Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 715178 times)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2050 on: June 23, 2020, 09:49:57 PM »
Granted, increased testing will likely have had something to do with these numbers - but for the USA as a whole:
  • The 7-day average of new daily cases has been increasing every day for the past 14 days.
  • The number of new cases reported today is greater than at any day since May 1, and was only exceeded on one other day - April 24.
  • The number of active cases is greater now than at any other point in the pandemic, and has been since June 16.
  • Daily deaths have not seen an increase recently - they were trending downwards, but they may have plateaued.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2051 on: June 23, 2020, 10:08:16 PM »
Deaths lag positive tests by a couple weeks generally. But this time we may not see quite as high a death rate as the median age of those infected and being able to be tested is going down with this wave.

So we're liking seeing a combination of younger people feeling more comfortable going out combined with a testing capacity that can handle testing people who aren't in dire condition already.

On the down side hospitalization rates have also been steadily increasing in many states. So we're still seeing a lot of people critically ill.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2052 on: June 23, 2020, 10:12:02 PM »
Granted, increased testing will likely have had something to do with these numbers - but for the USA as a whole:

Well, I just bothered to visit the tracking site for my state to check "the other stat" that the epidemiologists talk about, a less than 10% positive rate is an indication of adequate testing.

My state's positive result rate is 2.3% for this week, compared to about 7% back in April, so even though the number of positive cases is comparable, there clearly is a lot more testing going on.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2053 on: June 24, 2020, 07:37:46 AM »
Granted, increased testing will likely have had something to do with these numbers - but for the USA as a whole:

Well, I just bothered to visit the tracking site for my state to check "the other stat" that the epidemiologists talk about, a less than 10% positive rate is an indication of adequate testing.

My state's positive result rate is 2.3% for this week, compared to about 7% back in April, so even though the number of positive cases is comparable, there clearly is a lot more testing going on.

That's good news and is reflected in the test results of a number of other states, according to Johns Hopkins tracking.  It's being reported that as many as 8 million people may have been infected with coronavirus in March where 80% had no symptoms.  That's good news for them, but not for the people they infected who had worse experiences. They may have been responsible for the explosion of hospitalizations and deaths in New York, for example.

It's not clear to me who is being tested in each state.  Since people aren't being tested randomly, I assume that these are asymptomatic people who request the test for some reason or have developed symptoms and need to be tested.  So, while it's good that the positivity rate is low in many states, I would like to know why it's as low as it is.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2020, 07:39:59 AM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2054 on: June 24, 2020, 01:46:47 PM »
It is looking like protests have not caused a spike in cases:

Quote
Despite warnings from public health officials, new research suggests Black Lives Matter protests across the country have not led to a jump in coronavirus cases.

A new study, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, used data on protests from more than 300 of the largest US cities, and found no evidence that coronavirus cases grew in the weeks following the beginning of the protests.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2055 on: June 24, 2020, 02:38:07 PM »
Here's the reality.

Scientific American

Quote
There is not much evidence that the protests have caused spikes in coronavirus infections so far. And any increase in cases from the protests would be hard to separate from the fact that states are reopening in general, according to Caroline Buckee, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Scientific American spoke with Buckee about the risks posed by protesting, the difficulty of tracing infections back to the protests, and how to stay safe while exercising one’s democratic rights.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2056 on: June 24, 2020, 03:22:09 PM »
We can't know for certain who got it where, but the number of cases apparently hasn't risen in those cities, which is a good thing.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2057 on: June 24, 2020, 10:32:08 PM »
Daily new cases for the country continue to explode - today's total was higher than all but one other day during the pandemic (caveat - more testing).

But unless there were significantly more tests run this week than there were last week, the change cannot be completely attributable to more tests being run.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2058 on: June 25, 2020, 05:50:49 AM »
A tale of two countries:
  • Canada and the USA both saw the first deaths attributable to the virus in mid March
  • Canada and the USA both saw new cases 'peak' in mid-late April
  • Since then, Canada has seen a steady drop in new daily cases, down to about 1/6 of the peak number
  • Since then, the USA has seen a slight dip in new cases (primarily as a result of the hot-spot north-eastern states getting a handle of the pandemic, while cases increased elsewhere) followed by a plateau and a new increase to record new-daily-cases level.
  • Both countries have administered roughly the same number of tests per capita, and have seen recent increases in the daily rates of testing.
  • Both countries have seen regional 'restriction relaxation' plans taking effect.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2059 on: June 25, 2020, 11:07:09 AM »
A tale of two countries:
  • Canada and the USA both saw the first deaths attributable to the virus in mid March
  • Canada and the USA both saw new cases 'peak' in mid-late April
  • Since then, Canada has seen a steady drop in new daily cases, down to about 1/6 of the peak number
  • Since then, the USA has seen a slight dip in new cases (primarily as a result of the hot-spot north-eastern states getting a handle of the pandemic, while cases increased elsewhere) followed by a plateau and a new increase to record new-daily-cases level.
  • Both countries have administered roughly the same number of tests per capita, and have seen recent increases in the daily rates of testing.
  • Both countries have seen regional 'restriction relaxation' plans taking effect.

