Coronavirus

[CitizenBBN]

You should look into Keto. As with any diet, it is all about calories in/calories out, how you accomplish that is less important. Finding what works the easiest for you is critical for long term weight loss.

Any of the Keto/Adkins direction IMO is the way to go. I lost about 50 lbs doing it and have kept all but about 10 of that off, and need to go another 40 or so.

People eat way way way too many carbs, esp. processed carbs that spike right into your blood sugar.

that hits me hard, so I rarely eat sweets. I am about to get some life changes made that will hopefully let me go back to the way I was eating when I lost the weight.

I felt better, had more energy, and was losing weight. It's the way to go.

My weakness is junk food. Potatoes and potato chips, chips and salsa, that kind of stuff will kick my butt.

If I could find a salty fried low carb option I loved I'd be golden. Jerky helps, but just not the same as a big bag of Ruffles or a tub of popcorn.

[CitizenBBN]

And of course...someone drank a cleaner over the weekend. You can't fix dumb. But you can sure not encourage it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kansas...ctant-comments

True, but honestly if someone is that dumb then what the heck. Like people trying to eat Tide pods. Some very dumb people out there.

[kingcat]

Not defending or condemning the presidents words. But as a matter of fact I've seen drunks do things just as weird thinking they are ten feet tall and bullet proof.

Usually when arguing some silly point like..it dang sure wont kill me...I'll show ya'

yeah right, go ahead and see what happens dumb***..

I just will, and then I'm gonna' make you drink the sh** too..

Of course I played some backwoods clubs and keggers in my time. And I assume you pretty much have to be drunk to enjoy Kansas.

[bigsky]

Lots of “we passed Vietnam fatalities” hand wringing. Montana had 270 Vietnam deaths, has 16 virus deaths. California had 5,575 Vietnam deaths, 1775 virus deaths. New York had 4,120 Vietnam deaths, 17,300 virus deaths. New Jersey similar ratio.

[dan_bgblue]

And I assume you pretty much have to be drunk to enjoy Kansas.

I have been there several times, and that is an astute observation.

[Doc]

Wonder if we will see any criticism of Cuomo for his comments today where he blames everybody else? I sense we won't but could be wrong. For me, I don't blame anybody because this is a whole new event, the closest thing being the spanish flu of the 1910's.

[bigsky]

New York City and state looks particularly bad in comparison to California or LA or many other states.

[ukpumacat]

Wonder if we will see any criticism of Cuomo for his comments today where he blames everybody else? I sense we won't but could be wrong. For me, I don't blame anybody because this is a whole new event, the closest thing being the spanish flu of the 1910's.

Not sure if we will see it but he and the NYC Mayor were sure late to react to this thing.

[CitizenBBN]

Not sure if we will see it but he and the NYC Mayor were sure late to react to this thing.

Cuomo was slow, but De Blasio was positively on another level of non-response. he was fighting for people to go to street fairs and keeping schools open when it was obvious to everyone else they were in trouble.

[ukpumacat]

Cuomo was slow, but De Blasio was positively on another level of non-response. he was fighting for people to go to street fairs and keeping schools open when it was obvious to everyone else they were in trouble.

Ya. He's awful. Pretty clear Cuomo cannot stand him either.

[Doc]

New York City and state looks particularly bad in comparison to California or LA or many other states.

Exactly. Cuomo has been propped up as the model for handling this by many, especially those quick to criticize Trump for "blaming others". Personally I think Cuomo has done a HORRIBLE job, and has blamed everybody for the issues. From population density to being an international hub, all have fallen under his criticism. Yet California seems to be doing a far better job, and I don't see much difference between LA and NYC.... other than how they responded. I'm not criticizing Cuomo because its an unknown so he, like everybody else, including on the national level, are flying by the seat of their pants.

[ukpumacat]

Yet California seems to be doing a far better job, and I don't see much difference between LA and NYC.... other than how they responded.

No doubt that our Governor's quick response saved a lot of lives. We were WAY behind NY in cases and yet, he shut down before them.
Having said that, there are siginificant differences that made NY worse. Nowhere in California has the transit system like NYC does (LA and SF have decent ones but are not used nearly the same amount). And even though LA is a global city, it is nothing compared to NYC. The virus was likely in NY in December.
NYC in particular is just FAR more densely populated than LA. NYC has 27,814 people per square mile. LA has 7,544 per square mile.
That's a major difference.

