Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
jk

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, GeauxSioux said:

Agree or disagree, there are some valid points here.....https://www.zerohedge.com/health/ripple-effects-government-lockdown-are-only-starting-take-shape

You would not, in the slightest, in any kind of sane world, shut down an entire economy and lock down everything when you have a 5 per 100,000 death rate for the overwhelming share of the population.

Right, but when decisions were initially being made, we didn't know what that death rate would be.  Many extreme decisions were made based on early/minimal data and applied nationwide.  Can/should things be re-evaluated now?  Absolutely.  But just like the shutdowns weren't one size fits all, also the removal of restrictions shouldn't be.

I will say that I find it interesting how people manipulate stats to prove their point.  This is nothing new.  Heck, even in sports people will say "so-and-so is 11-1 in their last 12" because going back further than that would show they were 11-9 overall.  It's all about picking your data sets and ranges to make the numbers look the way you want them to.  This is not something that is political, because everyone and every side does it.  Even when reviewing new medical research, I always make a point to analyze how they manipulated the stats...who they eliminated from the study and why, what effects that exclusion likely had on outcome, did they use the appropriate statistical tests based on data type, etc..

This article is looking at deaths per 100,000 of those who are under 50 and have no comorbidities.  Nationally, roughly 1/3 adults have high blood pressure and 40% of adults >20 years old meet the criteria for obesity.  Obviously, there is likely to be a lot of overlap between those two groups but not everyone.  That's A LOT of people being excluded from the stat this article is using to show how this virus isn't a big deal.  I can't emphasize enough that I'm not saying that the lockdowns were right or wrong or now how much they should be loosened.  Especially not on a national level.  My firsthand experience showed me that the lockdown helped immensely in the heavily affected areas of NY, but NY is a different ballgame with this thing.  And even then, NY needs to find a safe way to slowly ease the grip.  I'm just pointing out that using the 5 deaths per 100,000 in the healthy under 50 group for the rationale doesn't make a ton of sense when a large portion of the general population doesn't fit into that stat.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, keikla said:

Right, but when decisions were initially being made, we didn't know what that death rate would be.  Many extreme decisions were made based on early/minimal data and applied nationwide.  Can/should things be re-evaluated now?  Absolutely.  But just like the shutdowns weren't one size fits all, also the removal of restrictions shouldn't be.

I will say that I find it interesting how people manipulate stats to prove their point.  This is nothing new.  Heck, even in sports people will say "so-and-so is 11-1 in their last 12" because going back further than that would show they were 11-9 overall.  It's all about picking your data sets and ranges to make the numbers look the way you want them to.  This is not something that is political, because everyone and every side does it.  Even when reviewing new medical research, I always make a point to analyze how they manipulated the stats...who they eliminated from the study and why, what effects that exclusion likely had on outcome, did they use the appropriate statistical tests based on data type, etc..

This article is looking at deaths per 100,000 of those who are under 50 and have no comorbidities.  Nationally, roughly 1/3 adults have high blood pressure and 40% of adults >20 years old meet the criteria for obesity.  Obviously, there is likely to be a lot of overlap between those two groups but not everyone.  That's A LOT of people being excluded from the stat this article is using to show how this virus isn't a big deal.  I can't emphasize enough that I'm not saying that the lockdowns were right or wrong or now how much they should be loosened.  Especially not on a national level.  My firsthand experience showed me that the lockdown helped immensely in the heavily affected areas of NY, but NY is a different ballgame with this thing.  And even then, NY needs to find a safe way to slowly ease the grip.  I'm just pointing out that using the 5 deaths per 100,000 in the healthy under 50 group for the rationale doesn't make a ton of sense when a large portion of the general population doesn't fit into that stat.

thats fine but why should darnell who is 35 and owns his own barber shop(s) and is 6'0 175lbs and walks an hour every day of the week not be able to give a haircut to a customer because darrell who is 48 and 5'8 275lbs and watches romcoms everynight after work is "at risk"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

thats fine but why should darnell who is 35 and owns his own barber shop(s) and is 6'0 175lbs and walks an hour every day of the week not be able to give a haircut to a customer because darrell who is 48 and 5'8 275lbs and watches romcoms everynight after work is "at risk"

I didn't say that he shouldn't be able to.  In fact, I specifically said that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that I don't find the stat they used in that article to be useful or applicable to a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32252338/

 

Thoughts from medical experts. Had a couple Doctor friends tell me people in this part of country don't get enough Vitamin D so I have been taking this for awhile, especially in winter time. 