See, the thing that has seemingly been lost in all of this is people have moved the goal posts.

Remember "Flatten the curve" from months ago? That is exactly what the US did, and has been doing, although it looks like they need to put more restrictions back in place as the curve is moving up again.

Everywhere else is seemingly trying to eradicate it before/until a vaccine is available.

And given China has admitted they haven't even succeeded at that, I wish the other "free societies" luck on that.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2060 on: June 25, 2020, 11:18:08 AM »
I would suggest that "flattening the curve" cannot be thought of as universal, but is necessarily regional.  Any region where the curve is exponential is going to be problematic for that region.  You cannot transfer Wyoming, Alaska and Colorado hospital beds to Florida.

Also, flattening the curve, to be successful, requires the R0 value to be significantly below 1.0 in order to provide some buffer to unexpected surges in infections - which would mean a reduction in cases over time.  Having R0 tuned to be exactly 1.0 is going to be very difficult to maintain.

Anyway, the curve in the USA has not been successfully flattened.  Case numbers have now been increasing for several weeks, and the rate of increase is itself increasing.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2061 on: June 25, 2020, 12:21:01 PM »
Quote
Everywhere else is seemingly trying to eradicate it before/until a vaccine is available.

I'm not sure if that is a accurate statement.
The goal I believe in Canada is to manage the 'curve' as restrictions are lifted.

As DonaldD pointed out the opening up and lifting of restrictions is similar between the US and Canada yet the impact on the 'curve' very different. The question is why.


NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2062 on: June 25, 2020, 12:25:47 PM »
Quote
Everywhere else is seemingly trying to eradicate it before/until a vaccine is available.

I'm not sure if that is a accurate statement.
The goal I believe in Canada is to manage the 'curve' as restrictions are lifted.

As DonaldD pointed out the opening up and lifting of restrictions is similar between the US and Canada yet the impact on the 'curve' very different. The question is why.

Ontario, at least, has been opening up more slowly than good chunks of the US. BC managed to shut down the spread fairly early, too. I don't think lifting restrictions has been similar. If nothing else, all our leadership has been on the mostly the same page about keeping things controlled.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2063 on: June 25, 2020, 12:35:47 PM »
In Canada, where there is much more acceptance of "the nanny state", respect for social isolation was likely much stronger and more immediate than in the USA, where the mythology of individualism would not allow that same level of societal enforcement.  I'm not talking even about legal enforcement, so much as the greater acceptance in Canada that people have responsibilities to society/other people.

There are times when fierce individualism might be a good thing.  When you're trying to control an epidemic? Maybe that's not one of those times.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2064 on: June 25, 2020, 01:06:21 PM »
A tale of two countries:
  • Canada and the USA both saw the first deaths attributable to the virus in mid March
  • Canada and the USA both saw new cases 'peak' in mid-late April
  • Since then, Canada has seen a steady drop in new daily cases, down to about 1/6 of the peak number
  • Since then, the USA has seen a slight dip in new cases (primarily as a result of the hot-spot north-eastern states getting a handle of the pandemic, while cases increased elsewhere) followed by a plateau and a new increase to record new-daily-cases level.
  • Both countries have administered roughly the same number of tests per capita, and have seen recent increases in the daily rates of testing.
  • Both countries have seen regional 'restriction relaxation' plans taking effect.

See, the thing that has seemingly been lost in all of this is people have moved the goal posts.

Remember "Flatten the curve" from months ago? That is exactly what the US did, and has been doing, although it looks like they need to put more restrictions back in place as the curve is moving up again.

Everywhere else is seemingly trying to eradicate it before/until a vaccine is available.

And given China has admitted they haven't even succeeded at that, I wish the other "free societies" luck on that.

That goal was seen as a monumental and difficult objective when cases were rising so fast that refrigerator trucks were parked at hospitals to "store" the bodies.  Now that seems like a modest goal since hospitals in those cities where the infections first swept through the population are under control.  But, the rest of the country decided that it was good enough that hospitalizations and deaths weren't continuing to skyrocket.  They were wrong because nobody understood (or yet understands) how the virus really spreads and how deadly it really is.  Meanwhile, every single western European country has seen their precipitous rise in cases and deaths fall just as precipitously and now have far lower rates of new infections compared to the US.  And they test more, isolate and contract trace and mandate nationwide standards for restrictions on commerce and social gatherings.  The only country in the world where the disease is treated as a political problem rather than a health and medical emergency is the US.

The question that nobody here wants to answer directly is, What the *censored* is wrong with the US?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2065 on: June 25, 2020, 01:10:47 PM »
The only country in the world where the disease is treated as a political problem rather than a health and medical emergency is the US.

The question that nobody here wants to answer directly is, What the *censored* is wrong with the US?