[ukpumacat]

This is a very interesting article:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/0...costing-lives/

[VirginiaCat]

If you look at the number of deaths per country's population....the Western countries are at .0003. For $10 Trillion in debt.

[PedroDaGr8]

Exactly. Cuomo has been propped up as the model for handling this by many, especially those quick to criticize Trump for "blaming others". Personally I think Cuomo has done a HORRIBLE job, and has blamed everybody for the issues. From population density to being an international hub, all have fallen under his criticism. Yet California seems to be doing a far better job, and I don't see much difference between LA and NYC.... other than how they responded. I'm not criticizing Cuomo because its an unknown so he, like everybody else, including on the national level, are flying by the seat of their pants.

Cuomo is viewed OKish for his dealings with Trump by most liberals. For those I interact with (who are on the science side) he is viewed much worse, even the California governor is not viewed well for how badly they managed things. Beshear is actually viewed VERY highly by most people I know (hell, most didn't even know who he was before this).

Sorry but there is a huge difference between definitively knowing every detail and something being a huge unknown. To use an analogy: just because a picture isn't clear and I can only tell a car is recent model Ford Mustang (rather than a 2020 Ford Mustang Cobra) doesn't mean I don't have a rough idea of how it will perform. While one could argue it was a relative unknown in early January, we knew it was very bad by mid-late February at the latest. Bad enough that many tech companies up here began implementing work form home in the first week of March and people were pushing for physical distancing orders around the same time. For other states to ignore this is not "flying by the seat of their pants" it is willful ignorance of reality. Beshear is one of the few governors who actually looked at the data, listened to his scientific advisors, and attempted to rapidly implement controls.

This is a very interesting article:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/0...costing-lives/

This article, like many politically motivated articles, is intentionally misconstruing the argument. While the individual is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard, to be blunt this article is rubbish. This doctor is not an epidemiologist anymore than an auto mechanic is an automotive engineer.

1. Physical distancing was NEVER about preventing herd immunity. It was about slowing down the rate so that the number of sick do not overwhelm our limited hospital resources. Total herd immunity is not even necessary to begin to reopen, just the infection rate can't shouldn't outpace hospital capacity. To state otherwise demonstrates their lack of understanding of the issues at best and intentionally misleading at worst.
2. Similarly, stating that physical distancing cannot be considered successful if the disease reappears is goalpost moving at best and political spin at worst. All evidence so far shows that social distancing was very effective at slowing the rate and preventing most places from exceeding capacity. If we reopen to early and the disease re-surges, that is because we reopened to rapidly and/or in an inappropriate manner.
3. The only true thing stated is that there are people dying indirectly from social fears about medical locations. I disagree that they would be less without physical distancing; this fear comes from the fear of catching SARS-CoV-2 not from physical distancing. Furthermore, this fear would be far worse if the virus was running rampant and uncontrolled.
4. There proposal of age-related restrictions has already been tried in Italy and shown to be completely ineffective. The virus is too contagious and peoples social networks are too "leaky". It would require, in essence, China-level quarantining of the elderly and at risk. Additionally, as we are learning more about the disease, the at risk category keeps expanding. Furthermore, it assumes that people would not self-quarantine if the disease begins to run rampant.
5. The following statement: "Some people will eventually be infected, and for every young low-risk person avoiding infection, there will ultimately be roughly one additional high-risk older person that is infected, increasing the death count." That's not how outbreaks of infectious diseases work. This is a huge logical leap and for which the author has ZERO evidence to support.
6. The fact that they use Sweden as an ideal example is humorous. Sweden already has a higher death rate per capita than the entire United States including the abnormalities of NYC/NJ. If we do a more apples to apples comparison, over double the death rate of Washington State (similar population) and 4-5x times Minnesota (similar population density).

If you look at the number of deaths per country's population....the Western countries are at .0003. For $10 Trillion in debt.

The death rate is that low because physical distancing is working. The economic and societal impact would be FAR worse if this virus was allowed to run unchecked. It is like having a nasty infection, taking an antibiotic and getting better then saying "I had to take that damn antibiotic and the disease didn't even do anything."

[PedroDaGr8]

Some good news!There were very solid results from a double blind placebo-controlled trial of remdesivir (n=1090).

...remdesivir was a significant success; those receiving the drug took an average of 11 days to recover; those on the placebo took 15 days. That's a 30 percent faster recovery, a result that's statistically significant given the size of the trial population.

Unfortunately/Fortunately, medical ethics kicked in once it was clear there was an improvement and the placebo group was switched to remdesivir, which likely prevented them from determining if the drug impacted mortality.

