers - Syracuse
•Wisconsin - ND

[Ksyrup]

I have to figure all P5 conferences do the same, if for no other reason than to buy some time before the season begins.

[albionmoonlight]

Also, keeping everything in conference allows the conferences to have more control over the situation on a week to week basis. You won't have a situation where a team from one conference is playing a team from another conference, and the teams/conferences disagree over what to do.

Now, the teams might not agree, but there is a body over them that can make the call.

[Ksyrup]

Sportscenter now adding that the decision is for "all fall sports."

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Sportscenter now adding that the decision is for "all fall sports."

I'm missing the context of this comment. All fall sports for what?

[albionmoonlight]

Also, I like how when push comes to shove, no one is even pretending that the NCAA has (or should have) any power in this situation.

[Ksyrup]

Conference-only schedule for Big 10 schools.