The peoples' minds have been broken and divided. All social issues are political issues; all scientific issues will eventually be political issues; all of it can be traced back to corrupt politics and brainwashing. But by all means, let's continue to vote for party-selected candidates and let them dictate the playing field.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2066 on: June 25, 2020, 01:16:58 PM »
The only country in the world where the disease is treated as a political problem rather than a health and medical emergency is the US.

The question that nobody here wants to answer directly is, What the *censored* is wrong with the US?

The peoples' minds have been broken and divided. All social issues are political issues; all scientific issues will eventually be political issues; all of it can be traced back to corrupt politics and brainwashing. But by all means, let's continue to vote for party-selected candidates and let them dictate the playing field.

So you're going to vote for TheDrake's Aunt Millie, too?  Since 95% of voters select either the Democratic or Republican candidate, you'll have absolutely no impact on how the next President will act.  But you'll know you did the right thing, anyway, because neither of them deserves your vote.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2067 on: June 25, 2020, 01:20:48 PM »
The question that nobody here wants to answer directly is, What the *censored* is wrong with the US?

Donald J. Trump.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2068 on: June 25, 2020, 01:30:05 PM »
So you're going to vote for TheDrake's Aunt Millie, too?  Since 95% of voters select either the Democratic or Republican candidate, you'll have absolutely no impact on how the next President will act.  But you'll know you did the right thing, anyway, because neither of them deserves your vote.

Yes, it's most convenient! You can do anything you like, ruin nations abroad, divide the American populace, and anything else, and then always fall back on "hey, who else is there to vote for"? The only reason this didn't already devolve in a revolution is because America is too prosperous; give people lots of stuff and they won't muster up much energy to be upset at the same things that would lead to revolt in poorer countries. Why change when you don't have to? Answer: you won't, so the DNC and RNC can just have at it. You can point that out as a reality, but I don't see any reason to celebrate it as you seem to do.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2069 on: June 25, 2020, 01:34:06 PM »
The only country in the world where the disease is treated as a political problem rather than a health and medical emergency is the US.

The question that nobody here wants to answer directly is, What the *censored* is wrong with the US?

The peoples' minds have been broken and divided. All social issues are political issues; all scientific issues will eventually be political issues; all of it can be traced back to corrupt politics and brainwashing. But by all means, let's continue to vote for party-selected candidates and let them dictate the playing field.

So you're going to vote for TheDrake's Aunt Millie, too?  Since 95% of voters select either the Democratic or Republican candidate, you'll have absolutely no impact on how the next President will act.  But you'll know you did the right thing, anyway, because neither of them deserves your vote.

Time for a Moderate centrist third party. Both GOP and DNC are being held hostage by the voices of the minority extremes with in. In the age of social media the minotiry extreme voices get to much attention.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2070 on: June 25, 2020, 01:39:57 PM »
If you want a third party,  you're going to have to do more than vote for it. Elections are too narrowly focused to enable real change.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2071 on: June 25, 2020, 01:43:16 PM »
The question that nobody here wants to answer directly is, What the *censored* is wrong with the US?
"There are times when fierce individualism might be a good thing.  When you're trying to control an epidemic? Maybe that's not one of those times."

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2072 on: June 25, 2020, 01:45:29 PM »
So you're going to vote for TheDrake's Aunt Millie, too?  Since 95% of voters select either the Democratic or Republican candidate, you'll have absolutely no impact on how the next President will act.  But you'll know you did the right thing, anyway, because neither of them deserves your vote.

Yes, it's most convenient! You can do anything you like, ruin nations abroad, divide the American populace, and anything else, and then always fall back on "hey, who else is there to vote for"? The only reason this didn't already devolve in a revolution is because America is too prosperous; give people lots of stuff and they won't muster up much energy to be upset at the same things that would lead to revolt in poorer countries. Why change when you don't have to? Answer: you won't, so the DNC and RNC can just have at it. You can point that out as a reality, but I don't see any reason to celebrate it as you seem to do.

"Seem" is the right word.  It's worse than the Yogi Berra dilemma of what to do when you come to a fork in the road.  You want to go straight.  I was callow once, too.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2073 on: June 25, 2020, 01:47:46 PM »
That goal was seen as a monumental and difficult objective when cases were rising so fast that refrigerator trucks were parked at hospitals to "store" the bodies.  Now that seems like a modest goal since hospitals in those cities where the infections first swept through the population are under control.  But, the rest of the country decided that it was good enough that hospitalizations and deaths weren't continuing to skyrocket.  They were wrong because nobody understood (or yet understands) how the virus really spreads and how deadly it really is.  Meanwhile, every single western European country has seen their precipitous rise in cases and deaths fall just as precipitously and now have far lower rates of new infections compared to the US.  And they test more, isolate and contract trace and mandate nationwide standards for restrictions on commerce and social gatherings.  The only country in the world where the disease is treated as a political problem rather than a health and medical emergency is the US.

To the underlined portion specifically: We "sufficiently" understand the spread that news of large outbreaks "in the Southern States" is hardly surprising to anyone who bothers to think about it. The common factor in play for there is going to be air conditioning, (mostly) closed air (re-)circulation systems(can you say "increasing airborne viral load?"), and "significant numbers" of people in those air conditioned spaces. Night clubs and bars being the likely major hot spots for spread.

