2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[Oxbow6]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

So if Minnesota announces today that masks are mandatory, than we agree there should be no problem opening schools with a normal 5 day schedule. 

#proventowork

[jdub27]

22 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Do question to some extent the validity of "unique" daily positives though. Know someone who registered for the testing....too long of a wait so left without getting tested.......yet got notified test was postive.

Do you actually know this person or are you talking about the article that has been floating around on Facebook about the person from Florida. Because it sure sounds eerily similar.
https://fox6now.com/2020/07/21/florida-to-investigate-alleged-covid-test-result-mix-ups/

For those who didn't read/see it:
What actually happened was the indivdiual registered, was assigned a slot and then got out of line due to the wait. Her doing that put the number assigned to each sample/slot off by one. So the test that she was supposed to take went to the person behind her, who tested positive. Due to the paperwork issue, she got the call for a positive test as that is who it was originally assigned to.

Obviously a very concerning error as there were people getting the wrong information, but it wasn't due to some mass conspiracy or people trying to pad the numbers, it was due to paperwork error from a mass testing event, which are completely different issues to address. The governor has already made comments that it is being looked into and protocols need to be adjusted so people get the correct info.

 

  

13 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

I don't buy into the idea that increased testing is the sole reason for increased positives. Is it a factor, sure. But to claim increased testing is the sole reason for higher infection counts is ridiculous.

The increase in positive tests continues to grow faster than the increase in testing. So either there were a lot more people that had it before and weren't getting tested or there are a lot more people who have it now. Most likely, it is probably both.

The bigger issue is the 5-8 day backlog in testing. Unacceptable and makes containing things even more difficult.

[Hayduke1]

1 minute ago, homer said:

So if Minnesota announces today that masks are mandatory, than we agree there should be no problem opening schools with a normal 5 day schedule. 

The problem there is really two fold.

1.  Classrooms, lunchrooms, extra curricular activities as designed aren't conducive to social distancing.

2.  Good luck trying to get kids, especially grade school kids, to wear masks and follow the rules.  Can't even get adults to do that in many cases.  

[CarpeRemote]

5 hours ago, TheFlop said:

More evidence that there is strong likelihood that it is aerosol which would make wearing cloth masks the equivalent of trying to keep mosquitos away from you by wearing a fishing net on your head. 

https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-report-airborne-coronavirus-probably-infectious-090340015.html

That’s what you took away from this?

It says the virus can exist on droplets under 5 microns.
 

Masks, cloth or N95s reduce incremental exposure. For most people the less you breathe in, the less sick you get. 
 

If one interpreted this as ‘cloth masks are useless’ then you would also interpret it as N95s are useless. 
 

Not trying to change your mind Because I won’t, but it needed pointed out. 

[Bison06]

4 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

I don't buy into the idea that increased testing is the sole reason for increased positives. Is it a factor, sure. But to claim increased testing is the sole reason for higher infection counts is ridiculous.

Even if it isn’t the sole reason, what percentage of inflation are you ok with making significant decisions off of?

We are making massively impactful decisions off of this data and they have basically admitted the data is inflated. 

How is that ok?

[homer]

11 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

The problem there is really two fold.

1.  Classrooms, lunchrooms, extra curricular activities as designed aren't conducive to social distancing.

2.  Good luck trying to get kids, especially grade school kids, to wear masks and follow the rules.  Can't even get adults to do that in many cases.  

If the governor makes them mandatory, kids can be punished/sent home.  No different than other school rules.  

I already said extra curricular activities weren’t included.  We are just talking learning.  Utilize outdoor spaces and gymnasiums for classrooms.  

All the solutions together work right.  That’s what you have been saying the last how many pages.  

[UNDBIZ]

13 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

The bigger issue is the 5-8 day backlog in testing. Unacceptable and makes containing things even more difficult.

ND has been notifying positive test individuals in 24-48 hours.  When did the backlog start?

[Bison06]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

If the governor makes them mandatory, kids can be punished/sent home.  No different than other school rules.  

I already said extra curricular activities weren’t included.  We are just talking learning.  Utilize outdoor spaces and gymnasiums for classrooms.  

All the solutions together work right.  That’s what you have been saying the last how many pages.  

They’ll keep moving the goalposts on safety until the schools are forced closed. It’s been obvious from the get go that Walz didn’t want to open the schools, regardless of what he says in his press conferences.

[jdub27]

3 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

ND has been notifying positive test individuals in 24-48 hours.  When did the backlog start?

It was a reference to where things are nationwide, particularly the current hotspots.
48-72 hours is what I've seen/heard from those tested recently in ND, with some being quicker. 

[CarpeRemote]

1 minute ago, Bison06 said:

Even if it isn’t the sole reason, what percentage of inflation are you ok with making significant decisions off of?

We are making massively impactful decisions off of this data and they have basically admitted the data is inflated. 

How is that ok?

Too many variables at this point. Lack of kits, slowdown at some labs, most exposed don’t get tested at all because they already know the answer, or asymptomatic people who feel fine get tested anyway etc. 