This is just one study I came across, there are several that have shown that while D3 isn't going to prevent catching the virus, it might reduce the severity of it for some people.

Would like to hear any thought from our medical experts in this thread.

Share this post


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

I didn't say that he shouldn't be able to.  In fact, I specifically said that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that I don't find the stat they used in that article to be useful or applicable to a lot of people.

sorry didn't say you...just maybe some of the govs that have lockdowns til mid june based on faulty numbers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeauxSioux said:

Agree or disagree, there are some valid points here..... "The Ripple-Effects Of The Government Lockdown Are Only Starting To Take Shape..."

You would not, in the slightest, in any kind of sane world, shut down an entire economy and lock down everything when you have a 5 per 100,000 death rate for the overwhelming share of the population.

Fixed the link.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often seen throughout this thread that those who are at risk should quarantine while everyone else should be able to carry on as is.  I'm just curious how people envision the logistics of that, since that could include a rather large portion of the US workforce.  Here's a couple of scenarios I'm interested in what people think about:

1. Sally is 35yo with type 1 diabetes.  She and her dr feel that she is at risk, and she should quarantine.  She works for a company where the work could be done from home, but the employer wants people to actually be in the office for various reasons.  Does the employer have to let Sally work from home?  Does Sally have to disclose health issues (even if it's just a generic dr note) to her employer?  

2. Bob is 53 (remember, our stats on the low mortality stop at age 49) and just beat cancer a few months ago.  He is a chef at a very busy restaurant.  Obviously his work cannot be done from home, but his dr feels that he is very at risk and should quarantine.  Is Bob's employer required to still pay him when he can't come in to work?  Does he only get paid if he has available sick leave/vacation days?  He's already out of annual FMLA coverage because of his cancer treatments.  Does Bob get furloughed/fired based on his health status?  Does any of this change if it were health issues that Bob could possibly mitigate (i.e obesity, certain patients with high blood pressure)?

I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely interested in how people seeing the logistics play out.  If covid becomes an annual issue with the same deadly strain (as opposed to a weaker strain), these questions very well may need to be answered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, keikla said:

I've often seen throughout this thread that those who are at risk should quarantine while everyone else should be able to carry on as is.  I'm just curious how people envision the logistics of that, since that could include a rather large portion of the US workforce.  Here's a couple of scenarios I'm interested in what people think about:

1. Sally is 35yo with type 1 diabetes.  She and her dr feel that she is at risk, and she should quarantine.  She works for a company where the work could be done from home, but the employer wants people to actually be in the office for various reasons.  Does the employer have to let Sally work from home?  Does Sally have to disclose health issues (even if it's just a generic dr note) to her employer?  

2. Bob is 53 (remember, our stats on the low mortality stop at age 49) and just beat cancer a few months ago.  He is a chef at a very busy restaurant.  Obviously his work cannot be done from home, but his dr feels that he is very at risk and should quarantine.  Is Bob's employer required to still pay him when he can't come in to work?  Does he only get paid if he has available sick leave/vacation days?  He's already out of annual FMLA coverage because of his cancer treatments.  Does Bob get furloughed/fired based on his health status?  Does any of this change if it were health issues that Bob could possibly mitigate (i.e obesity, certain patients with high blood pressure)?

I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely interested in how people seeing the logistics play out.  If covid becomes an annual issue with the same deadly strain (as opposed to a weaker strain), these questions very well may need to be answered.

good questions but you can't shut down the entire world trying to answer these questions. you just can't

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the virus and the financial problems it’s causing how many universities will be tapping into their foundations and the billions in them?

will UND?

i know most money is donated for a certain project but their is also money not designated for any particular project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, keikla said:

I've often seen throughout this thread that those who are at risk should quarantine while everyone else should be able to carry on as is.  I'm just curious how people envision the logistics of that, since that could include a rather large portion of the US workforce.  Here's a couple of scenarios I'm interested in what people think about:

1. Sally is 35yo with type 1 diabetes.  She and her dr feel that she is at risk, and she should quarantine.  She works for a company where the work could be done from home, but the employer wants people to actually be in the office for various reasons.  Does the employer have to let Sally work from home?  Does Sally have to disclose health issues (even if it's just a generic dr note) to her employer?  