The only reason movie theaters aren't on the list in any meaningful way is because they hadn't yet reopened in numbers and they don't have any major new releases to draw in large crowds.

As I ponder indoor ventilation further, the "6 foot rule" also kind of fails as that point as well, because you now have to start considering artificially sustained air currents which will both help move the virus through the air, and possibly even help it remain airborne. That the presence or absence of a person(and ignoring their tendency to move) in a particular space also causes those air currents to change further complicates things.

HVAC is part of the problem that is now being encountered, and will take time to be "understood" even though the fact it is a problem that needs to be should be obvious to anyone who bothers to consider the situation.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2074 on: June 25, 2020, 01:48:11 PM »
If you want a third party,  you're going to have to do more than vote for it. Elections are too narrowly focused to enable real change.

It would take a lot of work to create the party but it might be time. There is a growing discontent of the moderates in both the GOP and DNC where the voice of what I suspect is the majority within the parties are being lost.

The tribalism has to end and a third party would force parties to negotiate and work together.   

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2075 on: June 25, 2020, 01:56:57 PM »
That goal was seen as a monumental and difficult objective when cases were rising so fast that refrigerator trucks were parked at hospitals to "store" the bodies.  Now that seems like a modest goal since hospitals in those cities where the infections first swept through the population are under control.  But, the rest of the country decided that it was good enough that hospitalizations and deaths weren't continuing to skyrocket.  They were wrong because nobody understood (or yet understands) how the virus really spreads and how deadly it really is.  Meanwhile, every single western European country has seen their precipitous rise in cases and deaths fall just as precipitously and now have far lower rates of new infections compared to the US.  And they test more, isolate and contract trace and mandate nationwide standards for restrictions on commerce and social gatherings.  The only country in the world where the disease is treated as a political problem rather than a health and medical emergency is the US.

To the underlined portion specifically: We "sufficiently" understand the spread that news of large outbreaks "in the Southern States" is hardly surprising to anyone who bothers to think about it. The common factor in play for there is going to be air conditioning, (mostly) closed air (re-)circulation systems(can you say "increasing airborne viral load?"), and "significant numbers" of people in those air conditioned spaces. Night clubs and bars being the likely major hot spots for spread.

The only reason movie theaters aren't on the list in any meaningful way is because they hadn't yet reopened in numbers and they don't have any major new releases to draw in large crowds.

As I ponder indoor ventilation further, the "6 foot rule" also kind of fails as that point as well, because you now have to start considering artificially sustained air currents which will both help move the virus through the air, and possibly even help it remain airborne. That the presence or absence of a person(and ignoring their tendency to move) in a particular space also causes those air currents to change further complicates things.

HVAC is part of the problem that is now being encountered, and will take time to be "understood" even though the fact it is a problem that needs to be should be obvious to anyone who bothers to consider the situation.

"The common factor in play for there is going to be air conditioning" 

That's interesting... Both Toronto and Montreal have being going through a heat wave and air conditioning is heavily used in Ontario and Quebec so I would expect to see the number rise?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2076 on: June 25, 2020, 02:03:03 PM »
So you're going to vote for TheDrake's Aunt Millie, too?  Since 95% of voters select either the Democratic or Republican candidate, you'll have absolutely no impact on how the next President will act.  But you'll know you did the right thing, anyway, because neither of them deserves your vote.

Yes, it's most convenient! You can do anything you like, ruin nations abroad, divide the American populace, and anything else, and then always fall back on "hey, who else is there to vote for"? The only reason this didn't already devolve in a revolution is because America is too prosperous; give people lots of stuff and they won't muster up much energy to be upset at the same things that would lead to revolt in poorer countries. Why change when you don't have to? Answer: you won't, so the DNC and RNC can just have at it. You can point that out as a reality, but I don't see any reason to celebrate it as you seem to do.

It is an interesting point you bring up, but at the same time, it also points out just how much of an aberration the American Revolution (or even the Civil War) truly was.

Most revolutions only happen once a substantial portion of the population has reached the point that they have "nothing to lose" by rebelling.

I guess you could instead frame the Revolution and the Civil as battles between rival and competing Aristocracies. Where "the gentry of North America" rebelled against the Crown of England and rallied the commoners to their cause. And the Civil War was (very easily argued) the "Southern Aristocrats" declaring war on the political power of the Northern States, as they saw the loss of their slaves as a likely loss of their personal and economic power.

It could be argued that there are effectively two competing and rival aristocracy equivalents now emerging in the United States, but the lines are very blurred on that front at this time. There is far too much overlap between the camps for a "clean break" and war to take place.

More likely would probably be a prolonged period of extreme civil unrest which will happen whenever one side is strongly "out of favor" with the current party in power.