Those receiving the drug had a mortality rate of 8.0 percent, while the placebo group was at 11.6 percent. The standard for statistical significance in these matters is a p-value of ≤0.05; the results here were just outside of that at a p-value of 0.059.

This is the first trial of a SARS-CoV-2 treatment which actually has shown statistically significant improvements in patient outcomes. As this drug begins being rolled out more widely, we should have an answer to the latter question as well.

Link:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...recovery-time/

[ukpumacat]

[*] The fact that they use Sweden as an ideal example is humorous. Sweden already has a higher death rate per capita than the entire United States including the abnormalities of NYC/NJ. If we do a more apples to apples comparison, over double the death rate of Washington State (similar population) and 4-5x times Minnesota (similar population density). [/LIST]

Yes, Sweden's death rate is worse.
But the toll on their economy and unemployment is FAR less. And in spite of their more "balanced approach", their health care systems have yet to be "overwhelmed".
From a strictly health perspective, you can argue what Sweden has done is not the best approach. But from a more holistic perspective, which considers the economy as well as the health perspective, it seems what they have done has worked very well.
And, they are much more likely to reach herd immunity far sooner (which was the point of the article). The argument is that they will end up with less death in the long run because of this.

[CitizenBBN]

Ya. He's awful. Pretty clear Cuomo cannot stand him either.

Not sure anyone can. From either party. Of course New Yorkers are a tough crowd, but still.

[Doc]

When I say fly by the seat of their pants, it in relation to there being no blueprint for it. Nothing in our lifetime has prepped anybody in the gov't for something like this. That not clear car you referenced could have been a tesla, and until you have seen or driven a tesla you could not imagine an electric car that goes 0 to 60 in under 3 sec. How could you? And you may have known in January, or even Feb but not "we". Many scientists and doctors were still playing it conservatively in early March. Some did a better job but I don't think anybody did poorly (edit: except those actively promoting going to theaters, restaurants or Chinatown. Shold be "almost anybody"). Some Gov's were aggressive, some were not. At the time, nobody was 100% sure which approach to take, and dependant upon there environment. In hindsight, the aggressive approach may have been better. Here, we had a fairly moderate approach and it was correct for us, fortunately.

[CitizenBBN]

Yes, Sweden's death rate is worse.
But the toll on their economy and unemployment is FAR less. And in spite of their more "balanced approach", their health care systems have yet to be "overwhelmed".
From a strictly health perspective, you can argue what Sweden has done is not the best approach. But from a more holistic perspective, which considers the economy as well as the health perspective, it seems what they have done has worked very well.
And, they are much more likely to reach herd immunity far sooner (which was the point of the article). The argument is that they will end up with less death in the long run because of this.

Exactly.

As Pedro said, the goal was to not overwhelm the medical system. Well we're so underwhelming it we're shutting down the temporary hospital wards and a TON of medical staff are on unemployment.

Clearly the system can tolerate more than we're giving it, and yes if we open up more we will have more cases, but that may be the reality of the world we're in right now, b/c the alternative of going with a a purely medical approach and shutting down the nation until past the 2nd wave or a vaccine is just untenable.

Some people can work from home, or remotely, etc. to some degree. A lot of people can't, and those are by and large the jobs we need functioning to keep the systems working.

We're going to have to find a better balance. Borrowing $2 trillion every month or two and just handing out cash for 12-18 months isn't going to cut it. It won't cut it economically or politically or socially. The dam won't hold.

So we're going to have to move with all the intelligence we can muster to a different balance point. Cautiously, focusing on the highest risk things the most, and see how it goes.

IMO the last thing to come back will be sports and concerts and such. that's why on the other board I'm not sure what will happen. But we can't shut down every business and school and house of worship indefinitely, when most of them are capable of being reasonably distanced.

[CitizenBBN]

Pedro, I do love your antibiotics analogy. That's an excellent one for making the point.

I do think we have to open up some, and find a path to as much as we can without spiking our mortality or overwhelming the system, but there's no doubt had we done nothing we'd be in a world of hurt right now.

I think the point is that maybe we did a LITTLE too much, not a lot too much, but a little too much, given our medical capacity. Outside of a few hotspots a lot of our medical staff are skipping stones.

As for Beshear and Ky and the rest, one mistake I think was so early on cancelling a lot of medical appointments and tests that may be important. Sure I get cancelling completely elective things IF we were showing we were straining capacity and to create distancing, but we shut down everything non-emergency, which is misleading b/c that checkup where they find something serious but find it months earlier is still really vital.