It’s an algebraic equation with so many variables they are forced to go off large numbers. Every input is debatable. It’s clearly not perfect. Decision makers watch rate of transmission and hospitalizations in zones.
 

https://rt.live 

 

[Bison06]

7 minutes ago, CarpeRemote said:

Too many variables at this point. Lack of kits, slowdown at some labs, most exposed don’t get tested at all because they already know the answer, or asymptomatic people who feel fine get tested anyway etc. 

It’s an algebraic equation with so many variables they are forced to go off large numbers. Every input is debatable. It’s clearly not perfect. Decision makers watch rate of transmission and hospitalizations in zones.
 

https://rt.live 

 

Agreed.

But if the data that being used for the projections is flawed, wouldn’t the decisions being made also be flawed? We are being asked to trust the science, when the science is corrupted, possibly to the point of being irrelevant. I realize they have to go off of something, but wrong is wrong.

[Redneksioux]

40 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

Even if it isn’t the sole reason, what percentage of inflation are you ok with making significant decisions off of?

We are making massively impactful decisions off of this data and they have basically admitted the data is inflated. 

How is that ok?

How exactly is increasing testing inflating the data?

 

[yzerman19]

How about:

1.  If you are sick with symptoms stay home for 14 days.  

2.  If you are exposed to someone who is sick, wait 5 days in self quarantine then get a test. If sick stay home for 14 days.

3.  If you are vulnerable, stay home.

4.  If you are healthy and not vulnerable, then a.  If with strangers, crowds, unknowns, then wear a mask, wash your hands, and social distance as much as possible, be outside rather than inside if possible.  b.  If with people you know and trust and believe to be healthy,  live normal.

 

[tnt]

2 hours ago, homer said:

Nope, I’m keeping up.  Just wanted to be sure that you are perfectly fine with a leader changing their opinion on mask effectiveness from early on until now.  

Now that we have established that.  You should also be good with a person being perfectly fine to go to school, a restaurant or vote in person if they wear a mask.  No reason to lock things down further since “the experts” say masks are the answer.  

Are these the same "experts" that picked the arbitrary 6 feet social distancing rule?

[Bison06]

10 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

How exactly is increasing testing inflating the data?

 

A couple ways, if the person reporting on it has a specific way of viewing it.

First way would be by reporting absolute numbers, which is what most papers are doing. 100 tests were done, we found one positive. Media reports we found one positive. 1000 tests were done we found 10 positives. Media reports we have 10x as many positive cases now than we did before. Percentage wise, it’s the same.

If, as has been suggested, we are testing people multiple times and they come back positive multiple times and each time they are counted as positive. Then that’s obvious how that inflates the data. 
 

Hospitalizations and deaths are really the only stat I care to see and even deaths are under major scrutiny in my book as they’ve admitted to not distinguishing between people who died with or people who died because of covid. 

 

[yzerman19]

Deaths and ICU for people under 75 would seem like a good marker 

[homer]

9 minutes ago, tnt said:

Are these the same "experts" that picked the arbitrary 6 feet social distancing rule?

We aren’t done with masks yet.   Distancing will likely be as we get closer to the election.  

[Redneksioux]

14 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

A couple ways, if the person reporting on it has a specific way of viewing it.

First way would be by reporting absolute numbers, which is what most papers are doing. 100 tests were done, we found one positive. Media reports we found one positive. 1000 tests were done we found 10 positives. Media reports we have 10x as many positive cases now than we did before. Percentage wise, it’s the same.

If, as has been suggested, we are testing people multiple times and they come back positive multiple times and each time they are counted as positive. Then that’s obvious how that inflates the data. 
 

Hospitalizations and deaths are really the only stat I care to see and even deaths are under major scrutiny in my book as they’ve admitted to not distinguishing between people who died with or people who died because of covid. 

 

Sure but we are now mass testing. Early on the only people being tested were the symptomatic people and those that had confirmed close contact plus travel. Now almost anyone can get tested if you have half a day to waste. Which also brings the infection rate down. 

 

It's been said above, we could go off of hospitalizations and or deaths, but then we are making decisions weeks late. We've also been making decisions without considering the unknown.....noone knows what the true long term side effects are but we are still making decisions without considering what they could be.

 

For me, I'd rather play it safe. Of course masking isn't going to be perfect. But it can help slow the spread and allow us to be somewhat back to normal. This is why I have a tough time understanding the anti-mask folk.

 

 

[Bison06]

11 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

Sure but we are now mass testing. Early on the only people being tested were the symptomatic people and those that had confirmed close contact plus travel. Now almost anyone can get tested if you have half a day to waste. Which also brings the infection rate down. 

 

It's been said above, we could go off of hospitalizations and or deaths, but then we are making decisions weeks late. We've also been making decisions without considering the unknown.....noone knows what the true long term side effects are but we are still making decisions without considering what they could be.

 

For me, I'd rather play it safe. Of course masking isn't going to be perfect. But it can help slow the spread and allow us to be somewhat back to normal. This is why I have a tough time understanding the anti-mask folk.