We had the Bundy family activities under Obama, and we now have Anti-Fa and BLM acting up under Trump. So long as both sides are playing to their respective activist bases, this cycle is only going to continue to increase in intensity. Trump has certainly turned the dial up to 11 in many ways, although  I'm not sure what base he's playing to at this point.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2077 on: June 25, 2020, 02:05:09 PM »
"The common factor in play for there is going to be air conditioning" 

That's interesting... Both Toronto and Montreal have being going through a heat wave and air conditioning is heavily used in Ontario and Quebec so I would expect to see the number rise?

Have they reopened to the point where they are allowing gatherings of more than 50 people? 100 people? Most of the states that are getting hammered right now are allowing gatherings of more than 100 people.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2078 on: June 25, 2020, 02:19:45 PM »
Ontario is still limited to 10 people or less.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2079 on: June 25, 2020, 02:22:25 PM »
And Quebec just increased the limit to 50 people 2 days ago - so that would not yet have any effect on the numbers reported.

But my feeling is that many people are still avoiding unnecessary gatherings, regardless of the rules.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2080 on: June 25, 2020, 02:31:54 PM »
"Seem" is the right word.  It's worse than the Yogi Berra dilemma of what to do when you come to a fork in the road.  You want to go straight.  I was callow once, too.

Yeah, "callow". Good to see how much you've "matured" after giving up and voting for anyone the party will send out of the gate no matter who they are. This argument boils down to little more than "vote for X because Y is worse", which is exactly the platform used by everything from well-meaning democrats to dictators. Vote Hitler, because we need to stop the communist onslaught. It's the same crap, different packaging. Stalin is the devil, so no matter that 'our guy' is pretty bad, it doesn't matter, because you have to pick one side or the other. And then in the other thread we talk about how the Germans have to own the shame of it...

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2081 on: June 25, 2020, 02:32:53 PM »
Quote
We had the Bundy family activities under Obama, and we now have Anti-Fa and BLM acting up under Trump.

Why are you leaving out Boogaloo and other white supremacist groups that are responsible for the vast majority of violent attacks on people and buildings over the past 20 years, and are much more visibly involved in the current protests than Antifa?  In fact, I still have not heard of a verified report of Antifa, only rumors and highly partisan and charged attempts to tie them to violence.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2082 on: June 25, 2020, 03:08:16 PM »
Quote
We had the Bundy family activities under Obama, and we now have Anti-Fa and BLM acting up under Trump.

Why are you leaving out Boogaloo and other white supremacist groups that are responsible for the vast majority of violent attacks on people and buildings over the past 20 years, and are much more visibly involved in the current protests than Antifa?  In fact, I still have not heard of a verified report of Antifa, only rumors and highly partisan and charged attempts to tie them to violence.

Most of the claims I've seen about the "white supremacist activity" as well also seems to consist of "reports of white people" or actual "white people" being caught but no supporting reporting to indicate the person was linked to a supremacist group. It simply took the form of "See! It is white people doing it!" Which wasn't in dispute. Most of the people who are openly in AntiFa are white too, you know.

As for "verified report of AntiFa" you need only Google the CHOP and the "John Brown Gun Club" which is AntiFa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_John_Brown_Gun_Club
Quote
Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club (PSJBGC) is a Puget Sound Area gun club, formerly affiliated with Redneck Revolt. During the George Floyd protests in June 2020, the group attended the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle.

The club calls itself an "anti-fascist, anti-racist, pro-worker community defense organization". The Guardian has called it an "anti-fascist armed leftist group" that "provide(s) security against rightwing aggression"

Willem van Spronsen, a former member of the club, attacked the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Tacoma with incendiary devices in July 2019 while armed with an AR-15 rifle. He was killed in the attack.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2083 on: June 25, 2020, 04:12:44 PM »
Quote
We had the Bundy family activities under Obama, and we now have Anti-Fa and BLM acting up under Trump.

Why are you leaving out Boogaloo and other white supremacist groups that are responsible for the vast majority of violent attacks on people and buildings over the past 20 years, and are much more visibly involved in the current protests than Antifa?

https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1274404688276754434
Quote
Another work of fiction by @politico. The @DHSgov intel bulletin does NOT identify the Boogaloo movement as left-wing OR right-wing. They are simply violent extremists from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Well, at DHS seems to understand the Boogaloo. "The Boogloo members" who are engaging in racially motivated attacks also "oddly" seem to be tied to White Supremacy Groups seeking to bring it under their banner alone. I imagine the left wing side of it, which even the John Brown Gun Club(linked to in the prior post) can quite possibly claim (loose) association with the Boogaloo as well.

The ones who are being violent, or more specifically, instigating violence belong to other groups which happen to exist on the fringes of the political spectrum on both sides, and doesn't represent the main body of the people associated with it.

That and well, the tracking methodology for "right wing violence" is horribly broken in a lot a cases. Not denying the violence happened, it certainly did, but claiming a political motivation for their actions often is a sick joke.

