jdub27

This is the likely reason: https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/28/california-doctors-with-dubious-covid-conclusions-debunked/

I guess I expect a bit more from the President during an official press conference. Maybe better spots to spitball possible random medical solutions but just my opinion. People are stupid and listen to random things the President says (regardless of party). Call it Darwinism and people will do what they do, but understand the power of the pulpit.

So was the comment out of context or was it said sarcastically? Or it should be ignored like your infer. So many messages on how to take an exact quote from the president. It's ok to criticize people for making mistakes and also approving of proper decisions. People on both sides would be better off accepting that idea.

Not sure where your think my stance and beliefs sit but this changes me opinion zero in either way. But I'm sure there are those on both sides who have their opinions on how those people's death cause being changed will be politicized. But congrats on them being able to be removed from the numerator I guess? I'm told a number of around 0.3% is an insignificant amount so it shouldn't matter

So something like what then? Please clear it up since the White House and President haven't decided which actual defense they are going with. First he was taken out of context and now he claims he was being sarcastic. I literally don't have an issue with what he said. He was clearly just rambling about info he had recently gotten and was thinking outloud and took it a bit far. But the fact that he can't just admit that and the people who defend him to no end is as laughable as the media that covers him is.

Well, now he's come out admitted he said it but he was being sarcastic. His words were literally "I see that the disinfectant knocks it out in a minute, is there a way we can do something like that, an injection inside,". And I would think there is a difference between advancing out of the box ideas vs. pondering such things as the President in a national press briefing. As was mentioned previously, Birx looked horrified at where his random train of thought was going. I would also say that the media played it up much worse than it was but I'm not sure who's worse....Trump not being able to admit when he's wrong or has made a mistake or the other side, including many media members, who criticizes every single breath he takes even when he does the right thing. Absolutely maddening.

On one hand, it is amazing that people would be dumb enough to actually inject disinfectants of any sort into themselves and need to be told not to do it. On the other hand, it is equally amazing the President would literally ponder a comment like that outloud during a press briefing and suggest it is something the medical community might want to look into: "I see that the disinfectant knocks it out in a minute, is there a way we can do something like that, an injection inside, almost a cleaning, because you see it gets inside the lungs, and it does a tremendous number of… are you going to test that … you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting."

Not sure which specific study you're referring to, but at least one or two of those studies are being scrutinized quite a bit for how poor the methodolgy used was.

The shutdown was the "Hammer" part of the theory and was to do exactly that. It was applied (to varying degrees) across the US when it appears it could have been looser in some places and probably done a bit sooner in others. But again, novel virus and all, experts were still trying to understand the virus (and still are). The "Dance" part allows exactly as you describe. Be able to get back to normal but do so in a way that flare-ups and hot spots can be immediately addressed, to help prevent a huge second wave, but that requires testing and/or vaccines, which required time to develop. As with everything, hindsight makes it easy to be criticial of decisions. It becomes even more magnified in situatoni this because we know what the results are but neither side can prove out what would have happened if a different course of action would have been taken. One side will say "we did too much" and the other "it worked, deaths were significantly less than they could have been". Both are probably right but will never agree.

It is almost like this whole thing was caused by a novel virus and experts were scrambling to figure out what they were dealing with while having limited information..... I don't think there was ever any doubt abotu testing/vaccine/second wave either. The "Hammer and Dance" theory has been pretty much what was originally touted with the severity of the Hammer portion being debated and implemented differently. The original steps of closing things down were the most direct mitgation steps available and were taken to allow time for the testing and vaccine to be developed along with slowing the spread, again done with the info experts had at the time but knowing they needed to buy time. The environment has been that way since before this started and that goes for both sides. Trump downplaying it and saying the end of February US cases of 15 would go down to zero shortly. D's criticizing travel restrictions. R's pretending those same travel restrictions actually had any teeth when put in place. Pelois withholding funds for small businesses. It is all politics.

They very well could. Burgum literally laid out guidelines and guidance for starting to reopen the state May 1. https://www.governor.nd.gov/news/burgum-extends-business-restrictions-10-days-outlines-path-forward-reopening

Georgia is going to be the first to test the waters in a limited fashion.

Your analogy attempt was more off the mark than Norwood's kick.

I have to assume you'd also state that flu deaths (along with many other causes) are very much overestimated then as the same methodology is used and there is often more than one cause of death listed?