2. Bob is 53 (remember, our stats on the low mortality stop at age 49) and just beat cancer a few months ago.  He is a chef at a very busy restaurant.  Obviously his work cannot be done from home, but his dr feels that he is very at risk and should quarantine.  Is Bob's employer required to still pay him when he can't come in to work?  Does he only get paid if he has available sick leave/vacation days?  He's already out of annual FMLA coverage because of his cancer treatments.  Does Bob get furloughed/fired based on his health status?  Does any of this change if it were health issues that Bob could possibly mitigate (i.e obesity, certain patients with high blood pressure)?

I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely interested in how people seeing the logistics play out.  If covid becomes an annual issue with the same deadly strain (as opposed to a weaker strain), these questions very well may need to be answered.

I am in the construction industry which has been deemed essential. You are expected to work unless you are sick and/or have tested positive. Office people are working from home part of the time and in the office some if the time. People not working due to Covid are being compensated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kab said:

With the virus and the financial problems it’s causing how many universities will be tapping into their foundations and the billions in them?

will UND?

i know most money is donated for a certain project but their is also money not designated for any particular project.

The University, like many others, has hundreds of millions in reserves. They are required to keep a minimum reserve level for events like this. Departments who have extra reserves will tap those to pay employees until they meet the minimum reserve level or until revenues returns to normal. Those departments which did not save extra reserves will have to look at consolidating programs, removing courses from curriculum, and adapting the remaining curriculum as needed. Those unable to work remotely will have their hours reduced in the meantime so they can claim unemployment but also maintain benefits. UND for example has successfully implemented distance/online courses prior to COVID. If they market it correctly, they are posed to come out way ahead as a viable, affordable, online program for the next generation of students. As of right now, they are planning for no growth but also no further loss in students/revenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GeauxSioux said:

I am in the construction industry which has been deemed essential. You are expected to work unless you are sick and/or have tested positive. Office people are working from home part of the time and in the office some if the time. People not working due to Covid are being compensated. 

That brings up another question...what impact does essential vs non-essential have for the questions related to people who are at risk and quarantined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 year old male in Fargo dies suddenly last week. Not COVID related. Family owned restaurant chef/owner. Family closes restaurant permanently shortly after his death and is selling what they can from the restaurant itself. Sad situation but in reality no one is guaranteed tomorrow. Not Sally or Bob mentioned above.

BTW 18 obituaries in Fargo Forum today. ND has 16 COVID deaths total. 

26M+ unemployed over past few weeks. Did all retain health insurance?  Obviously not. Are most of those 26M+ at a low mortality risk of COVID. My money is on yes.

Again when does the big picture and logical risk take over so we can move forward?

The Draconian measures in MN don't seem to be protecting those the measures were supposed to protect....those who are elderly and vulnerable. 23 new reported deaths in MN with all but one not from a long term care facility.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was pretty cringe-y to watch Gov. Cuomo today saying how minimal the 56 days is compared to previous events in history...

1918 Spanish flu lasted 2 years

WWI lasted 4 years

The Great Depression lasted 4 years

Vietnam lasted 8 years

and so on.  When talking about The Great Depression, he went on about "you want to talk about economic hardship?  People losing homes?  People were in tents!  THAT was a bad economy."  I get 56 days < 4 years, but the economic impact of this could very well last 4+ years.  It was just really cringe-y.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Governor says quit trying to boost your immune system outside where the virus dies very quickly and get back inside where the virus spreads easier!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll usually live longer if you do the opposite of what the government or politicians tell you.

Eat lots of carbs and stay indoors.

old-food-pyramid.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cratter said:

You'll usually live longer if you do the opposite of what the government or politicians tell you.