Or we can take the word of one of the Boogaloo groups that replied to DHS:
https://twitter.com/NCKommand/status/1275090994023849984
Quote
Hey there. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to think about us. Let me clarify for you that we are neither “violent”, nor are we “extremists”. We want peace. We want the government to leave American citizens alone with ALL of their rights intact. (Pt 1)

(Pt 2) It’s not an “extreme” idea for citizens to desire their liberties be left unaltered. So many of our rights have been infringed upon by local, state and federal legislators and authorities, that we have no choice but to remind the government that “we the people”...

(Pt 3)... reserve the right to alter or abolish a form of government should it go to far. We believe that things have gone too far, but not so far as to declare a “second civil war”, as media puts it. (We don’t want that and we aren’t trying to initiate a war).

(Pt 4) What we want is for massive federal/state/local police reform. We want our constitutionally recognized liberties to return to an unaltered state (abolish the ATF is a great start). We want corporate cash OUT of politics. We want the war on drugs to end..

(Pt 5) We want ALL races/genders/orientations treated EQUALLY and with equal rights (marriage). We want greater accountability across the board of the entire federal government and our state governments. And ultimately, we want to be FREE people. #DontTreadOnMe

(Pt 6) Because we know people will point to the terrorist, Carrillo and the three stooges who were making homemade explosives. None of us (all influential people in our movement) condoned or instructed those men to commit evil or anything close to it.

(Pt 7) We are not a bunch of mentally ill, evil people. We are not Carrillos in waiting. Also, we can not control if evil people see our content and twist it to their sick intentions. That’s not who we are. Our real identities are your everyday folks...

(Pt 8) We are blue collar workers, poor, wealthy, middle class, teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, emt’s, veterans, firemen, construction workers, office employees, moms, dads, sons, daughters... we are everyone in this nation and we just want liberty.

(Pt 9) So please don’t lose sight of who’s consent by which you are ALLOWED to govern. #Boogaloo #BreonnaTaylor #duncanlemp #GeorgeFloyd #BlackLivesMatter #EndQualifiedImmunity #EricGarner #EndRedFlagLaws #EndNoKnockRaids #Peace
« Last Edit: June 25, 2020, 04:24:06 PM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2084 on: June 25, 2020, 10:18:55 PM »
The twitter post you link to cites a Politico article that stipulates the following:

Quote
Participants in the boogaloo movement generally identify as anarchist, pro-Second Amendment members of so-called citizen militias who are preparing for a second Civil War or American Revolution, extremism experts say.
...
The assessment is striking given the public emphasis President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have placed on alleged violence carried out by adherents of the left-wing ideology antifa, while refusing to specifically identify and denounce the far-right groups like boogaloo that have been charged in recent weeks for acts ranging from felony murder to terrorism.

If that ain't pointing to right wing extremism, what does?

Then, having Boogaloo been identified as a terrorist group, you then cite a bogus self-declaration of boogaloo principles as supposedly authoritative that starts with:

Quote
Hey there. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to think about us. Let me clarify for you that we are neither “violent”, nor are we “extremists”. We want peace. We want the government to leave American citizens alone with ALL of their rights intact. (Pt 1)

Ah, so the violent extremist organization is neither "violent" nor "extremist".  Check.

And then they disavow the terrorists who claim to be Boogaloo members:

Quote
(Pt 6) Because we know people will point to the terrorist, Carrillo and the three stooges who were making homemade explosives. None of us (all influential people in our movement) condoned or instructed those men to commit evil or anything close to it.

And nowhere do you cite anything that directly mentions the monster hiding in plain sight, antifa.

Quote
As for "verified report of AntiFa" you need only Google the CHOP and the "John Brown Gun Club" which is AntiFa.

Antifa?  Says who?  They don't.  If they are antifa, why don't they come out and tell us?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2085 on: June 25, 2020, 10:38:54 PM »
... and today, the USA saw its first ever day with more than 40,000 new cases reported.

That makes the 16th straight day where the 7-day average increased from the previous day.  The USA is unquestionably in a significant and consistent upward trend.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2086 on: June 26, 2020, 06:35:32 AM »
"Seem" is the right word.  It's worse than the Yogi Berra dilemma of what to do when you come to a fork in the road.  You want to go straight.  I was callow once, too.

Yeah, "callow". Good to see how much you've "matured" after giving up and voting for anyone the party will send out of the gate no matter who they are. This argument boils down to little more than "vote for X because Y is worse", which is exactly the platform used by everything from well-meaning democrats to dictators. Vote Hitler, because we need to stop the communist onslaught. It's the same crap, different packaging. Stalin is the devil, so no matter that 'our guy' is pretty bad, it doesn't matter, because you have to pick one side or the other. And then in the other thread we talk about how the Germans have to own the shame of it...

It's refreshing to be in the company of people with such pious political beliefs.  I confess that I am not pure, and I have sinned. 

Serious question for you.  Is there anything any President has done that you think was worthy?  I'll point out before you answer that whatever it was that you approve of was done in the political realm and a lot of people objected and were opposed to it when it was done.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2087 on: June 26, 2020, 07:36:26 AM »
... and today, the USA saw its first ever day with more than 40,000 new cases reported.