I would assume that is accurate. Per the CDC guidelines (for at least the death causes portion), there does have to be a logical reason to link it along with showing symptoms. I would assume this would be the same. In regards to Oxbow's quote, I previously showed the actual form and the guidelines that lays out how the death forms are to be filled out. Strange that the CDC specifically addresses and is fine with what he calls "lazy and misleading". It is almost like they trust the medical professionals assessing the situation to use their professional judgement. Oh, and it is how they have filled out forms, well before COVID-19 was a thing because it gives them the ability to go back and study and understand the numbers, along as adjust up or down accordingly once they have a better understanding of the disease. But I'm sure they are all in it, so I guess it makes sense.

COVID-19 PATIENT CALCULUS: Health departments across Ohio now will include people who show symptoms of having contracting the coronavirus but who have not been tested, said Michael Dohn, medical director, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County. The change in how patients will be counted doesn’t mean things are worse, he said, but it means health care professionals will get a better count of who is sick and has COVID-19, whether confirmed by a test or not. Probably important to note why that is being done: While the state is tracking confirmed cases, it’s important to note that due to the limited amount of testing available the number of confirmed cases is not a true reflection of actual cases in the state. This is all normal and what is done for other illnesses/viruses as well. The WHO/CDC can't go back and examine the data if it isn't there. Numbers are adjusted up and down regularly after the fact when more information is known. It is medical experts making the determination, not some conspiracy theorist.

Never said either of those things. However I will say that there is plenty of "fake news" or at least plenty of very misleading news from Chris Berg/VNL/POV coming from both ends of the politcal spectrum. Again, feel free to read the actual source documents yourself and explain to me what they actually say and what has actually changed in how death's are reported compared to the past. You understand what a median is correct (i.e. the middle)? That is not the average and nor is it by definition the most likely. There was zero context that backs up the statement that 20k is the most likely scenario.

Feel free to read the actual CDC guidelines I posted. If it is considered a contributing factor to the death, it will be listed as such. Which is how it has always been done. Just because people didn't pay attention before doesn't mean it was different. Are we taking everything that everyone says in those press conferences as 100% accurate now?

It would be determined the same way it always has, whatever the medical professional, who's a trained expert, determines contributed to the death and to what degree. Nothing has changed when people fill out these forms.

It absolutely goes both ways. A lot of clueless people trying to rile people up and also misleading others on what is actually going on. Here's the document Jensen was citing in his commentary. Under the scenario laid out, it is pretty obvious that CoVID was a contributing factor and such is listed as "Probable" based on the information in the scenario. This is in line with how medical experts filling out these forms are directed to do it. On top of that, they regularly go back once information is more clear and more is known, and adjust death totals appropriately, which is why all relevant info is put in these forms. Same thing is done for flu and other viruses. Here's the guidance from the CDC on how to handle it. Again direct to medical professionals who are trained to use their judgement on what caused people to die.

Middle range, or median, does not necesarrily equal most likely. If it did, than they would have stated it that way. There can be up to 20 "causes of death" listed on a medical certificate. Those filling them out are using their best judgements as to what contributed to the death of someone. This is absoltely no different than it has been in the past. If someone has the flu and dies under you exact same scenario, they are counted in the flu death totals. Other than people spreading misinformation about this (looking at you Chris Berg), nothing has changed from how deaths are recorded. But as long as we're down that path, a Reuters article stated that NY is probably understating COVID-19 deaths because people who are dying at home aren't being tested for the virus and they have seen a significant uptick in the amount of people dying at home. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fdny/at-home-covid-19-deaths-may-be-significantly-undercounted-in-new-york-city-idUSKBN21P3KF

Spring melt has gone almost as perfect as it could have. Sump pumps starting to open up in Grand Forks. Ground is still incredibly saturated so how much moisture in tomorrow's snow will be important. Had it been a rough end of winter/beginning of spring, it could have been ugly with everything else going on.

Wasn't a big surprise, finally official. Sounds like he didn't want to be at UND anymore and that was pretty clear to anyone who had been around certain family members. Not sure if he was concerned about not getting minutes going forward or he just didn't mesh with the type of game Sather wanted to play. Would have been fun to see what kind of threat he could have been in a shooters role in Sather's offense, but regardless, best of luck to him in the future, wasn't meant to be. Push to get Archambault on board and move forward. He appears to have the ability to fill the PG and deep threat roles that this team needs.

All of that coupled with some likely uncertainty in finances at play as well. NCAA announced that payments are going to be reduced and Champions Club renewals coming out in the next few weeks isn't exactly great timing. Can't get candidates on campus and how long do you go with uncertainty. Interesting it was for the whole season but I'm sure it wasn't done on a whim.