Eat lots of carbs and stay indoors.

old-food-pyramid.jpg

PkBi0Jq.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cratter said:

You'll usually live longer if you do the opposite of what the government or politicians tell you.

Eat lots of carbs and stay indoors.

old-food-pyramid.jpg

Created by agricultural and ranching lobbyists...  as well as a few paid "nutritionists" of course.  Worst advice ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cratter said:

The Governor says quite trying to boost your immune system outside where the virus dies very quickly and get back inside where the virus spreads easier!

 

I can help you here - the idea is to avoid crowded areas.  You can be outside in the sun and not be at a crowded beach.  Stay at home doesn't mean stay inside your home.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Siouxperman8 said:

I can help you here - the idea is to avoid crowded areas.  You can be outside in the sun and not be at a crowded beach.  Stay at home doesn't mean stay inside your home.   

Luckily they are starting to relax the stay at home orders and opened up some beaches so those common folks who dont have yards (or private skateparks) and live in apartments can now enjoy a piece of green space without pretending to "exercise."

Maybe theyll even allow vehicle access to state parks in CA soon too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Luckily they are starting to relax the stay at home orders and opened up some beaches so those common folks who dont have yards (or private skateparks) and live in apartments can now enjoy a piece of green space without pretending to "exercise."

Maybe theyll even allow vehicle access to state parks in CA soon too.

Serious question - does CA have different orders and enforcement from MN?

We are under stay at home order in MN but I've never seen so many people out walking on our neighborhood streets and on our trails.  This has specifically been identified as being acceptable  Mostly keeping distance from each other but 5-10% or so not honoring the 6 ft advisory.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Siouxperman8 said:

Serious question - does CA have different orders and enforcement from MN?

Its hard to keep up with the ever changing Covid Laws:

Quote

The man, who was not identified by authorities, eventually made his way to the beach, where he was arrested on suspicion of disobeying a lifeguard and violating Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stay-at-home order, a misdemeanor.

Paddleboarder Arrested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, keikla said:

I've often seen throughout this thread that those who are at risk should quarantine while everyone else should be able to carry on as is.  I'm just curious how people envision the logistics of that, since that could include a rather large portion of the US workforce.  Here's a couple of scenarios I'm interested in what people think about:

1. Sally is 35yo with type 1 diabetes.  She and her dr feel that she is at risk, and she should quarantine.  She works for a company where the work could be done from home, but the employer wants people to actually be in the office for various reasons.  Does the employer have to let Sally work from home?  Does Sally have to disclose health issues (even if it's just a generic dr note) to her employer?  

2. Bob is 53 (remember, our stats on the low mortality stop at age 49) and just beat cancer a few months ago.  He is a chef at a very busy restaurant.  Obviously his work cannot be done from home, but his dr feels that he is very at risk and should quarantine.  Is Bob's employer required to still pay him when he can't come in to work?  Does he only get paid if he has available sick leave/vacation days?  He's already out of annual FMLA coverage because of his cancer treatments.  Does Bob get furloughed/fired based on his health status?  Does any of this change if it were health issues that Bob could possibly mitigate (i.e obesity, certain patients with high blood pressure)?

I'm not trying to be facetious; I'm genuinely interested in how people seeing the logistics play out.  If covid becomes an annual issue with the same deadly strain (as opposed to a weaker strain), these questions very well may need to be answered.

1. Yes to question one. Let her work at home. Question 2 would be no if she can work and yes if she can’t. There are way to many people disabled who could be working and the employers often have desk work or other work the person could do but too many providers write notes or sign disability forms for wrong reason. 
 

2. This is tougher. If he is still immunocompromised, he should qualify for short term disability. Once immune system recovers or vaccine/ treatment available then he should return to work. 
 

It has already come up twice in last 2 weeks. One teacher had  past history of asthma but nothing for over 5 yrs. They wanted note excusing them from work. They were doing online classes so I told them no dice. Second case was  person who wanted note to miss work but his employer wasn’t an “essential “ business so he wasn’t working anyway. I told him if he was called back to work and wasn’t ready we would review then. 
 

Hopefully you are feeling better. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...