That makes the 16th straight day where the 7-day average increased from the previous day.  The USA is unquestionably in a significant and consistent upward trend.

Interesting analysis of how the virus spread in the US from the first cases through May.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2088 on: June 26, 2020, 08:47:56 AM »
New proposal from Fauci to speed up the testing process using fewer tests.  Basically, they would take samples from a "pool" of people (20 is suggested) and combine them into a single test.  If the result is negative, they move on to the next group.  If positive, they test all of the people in the pool.

It's not clear to me how effective that approach will be given that the percentage of people in each test area who are infected may end up requiring all members of the pool to be tested anyway.  For example, if 5% or more of people in an area are infected and 20 people are tested, the pool result will be statistically likely to be positive, so they'll have to do the individual tests most of the time anyway. 

For this approach to work, they will have to pick a pool size for each area that is projected to be small enough that the likelihood anyone in the pool is infected is very low.  TheDeamon mentioned the other day that in his state the positive result rate is under 3%.  If the state rate is used as the guideline, they might be able to use a pool with as many as 50 people.  Florida is seeing positive results in as many as 15% of tests, so this approach probably won't work at all.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2089 on: June 26, 2020, 09:46:52 AM »
New proposal from Fauci to speed up the testing process using fewer tests.  Basically, they would take samples from a "pool" of people (20 is suggested) and combine them into a single test.  If the result is negative, they move on to the next group.  If positive, they test all of the people in the pool.

It's not clear to me how effective that approach will be given that the percentage of people in each test area who are infected may end up requiring all members of the pool to be tested anyway.  For example, if 5% or more of people in an area are infected and 20 people are tested, the pool result will be statistically likely to be positive, so they'll have to do the individual tests most of the time anyway. 

For this approach to work, they will have to pick a pool size for each area that is projected to be small enough that the likelihood anyone in the pool is infected is very low.  TheDeamon mentioned the other day that in his state the positive result rate is under 3%.  If the state rate is used as the guideline, they might be able to use a pool with as many as 50 people.  Florida is seeing positive results in as many as 15% of tests, so this approach probably won't work at all.

The approach can be pretty effective at reducing the number of tests. Its not exactly a new idea in testing. I used to assign this exact problem as a combination of probability and calculus when I taught. It ends up being a reasonably straight forward problem to stagger the number of tests to minimize runs as long as you have enough material to do multiple runs from a sample if one does come back positive.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2090 on: June 26, 2020, 09:58:42 AM »
It's refreshing to be in the company of people with such pious political beliefs.  I confess that I am not pure, and I have sinned.

Good to know.

Quote
Serious question for you.  Is there anything any President has done that you think was worthy?  I'll point out before you answer that whatever it was that you approve of was done in the political realm and a lot of people objected and were opposed to it when it was done.

Honestly my opinion of Presidents since JFK is pretty low. Granted, for several of them I've only read about them or seen videos, as I wasn't alive at the time. I don't know that I have a problem with Carter, generally. I blame Reagan/Bush for the War on Drugs, among other things. When I was younger and didn't follow these things I liked Bill Clinton well enough. Since him I've had serious problems with those that followed. If you want to talk individual good moves I'm sure I could cite some that even W did, but I'm not sure what zeroing in on one good thing amid many bad things achieves. Obama was better than W, but that's not saying much.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2091 on: June 26, 2020, 11:28:01 AM »
We seem to have shifted from the daily death ticker to "cases" as the panic-point metric but without context around age distribution, cases don't mean much.

If the majority of cases are people over 45, it's concerning. People in their early thirties and younger, not so much.

Example, in FL the death rate distribution for all cases looks like this:

Age.  Death rate/case
85+: 28.18%
75-84: 15.21%
65-74: 7.31%
55-64: 2.03%
45-54: 0.71?
35-44: 0.34%
25-34: 0.09%
15-24: 0.03%
5-14: 0%
0-4: 0%

C19 is highly undiscerning regarding cases but incredibly selective as to who's at risk of getting really sick and dying. The focus should now be on making sure people on the scary end of this distribution take all precautions, not generically reacting to cases in general.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2092 on: June 26, 2020, 11:47:28 AM »
It's refreshing to be in the company of people with such pious political beliefs.  I confess that I am not pure, and I have sinned.

Good to know.

Quote
Serious question for you.  Is there anything any President has done that you think was worthy?  I'll point out before you answer that whatever it was that you approve of was done in the political realm and a lot of people objected and were opposed to it when it was done.

Honestly my opinion of Presidents since JFK is pretty low. Granted, for several of them I've only read about them or seen videos, as I wasn't alive at the time. I don't know that I have a problem with Carter, generally. I blame Reagan/Bush for the War on Drugs, among other things. When I was younger and didn't follow these things I liked Bill Clinton well enough. Since him I've had serious problems with those that followed. If you want to talk individual good moves I'm sure I could cite some that even W did, but I'm not sure what zeroing in on one good thing amid many bad things achieves. Obama was better than W, but that's not saying much.

