Dennis Dodd, CBS prediction on whether there will be college football in the Fall

[Bakert]

If deaths are used as the measurement, then your data doesn't contradict what Terry posted. There were only 5 deaths on Saturday and 1 on Sunday.

And 37 on Monday.

If you look at this link (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...us-cases.html; scroll down to the "New reported deaths by day in Georgia" chart) you will notice something interesting. Deaths in Georgia seem to drop significantly on the weekends. That is reflected in the chart Stu posted above if you look at it closely. The point is that what was reported this past Saturday/Sunday is not likely "real" but rather an issue with how deaths are being reported on the weekends.

[Doc]

That's why I said not quite, and part of that was responding to the implication that things are getting better. They are clearly not. Plus, I'm not just talking about deaths, it's about cases. These are numbers you should be seeing going down, not range bound.

States can have a one day abnormality based on when/how they get their reporting. You have to look at trends, not data points. Georgia has cluster day dips on weekends.

Identified cases are a going up because there is an increase in the number identified due to testing. Hard to diagnose an asymptomatic case when there is no testing due to severe limitation as a result of FDA approval delaying production. The relevant numbers for comparison would be "deaths" and "hospitalized". Both are going down. (link)

I find it intriguing that most who advocate extending the lock down are folks with "essential" jobs or ones who are getting paid despite not working. I have yet to see a barber, waitress or gym owner etc.... hop on the "lets stay shut down" bandwagon. Odds are because most of them have to eat.

[CitizenBBN]

Not sure what time we wasted, at least without the benefit of hindsight.

The Chinese hid this for weeks. That wasted time was crucial. It could have been stopped or vastly slowed if we bottlenecked it right there in Wuhan. By the time any nation even knew to have a meeting about steps to take it was already in the US, Europe, the Middle East, etc.

Sure if we had a psychic in charge maybe we could have helped some, but probably not a lot, and certainly not with mere mortals in charge. There's a reason no nation has really escaped this mess. Some have done a bit better, but I doubt too many have really done better given our international travel, density in cities like New York, and our natural reluctance to breach people's privacy.

It's also clear now that had we started even in December before anyone else that we still wouldn't have enough tests to somehow gain full knowledge of the spread and map it and try to manage it. We dont' have enough now after 2 months or more of full tilt effort and the FDA in full out emergency mode. No way we get tests approved and made in mass quantities back in january. in fact we know this b/c even in February the FDA was operating on a non-war footing with this virus.

Unless we closed the border weeks earlier, way ahead of anyone else and even earlier than the earliest memos warning of a potential issue, and then began serious containment and tracing, this was inevitable.

And even that was in the long run useless b/c there's little chance of stopping this from spreading here and there at the edges, and it's virulent enough that's enough for it to spread in communities. It would have taken far more draconian measures than any free nation was ever going to implement in peace time.

This has always been about SLOWING the rate of infection enough that we could treat those who need treatment and keep hospitals functioning and supplied.

That's all this is. It's not about reducing the number of people who get it in the end, it's about reducing the number who die as we bide time to be able to treat them and find treatments.

A curve of complete stranglehold and then release seems no more effective than a slow and steady approach to the race. In that sense there are things we could have done, but not much that in the end will make much statistical difference in how many get it or even how many die. That's esp. true b/c even our slowest rate of infection is going to be enough that we won't have our best treatments ready and we will lose people. But holding it to near zero for the 6-18 months it may take was never going to happen.

[KSRBEvans]

My WAG is the only way this will be substantially defeated nationwide in our current treatment situation (no therapeutics, no vaccine) is to implement mandatory mass isolation/quarantine measures for positive cases and those who've been in contact with positive cases. And America just isn't ready to go there.

[CitizenBBN]

My WAG is the only way this will be substantially defeated nationwide in our current treatment situation (no therapeutics, no vaccine) is to implement mandatory mass isolation/quarantine measures for positive cases and those who've been in contact with positive cases. And America just isn't ready to go there.

I agree we don't seem willing to go there. when the first Kentucky case came out I questioned why we didn't announce the names so people would know if they had potentially been exposed, but we didn't.

Some of that is our reticence to pierce privacy, some is legal like HIPPA.

Regardless, I doubt that would even do it. Slow it for sure, but only slow it. There would still be too many holes in that net, too many missed contacts, to really do a job on it.

Would we catch every stop at every gas station?

And that's the next level of problem, the math won't let it work. Slow yes, but not stop. Patient Zero goes to grocery, gas station two times and maybe 1-2 other spots in the 14 day window. that's a low number. Now find everyone who could have been exposed.

Two challenges:

1) Now we need to gather everyone's cell phone data to track them, permission or not, bc otherwise we never know who got breathed on at the grocery and gas station. BIG step for this country, rightfully so.

2) let's say we do that. Now we need to quarantine not just that Patient zero but everyone they contacted. Do we then quarantine everyone THOSE people contacted? Then that 3rd layer?

The math quickly grows out of proportion. We would have to live with quarantining level 1 contact with a known infected person and maybe those in their households. That's a large number, but still won't catch where else it has spread b/c it will still have gotten to some level 2 people if this went on a week or more.

So it would slow the spread for sure, but only slow an ever increasing level of infection.

And it may be our best option, versus just quarantining everyone as we are doing now. But it will lead to more deaths than locking everyone down no matter what we do, it just will.

We also accept that allowing people to travel whenever they want for non-essential purposes kills tens of thousands a year, but we arent' willing to tell people they can't go visit grandma or the beach without permission, so we live with the tradeoff. We accept that people can have private pools despite the deaths that result, b/c we choose that balance.

We just have to find a new balance. Not a good one, not one we want, but one we must choose to make.

[Bakert]

I find it intriguing that most who advocate extending the lock down are folks with "essential" jobs or ones who are getting paid despite not working. I have yet to see a barber, waitress or gym owner etc.... hop on the "lets stay shut down" bandwagon. Odds are because most of them have to eat.

A recent Economist/YouGov poll suggests it may not matter. On page 44 in the document linked below there is very little difference across reported income groups with regard to when it will be safe to open the economy. While there are differences across the different alternatives, as would be expected, that does not appear to be a function of income.

The same is true for age with one exception, that being that there are more younger respondents who chose "in a month or so" than other age groups. But there are fewer young respondents who suggested it is safe right now.

Granted, income and age are not perfect proxies for what you suggest, but I would imagine there is a pretty good correlation.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/5yope37l...nTabReport.pdf

This is more or less corroborated by a Morning Consult poll. See page 29.

https://morningconsult.com/wp-conten..._RVs_v2_JB.pdf

[bigsky]

No school in Cali this fall. So much for the Pac 12, eh?

[Bakert]

No school in Cali this fall. So much for the Pac 12, eh?

Just saw that. In the article I read they included a link to a list being kept at the Chronicla of Higher Education of schools who have made announcements. May be something interest to follow.

FWIW, all universities being monitored, 70% have said they will be in-person, 13% have yet to decide, 8% are planning for online, 5% are proposing a hybrid model, and 4.6% are considering a range of scenarios, which to me sounds like "have yet to decide.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/He...lleges-/248626

[CitizenBBN]

No school in Cali this fall. So much for the Pac 12, eh?

Will anyone notice they aren't playing?

[Doc]

Will anyone notice they aren't playing?

Come on man..... Conference of Champioms

[CitizenBBN]

Come on man..... Conference of Champioms

When Sonny and Cher were on the air maybe.

[Doc]

When Sonny and Cher were on the air maybe.

Before Bill Walton found LSD