[Doc]

Exactly.

As Pedro said, the goal was to not overwhelm the medical system. Well we're so underwhelming it we're shutting down the temporary hospital wards and a TON of medical staff are on unemployment.

Clearly the system can tolerate more than we're giving it, and yes if we open up more we will have more cases, but that may be the reality of the world we're in right now, b/c the alternative of going with a a purely medical approach and shutting down the nation until past the 2nd wave or a vaccine is just untenable.

Some people can work from home, or remotely, etc. to some degree. A lot of people can't, and those are by and large the jobs we need functioning to keep the systems working.

We're going to have to find a better balance. Borrowing $2 trillion every month or two and just handing out cash for 12-18 months isn't going to cut it. It won't cut it economically or politically or socially. The dam won't hold.

So we're going to have to move with all the intelligence we can muster to a different balance point. Cautiously, focusing on the highest risk things the most, and see how it goes.

IMO the last thing to come back will be sports and concerts and such. that's why on the other board I'm not sure what will happen. But we can't shut down every business and school and house of worship indefinitely, when most of them are capable of being reasonably distanced.

Exactly.....flattening the curve worked. Hospitals not overwhelmed, no shortages of equipment (ventillators), drugs, etc.... additional testing would be nice but the development went as quickly as our laws allow. It is time to reopen and those at high risk or those afraid should stay sequesteeed

[Doc]

Pedro, I do love your antibiotics analogy. That's an excellent one for making the point.

I do think we have to open up some, and find a path to as much as we can without spiking our mortality or overwhelming the system, but there's no doubt had we done nothing we'd be in a world of hurt right now.

I think the point is that maybe we did a LITTLE too much, not a lot too much, but a little too much, given our medical capacity. Outside of a few hotspots a lot of our medical staff are skipping stones.

As for Beshear and Ky and the rest, one mistake I think was so early on cancelling a lot of medical appointments and tests that may be important. Sure I get cancelling completely elective things IF we were showing we were straining capacity and to create distancing, but we shut down everything non-emergency, which is misleading b/c that checkup where they find something serious but find it months earlier is still really vital.

Better to do a little too much than a little not enough.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

So, we passed the projected deaths for Aug 1 from the IHME projections from a few weeks ago that assumed full social distancing until June, and today is April 29th. Once those projections were estimated down from the original estimates, which I think were 150-250k, the models have underestimated everything. It underestimated the peak date and the peak numbers.

The model now, obviously, has changed in the last week since states decided to open and those new estimates have 73k by Aug. We're going to hit that next week. The model shows that we should start to flatten around mid-May, so that will probably put us around 80k, but cases aren't going down like they went up. I totally expect them to adjust upwards again in another week.

Fauci basically guarantees a 2nd wave, and I think there's little to no doubt that it's coming. I think those original estimates in the 150-250k range are going to be accurate, unfortunately.

I'm still trying to figure out why so many states are not following the recommended guidelines to reopening. Well, I actually know why, but nonetheless, it's disappointing.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many states are not following the recommended guidelines to reopening. Well, I actually know why, but nonetheless, it's disappointing.

It's simple. If we don't figure out a different balance, there won't be any jobs to come back to when this is over.

We allow people to drive to their heart's content in this country, and it causes tens of thousands of "needless" deaths a year. Heck, one of my friends just had here insurance premium lowered b/c there are so few accidents right now due to reduced traffic.

We could enforce that all the time, easily. But the economy would suffer and people do have rights.

Small businesses are mostly holding on by a thread, but they can't do it for 12-18 months. Medium businesses will start to really struggle too, it's not like they are sitting on billions of spare cash. We'll lose our economic base without either a new balance or way different levels of government bailout that covers mortgages, insurance, rent, their personal income so they can pay their bills, etc. Right now that is tightly capped and tied to payroll.

So either double the national debt in a year to 18 months or find other options.

Some I think are liberalizing too fast, some too slow, but the good news is we'll get data from it and go from there to find the best balance.

[CitizenBBN]

Better to do a little too much than a little not enough.

I was good with being constrained, but we weren't very targeted.

Now we need to find a way to be a little less so and still not be stupid.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

It's simple. If we don't figure out a different balance, there won't be any jobs to come back to when this is over.

Small businesses are mostly holding on by a thread, but they can't do it for 12-18 months. Medium businesses will start to really struggle too, it's not like they are sitting on billions of spare cash. We'll lose our economic base without either a new balance or way different levels of government bailout that covers mortgages, insurance, rent, their personal income so they can pay their bills, etc. Right now that is tightly capped and tied to payroll.