Wow.  After accusing me of being willing to vote for Hitler and something having to do with Stalin because I am willing to vote for the "less evil" of the DNC or RNC candidates, all of a sudden your principled outrage seems to have vanished.  You can't even come up with a specific thing any of them did that you completely agree with, as I asked you to do.  Instead, you don't have a problem with Carter?  You liked Bill Clinton well enough?  Obama was better than W?  Don't bother climbing back up on your high horse, because next time I won't take your pious outrage very seriously.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2093 on: June 26, 2020, 12:36:46 PM »
Wow.  After accusing me of being willing to vote for Hitler and something having to do with Stalin because I am willing to vote for the "less evil" of the DNC or RNC candidates, all of a sudden your principled outrage seems to have vanished.  You can't even come up with a specific thing any of them did that you completely agree with, as I asked you to do.  Instead, you don't have a problem with Carter?  You liked Bill Clinton well enough?  Obama was better than W?  Don't bother climbing back up on your high horse, because next time I won't take your pious outrage very seriously.

Your particular question was IMO specious, as asking me to cite a single thing I liked that any President has done is surely sarcastic at best and is in any case off-topic with the fact that I'm calling out your position as essentially being "vote for X because Y is worse". That kind of logic is precisely the one used in the earlier 20th century to vote in bad people to stop allegedly worse people. TheDrake is right, don't be a part of that.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2094 on: June 26, 2020, 12:47:32 PM »
Quote
Texas recorded an all-time daily high of 5,489 new Covid-19 cases on Tuesday as hospitals neared capacity in Houston.

The dramatic increase in cases prompted the governor, Greg Abbott, to tighten public health restrictions after resisting calls to slow the state’s reopening process.

Cases have steadily increased in Texas since March, but a surge in the past two weeks has activated concerns about the state’s ability to respond.

To cope with the surge, some adult ICU patients are being treated at Texas Children’s hospital in Houston, the country’s fourth-largest city.

So much for we're gonna be fine as long as the at risk people are protected theory. Lots of cases = lots of dead people.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2095 on: June 26, 2020, 12:57:24 PM »
I expect that, even if newly announced restrictions are enforced quickly, there will still be some time before the message is completely accepted, plus there are undoubtedly a large number of pre-symptomatic undiagnosed folks that are going to continue increasing the numbers at least for another week.

We'll have to wait and see how any reinstated restrictions affect the infection rate.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2096 on: June 26, 2020, 01:19:53 PM »
Quote
Texas recorded an all-time daily high of 5,489 new Covid-19 cases on Tuesday as hospitals neared capacity in Houston.

The dramatic increase in cases prompted the governor, Greg Abbott, to tighten public health restrictions after resisting calls to slow the state’s reopening process.

Cases have steadily increased in Texas since March, but a surge in the past two weeks has activated concerns about the state’s ability to respond.

To cope with the surge, some adult ICU patients are being treated at Texas Children’s hospital in Houston, the country’s fourth-largest city.

So much for we're gonna be fine as long as the at risk people are protected theory. Lots of cases = lots of dead people.

Trump latest statements on testing and deaths indicates that he doesn't understand that deaths due to any increase in infections will lag behind a few weeks. The length of time people infected and in ICU can be 4+ weeks. 

It also appears that the young who aren't worried about getting infected are also not worried about spreading it.

Some troubling studies coming out that those infected but not bad enough to be hospitalized are showing damage to the lungs. And that immunity after a infection may only be 2 to 4 months. :(

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2097 on: June 26, 2020, 02:04:00 PM »
Some troubling studies coming out that those infected but not bad enough to be hospitalized are showing damage to the lungs. And that immunity after a infection may only be 2 to 4 months. :(

That is also going to spell bad news for Vaccine developers, as that means their best case for effectiveness is going to be less than that between "booster shots."

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2098 on: June 26, 2020, 02:14:37 PM »
The seeming constant stream of plausible discoveries and analyses about the disease only makes it seem less certain that we yet know what we're dealing with.  The highs are evenly matched with lows, leaving me with the sense that I will need to protect myself for a long time, maybe years.  I won't be eating in restaurants and will be much more selective about who and for how long I socialize with friends than ever before in my lifetime. 

It also bodes very badly for the economy and what we used to call the cultural status quo.  They will be different than before, with the adult population having different employment, shopping and medical needs than before.  I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see the so-called social welfare state get ushered in where there are universal personal subsidies, universal health care and massive government infrastructure projects.  That's just the tip of the iceberg.  Bernie Sanders may have been too conservative a spokesman for the Brave New World.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2099 on: June 26, 2020, 02:16:44 PM »
Quote
To cope with the surge, some adult ICU patients are being treated at Texas Children’s hospital in Houston, the country’s fourth-largest city.

So much for we're gonna be fine as long as the at risk people are protected theory. Lots of cases = lots of dead people.

Not necessarily, at lots of sick young people doesn't mean lots of dead people. Or even lots of people in the ICU.

But I will agree that the more sick people that are running around, the more likely it becomes that "a care provider" is going to bring it to where the at risk people are at.