 

 

Sure, this coronavirus is new, but since we’ve been dealing with this family of viruses for decades with little to no long term consequences, wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be to think this virus will be similar. It seems like more fear mongering from the media to position this unknown this way.

I’ve jumped down stairs millions of times in my life, but I’ve never jumped off a wooden box into a pile of leaves that’s the same height as the stairs, so it’s new and technically unknown. Should I be fearful because it’s new or should I use my vast experience with something very similar to drive my actions?

 

[SiouxBoys]

47 minutes ago, yzerman19 said:

How about:

1.  If you are sick with symptoms stay home for 14 days.  

2.  If you are exposed to someone who is sick, wait 5 days in self quarantine then get a test. If sick stay home for 14 days.

3.  If you are vulnerable, stay home.

4.  If you are healthy and not vulnerable, then a.  If with strangers, crowds, unknowns, then wear a mask, wash your hands, and social distance as much as possible, be outside rather than inside if possible.  b.  If with people you know and trust and believe to be healthy,  live normal.

 

So personal responsibility? We should have that? But life is easier if the government just tells me I'm not allowed to do anything...

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

6 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

For me, I'd rather play it safe. Of course masking isn't going to be perfect. But it can help slow the spread and allow us to be somewhat back to normal. This is why I have a tough time understanding the anti-mask folk.

Not "anti-mask" so much as "anti-mask mandate."

Just like any other subset of the human race with whom you happen to disagree, we don't need your understanding. We just want your tolerance.

Mandates and brow-beating are hardly the way forward. Let people decide for themselves, and rest easy knowing that pre-mandate, you already had upwards of 60% or more voluntary mask compliance. That significantly reduces the risk of spread. Why is that not good enough?

Wear a mask. Shop at stores that require masks. If you see me coming, tighten your mask, cross the street. Whatever. Won't hurt my feelings a bit. Just stop the incessant nagging, admit that you have zero idea about me and my character or whether I take unnecessary risks with friends and loved ones, quit trying to flex your faux moral superiority, and mix in some basic human decency and respect for your fellow man.

[petey23]

35 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

A couple ways, if the person reporting on it has a specific way of viewing it.

First way would be by reporting absolute numbers, which is what most papers are doing. 100 tests were done, we found one positive. Media reports we found one positive. 1000 tests were done we found 10 positives. Media reports we have 10x as many positive cases now than we did before. Percentage wise, it’s the same.

If, as has been suggested, we are testing people multiple times and they come back positive multiple times and each time they are counted as positive. Then that’s obvious how that inflates the data. 
 

Hospitalizations and deaths are really the only stat I care to see and even deaths are under major scrutiny in my book as they’ve admitted to not distinguishing between people who died with or people who died because of covid. 

 

As the media has switched the narrative from number of deaths to number of positive cases they count on very few people asking why.

I realize that number of deaths lag from the number of cases but you will never see it noted that the death rate over the last month seems to have shrunk by about 300% from .05 to .017. 

If you look at the numbers based on positive cases and number of deaths from the start up until a month ago about 50,000 more deaths would have been expected between June 22 and today if the rate had held. 

 

[SiouxBoys]

3 minutes ago, petey23 said:

As the media has switched the narrative from number of deaths to number of positive cases they count on very few people asking why.

I realize that number of deaths lag from the number of cases but you will never see it noted that the death rate over the last month seems to have shrunk by about 300% from .05 to .017. 

If you look at the numbers based on positive cases and number of deaths from the start up until a month ago about 50,000 more deaths would have been expected between June 22 and today if the rate had held. 

 

No. You clearly need to just wait two more weeks.

[Oxbow6]

1 hour ago, CarpeRemote said:

Too many variables at this point. Lack of kits, slowdown at some labs, most exposed don’t get tested at all because they already know the answer, or asymptomatic people who feel fine get tested anyway etc. 

It’s an algebraic equation with so many variables they are forced to go off large numbers. Every input is debatable. It’s clearly not perfect. Decision makers watch rate of transmission and hospitalizations in zones.
 

https://rt.live 

 

Again good stuff.

ND is at 1.16. MT iss 1.25. SD is 0.95. MN is 1.08.

Anything above 1.0 virus spreads quickly. Below 1.0 spreads slowly.

Planning on going to MT next week for vacation. Is my risk any really higher than in Fargo? Couple weeks later off to SD to see family......so it is much safer in Rapid City? Safer for me to go to the DQ across river in Moorhead than one within walking distance from my house?

[Bison06]

8 minutes ago, petey23 said:

As the media has switched the narrative from number of deaths to number of positive cases they count on very few people asking why.

I realize that number of deaths lag from the number of cases but you will never see it noted that the death rate over the last month seems to have shrunk by about 300% from .05 to .017. 

If you look at the numbers based on positive cases and number of deaths from the start up until a month ago about 50,000 more deaths would have been expected between June 22 and today if the rate had held. 

 

Exactly.

Doesn’t take a math whiz to figure out that the death rate was hyper-inflated early because only elderly and ill people were being tested. As younger healthier people get infected the death rate will continue to drop to a level that is likely at or below the death rate of influenza.