So either double the national debt in a year to 18 months or find other options.

Some I think are liberalizing too fast, some too slow, but the good news is we'll get data from it and go from there to find the best balance.

There's an underlying, unspoken assumption being made that the impact to the economy by the following guidelines will be more harsh than a start-stop plan that will absolutely happen if the bets are wrong. There will be a tremendous psychological toll if in 3-4 months that we're locking down just like we are now, that will most likely wreak much more havoc on the economy.

Also, the alternative to opening now vs following the guidelines is NOT 12-18 months. The guidelines simply call for 14 days of declines. Pretty big difference between 14 days and 12-18 months.

The whole "too fast vs too slow" to find the balance works fine in a controlled environment, but as I mentioned in another thread, it's only going to be human nature that as soon as people start normalizing, they're going to quickly abandon things like social distancing. Plus you have leaders of states that just don't take this seriously. They're not looking at data. They are making decisions on personal beliefs, hopes, miracles.
Because of that, I don't think making tweaks to find a balance is a reality.

It would be nice if these states ramp up plans also included ramp down plans if the ramp up results in spikes. That doesn't seem to exist. I'm afraid we just haven't learned any real lessons from this.

[ukpumacat]

Some I think are liberalizing too fast, some too slow, but the good news is we'll get data from it and go from there to find the best balance.

I agree with this. And as you know, I've been on the very conservative side of moving forward. I was a huge supporter of a lockdown and continue to be.

I do think Georgia especially is making a mistake. They should have at the very least followed the President's Phase 3 plan. Opening movie theaters while your numbers are going up is ignorant imo. And to be honest, that isn't a "small business". Its usually huge conglomerates who pay workers minimum wage (meaning they are doing better on unemployment).

On the flip side, I think California is going a bit too slow. I love how our Governor has handled it. I appreciate that he's being very patient. But the plan he came out with yesterday means that thousands of small businesses will likely not open for another month or so. And what that means is that many of them will be out of business.
What is a mistake Imo is treating the entire state as one. We are a HUGE state. A "nation-state" as he likes to say. We have a vast economy and a vast landscape.
Treating Los Angeles like Bakersfield doesn't make sense. Some areas should be able to open imo.
I also don't agree with him including barber shops, etc with Gyms and Movie theaters. Yes, both are close contact. But the crowds at each are very different.

The bottom line is that in any city that has any sort of mass transit...this thing is not going away. We cannot get to zero. So since the lockdown was so successful, its time to take a balanced approach. While that is happening, hospitals MUST stock up. Testing must get better. Everyone must be prepared. When a breakout begins (and we often won't know until two weeks later), that area will have to shut down.

I'm fine. I can work from home pretty permanently. Most of my family is fine. But what this is doing to so many small business owners who have their life savings in a business is just brutal. And like you said, they can't simply keep printing money and handing it out to try to keep them alive.

[ukpumacat]

There's an underlying, unspoken assumption being made that the impact to the economy by the following guidelines will be more harsh than a start-stop plan that will absolutely happen if the bets are wrong. There will be a tremendous psychological toll if in 3-4 months that we're locking down just like we are now, that will most likely wreak much more havoc on the economy.

Also, the alternative to opening now vs following the guidelines is NOT 12-18 months. The guidelines simply call for 14 days of declines. Pretty big difference between 14 days and 12-18 months.

The whole "too fast vs too slow" to find the balance works fine in a controlled environment, but as I mentioned in another thread, it's only going to be human nature that as soon as people start normalizing, they're going to quickly abandon things like social distancing. Plus you have leaders of states that just don't take this seriously. They're not looking at data. They are making decisions on personal beliefs, hopes, miracles.
Because of that, I don't think making tweaks to find a balance is a reality.

It would be nice if these states ramp up plans also included ramp down plans if the ramp up results in spikes. That doesn't seem to exist. I'm afraid we just haven't learned any real lessons from this.

Stu, this has been my opinion all along as well. So I will ask you the same question I have had a hard time answering myself. If we know people are going to "start normalizing" and we know this thing will keep spreading...that means it will spread again whether we open up now or if we open up later, right?

This entire thing started with ONE person. So unless we can ever get to zero (which we can't), its going to ramp back up either way.

[Doc]

Here (FL, Martin County) we are relaxing on Monday. Restaurants open at 25% and outdoors. Call me happy