Jump to content
270soft Forum

"Why the hell would I take a test?"


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

I was making my own point not going with what Patine was talking about.

Fair enough. And a good point. It's difficult to say in the end how all of this will play out, though.

Comparing different countries, or even different states, is probably not that straightforward, TBH. All sorts of differences could lead to different outcomes.

If you just judge by mortalities / M, the Governors of NY and NJ were total disasters. And perhaps they were. Yet, how much of what happened was baked in the cake? Was the sunbelt rise (AZ, TX, FL) really about the different Governors' actions (and they acted in certain ways similarly), or was this a time mediated breakout based on latitude (could make a statistical case for this)?

I don't think we'll really have good answers for awhile.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1. The Covid charts debacle 2. Refusing to recognize the Russian bounties 3. Doubling down on wishing Ghislaine Maxwell well 4. Within the next breathe bashing Portland protesters and j

It's not as bad as Trump's Axios interview

Honestly dude, I know this may sound crazy. But the whole damn thing is a compilation clip of itself. It's just moment after moment of madness. It's worth experiencing for yourself even if you just li

11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Fair enough. And a good point. It's difficult to say in the end how all of this will play out, though.

Comparing different countries, or even different states, is probably not that straightforward, TBH. All sorts of differences could lead to different outcomes.

If you just judge by mortalities / M, the Governors of NY and NJ were total disasters. And perhaps they were. Yet, how much of what happened was baked in the cake? Was the sunbelt rise (AZ, TX, FL) really about the different Governors' actions (and they acted in certain ways similarly), or was this a time mediated breakout based on latitude (could make a statistical case for this)?

I don't think we'll really have good answers for awhile.

 

New York and New Jersey didnt have much of a heads up. They definitely couldve done better. I dont get why people worship Cuomo when he definitely could've done things better. But the Sun Belt had more than ample warning this was headed their way. March to June or July is a lot of time to prepare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

But the Sun Belt had more than ample warning this was headed their way. March to June or July is a lot of time to prepare.

Yes, certainly an important difference.

My view is that Governors have to make the difficult choices about health in an inclusive sense - there's a lot more happening in the world or a state and their citizens' health and well-being than just COVID-19, and so deciding what level of activity best balances concerns about that particular illness is, indeed, a balancing act.

Remember the initial argument was about slowing the spread of the disease, not stopping it. As long as health systems aren't overwhelmed, the argument for limiting activity seems to depend upon future improvements in treatment. But then the time horizon isn't clear. So how long should a state hold things down?

Ideally, you have as much activity as possible while having a declining R. But it isn't just sun belt states that have increases - it's happening all over the world (Hong Kong, Israel, Australia, ...). Lock downs just delay things, they don't stop things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, certainly an important difference.

My view is that Governors have to make the difficult choices about health in an inclusive sense - there's a lot more happening in the world or a state and their citizens' health and well-being than just COVID-19, and so deciding what level of activity best balances concerns about that particular illness is, indeed, a balancing act.

Remember the initial argument was about slowing the spread of the disease, not stopping it. As long as health systems aren't overwhelmed, the argument for limiting activity seems to depend upon future improvements in treatment. But then the time horizon isn't clear. So how long should a state hold things down?

Ideally, you have as much activity as possible while having a declining R. But it isn't just sun belt states that have increases - it's happening all over the world (Hong Kong, Israel, Australia, ...). Lock downs just delay things, they don't stop things.

I think we'll end up seeing that's a flawed argument.

The Sun Belt didn't slow it, though, whatsoever. Hospitals reached capacity in Florida, and went over it. Same with Arizona and Texas. The whole point was to make sure hospitals didn't get inundated with cases - and that failed. States are managing it better elsewhere. Cases may still be on the rise, but hospitals aren't full. My state (for all of its horrors and bad judgement), hasn't reached capacity in our hospitals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

The Sun Belt didn't slow it, though, whatsoever.

Not sure how you can come to this conclusion. Care to expand on this comment?

6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Hospitals reached capacity in Florida, and went over it. Same with Arizona and Texas. The whole point was to make sure hospitals didn't get inundated with cases - and that failed.

Briefly in certain spots, yes. But not nearly as bad as in other areas.

 

6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

My state (for all of its horrors and bad judgement), hasn't reached capacity in our hospitals.

Right - so why do you conclude it is horrible if you haven't even reached capacity? Is it because you believe the state should be limiting activity until further improvements in treatment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Not sure how you can come to this conclusion. Care to expand on this comment?

Briefly in certain spots, yes. But not nearly as bad as in other areas.

 

Right - so why do you conclude it is horrible if you haven't even reach capacity? Is it because you believe the state should be limiting activity until further improvements in treatment?

The Sun Belt didn't slow it because of capacity levels, which is what I went on to say.

We've lost 900 people and lost 13 yesterday. There is no mask mandate. There are no social distancing rules. The state has barred local communities from making their own decisions on those mandates. They're fighting public schools on whether or not they can open online versus in person, and several (including Iowa City, Ames, and Waukee) are discussing taking the state to court. It's a mess.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

We've lost 900 people and lost 13 yesterday.

Yes, but it seems you have no 'excess deaths' (deaths caused by lack of hospital capacity). The disease is going to run through the state. So it sounds like you think certain measures (mask mandates, say) will slow the spread and hence allow more time for better treatments to develop. Is this right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, but it seems you have no 'excess deaths' (deaths caused by lack of hospital capacity). The disease is going to run through the state. So it sounds like you think certain measures (mask mandates, say) will slow the spread and hence allow more time for better treatments to develop. Is this right?

Yes, I think that more time would be preferable. Masks help cut down on spread, therefore cut down on deaths because less people get infected. A lot is still up in the air, but common sense measures can be taken to at least cut down on spread.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Yes, I think that more time would be preferable. Masks help cut down on spread, therefore cut down on deaths because less people get infected. A lot is still up in the air, but common sense measures can be taken to at least cut down on spread.

Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest sign of Trump's cognitive decline: He said "I'll be pursuing a major executive order requiring health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for all of its customers."  That is, of course, already the law in the USA.  It's a key component of the Affordable Care Act, which the administration has been trying to repeal since he took office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, pilight said:

Latest sign of Trump's cognitive decline: He said "I'll be pursuing a major executive order requiring health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for all of its customers."  That is, of course, already the law in the USA.  It's a key component of the Affordable Care Act, which the administration has been trying to repeal since he took office.

That ain't cognitive decline, this is cognitive decline!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...