https://www.businessinsider.com/real-us-coronavirus-cases-compared-to-official-count-2020-7
US coronavirus cases are probably 10 times higher than the official numbers, more and more research suggests
Originally posted by Blakemore
Okay, I'm so confused.
The "counting clock" cycles over at +7 GMT. So at 7PM CST (my time) which happened 52 minutes ago.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not true.2 days ago was 1,504.
Yesterday was 1,386
Today is 1,284.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
We are a day or 2 past the "21 days later" mark when we hit the apex of cases.
That's the case to death cycle I spoke about, before.
Tomorrow, you'll see 900-1,100 deaths. Let's at least hope it's closer to 900 because that means fewer dead people.
But it should gradually work it's way down over the next 2 weeks, as I stated before.
Originally posted by Blakemore
Doubt it. I think it's just maintain the 1,200 level.
Current US death count: 1116.
More comes in. Whirly is correct in that rarely, adjustments are made multiple days later. But every single time, it is to remove deaths, not add more.
Trump speaks at press briefing as US sees number of daily Covid tests drop – live
Poor old DDM 😆
Originally posted by Blakemore
So they're a bit below 1,200?
No, significantly below 1200 and almost exactly 1100.
Yesterday was 1071.
Today we should be 600-900.
Cases per 100k are also down in all states except for 3. Compare and contrast that with 2 weeks ago where the states where it is rising was 11 states.
New cases are down, deaths are down, and hospitalization is down almost across the board in all states. Good news. I like it when the data matches with the modeling I've done. 🙂
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://www.businessinsider.com/real-us-coronavirus-cases-compared-to-official-count-2020-7
US coronavirus cases are probably 10 times higher than the official numbers, more and more research suggests
List of questions to ask Pro-Lockdown People:
It's meant to be a list of thought-provoking conversation starters to open minds and help move people off some initial position that may not be fully thought-through.
1. What objective number/measurable/metric would satisfy you that it was safe to return to normal?
The burden of proof is on those who supported lockdowns to justify lockding down, to begin with. And I think that number is 5 times the number of annual Flu deaths, minimum, to justify any restrictions. Lockdowns come at 10 times to 100 times.
2. Is it ethical to save 1 life today when those actions will kill 2 others tomorrow?
Never. And in this instance, we are saving months to 1-2 years of elderly lives for almost the entire lives of multiple people. We know the economic ruin is already going to kill over a million people.
3. If forced to make a choice, would you save the life of an infant over a 75-year old?
Never. Nor would almost any 75 year old I know.
4. Do you think it's appropriate for us to trust the government when they don't trust the public?
No. And it should be obvious that many people had a dishonest reason for the lockdowns that had nothing to do with science and only to do with politics.
5. Can you think of any examples when humans have completely overcome or conquered the forces of nature?
Yes. Leprosy. Smallpox. Education (obtaining a 5th grade level education for 99.x%+ of your population is quite the nature defiance and most modern countries achieve or get close to that).
6. What % of the population should be at risk of death before something becomes a public health emergency?
5% of the healthy population.
7. Does society have a moral obligation to cater to those members with the greatest fear/lowest threshold of risk? Should public risk always be minimized at all cost?
No and no.
8. Is it a moral imperative for public health efforts/resources to be prioritized FIRST on diseases with known lifesaving treatments (eg. tuberculosis, malaria, AIDS)? Should R&D on new treatments/vaccines come only AFTER we have maximized lives saved for other diseases using known cures.
This is a faulty question. It assumes a "zero sum" system where you have a finite amount of people at all times and a finite amount of resources at all times. Humans are interested in different topics. The question fails to understand this in its formulation and cannot be answered. The proper state is to allow people to study, prioritize, and treat as they prefer that does not violate their personal interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath. Some researchers and doctors may see TB (correctly so) as the bigger threat. Some may see COVID-19 as the bigger threat (objectively false). But they should be allowed to study and formulate solutions how they will as long as they do not kill others with their objectively bad decisions, in the process.
9. How should we prioritize the protection of vulnerable populations? The most susceptible (ie. for COVID, the elderly and frail) can only be protected by having "essential workers" continue to provide support (eg. delivery persons, grocery store workers, etc.). Where do we draw that line?
Since we know COVID-19 kills elderly like a b*tch, they should be protected with quite strict measures. Only those with negative tests (it can be given to you in 10 minutes) should be allowed to visit the elderly. Only those HCWs with negative tests at the beginning of their shift should be allowed to work their shift. That's obvious and simple. Many elderly were killed because these simple measures were not taken.
10. In a public health crisis, how much impact should the circumstances and policies of other countries have on decisions made locally? (ie. the message of being "2 weeks behind Italy" was so powerful at the beginning of their crisis, but for some reasons it didn't apply to their recovery)
This is an oddly worded question but you're basically asking if the current state of other countries should influence the policies of your own country. The question feels rhetorical as the obvious answer is rhetorically "not at all." If you're an island, however, perhaps you should restrict travel to your island from a country in the heat of a pandemic? Maybe require everyone be tested upon arrival and be forced to quarantine for 14 days? That's a safe policy.
11. Should the elderly and frail maintain agency of their own life? At the end of someone's life, is it ethical to take away their right to decide risk tolerance, who they can see, how much time they spend doing things they love, etc.?
Yes. Especially if they have an illness which has a 16% chance of killing someone else their age. If they test positive, they should not be allowed to freely travel and they most especially should not be visiting other elderly. They can let their family visit them but follow the same protocols I outlined in my answer to 9.
12. Entrepreneurs are generally comfortable assessing risk. Should they be left to decide how to best provide a safe experience for their customers? Can insurance companies be relied upon to calibrate their premiums accordingly?
No. Because they are not epidemiologists. The person who asked this question is clearly an idiot. Of course you shouldn't leave all questions of risk up to every business owner. The business owners clearly need to consult with the world's top experts to make the best and safest decisions for their businesses to stay out of litigation that could bankrupt them. No, insurance companies get GRC (governance, risk, and compliance) wrong all the time, too. It's a scientific guess based on a set of over a dozen variables and which values to set the coefficients, rates, fractions, probabilities to those variables is often objective. Meaning, even the experts (like me...this is part of what I do for a living) get this shit wrong. We can't even be relied upon. We get it wrong. We have some very objective guesses for you, however. And we sometimes get it right.
13. The media loves covering dramatic human stories, creating a tendency/bias for reporting extreme or sensational individual events/occurrences. Does the media have a moral duty to declare how LIKELY these extreme events are or where they fit in the normal distribution?
Yes. The Media needs to be regulated and both sides agree to this.
14. How much responsibility should government take for preventing preventable deaths? Should freedoms be curtained (ie. ban cigarettes, fast food, fast cars, etc.) when a death can be prevented 50% of the time? 20%? 1%?
The government should be responsible for collecting no-nonsense science and implementing regulations that are very helpful to the public. Such as not allowing carcinogenic chemicals be added to processed foods or regulating airspace so planes don't crash all the time into each other.
But what you're really asking is should the government implement lockdowns during a pandemic that kills almost no one but the elderly and the infirm. The answer is obviously no. The government, in such an instance, would have a responsibility for ensuring the best information about the illness is made available and the CDC has done a great job of collecting that information such as letting us know that masks are not effective, cloth masks may actually be harmful, and N95 masks actually work but you should reserve those for healthcare workers.
Coronavirus live news: US death toll passes 170,000, New Zealand postpones election
Coronavirus live news: US death toll passes 170,000, New Zealand postpones election