2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[Siouxphan27]

30 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

The chips are about to crumble.

I thought cookies crumbled, and chips fell where they may. 

[Redneksioux]

3 minutes ago, Siouxphan27 said:

I thought cookies crumbled, and chips fell where they may. 

Yes it's time to sh1t or get out of the kitchen.

[tnt]

8 hours ago, gfNDfan said:

Those old people deserved to DIE anyway...they were just sucking up our senior living resources!  GET OUT THERE and lick the doorknobs stud!

Again, 80% of the people that have died in Minnesota have come from assisted living facilities, and they have taken great strides to protect them.  What else do you propose to do?  

[Oxbow6]

10 minutes ago, tnt said:

Again, 80% of the people that have died in Minnesota have come from assisted living facilities, and they have taken great strides to protect them.  What else do you propose to do?  

No kids going back to school or college in the fall is a good start.......... 

[Siouxphan27]

45 minutes ago, Redneksioux said:

Yes it's time to sh1t or get out of the kitchen.

[UNDBIZ]

1 hour ago, Redneksioux said:

Yes it's time to sh1t or get out of the kitchen.

[TheFlop]

1 hour ago, Redneksioux said:

Yes it's time to sh1t or get out of the kitchen.

Your posts are actually pretty good when you stick to comedy.  

[TheFlop]

One other question, since all of the Covid models are consistently being changed and revised downward....and the economy only tanked due to those flawed models......does that mean MafiaMan gets his job back? 

[dynato]

2 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

The latest (third) predictive model supplying Walz with accurate and reliable "science and data" as published by the MNDOH and the U of M School of Public Health yesterday reveals the following.......

MN would have 6000 fewer total deaths moving forward if the stay at home order was extended to May 31.

MN will now reach 750 deaths per day at it's "first peak" this summer.

MN could see an additional 1400 deaths by the of May.

MN could reach 29000 deaths due to lifting the stay at home order on May 18....8000 deaths more than expected.

If there had been no stay at home order MN was looking at 57000 deaths.

By lifting stay at home order on May 18 ICU demand peaks at 3400 beds. MN hospitals only have a total of 2600 ICU beds. If no stay at home order at all ICU demand would have been at 5000 beds per day.

So to recap what this model provides in terms of "science and data".....lifting the stay at home order will cause (wait for it) the hospitals systems in MN to be overwhelmed, will not continue to flatten the curve and will not save lives. 

#saferathome

For clairty: U of MN is looking at v3.0. Scenario 5 is being currently applied.
https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/MNmodel_PPT 5.13.20_FINAL 915AM_tcm1148-431824.pdf

For a 12 month period, they expect 29,000 cumulative deaths in MN. The confidence interval is 16,000 to 44,000. Which means based on the currently available data, as of May 13th, they expect deaths will fall within that range with 95% accuracy.  

16,000 deaths across a year is 44 deaths a day. 44,000 deaths in a year is 120 deaths a day for a year. MN is currently averaging 30 deaths a day with an extreme shelter in place. So they expect a 50% to 300% increase in deaths with restriction being lifted. Exponential growth works like that. To me, 14 more deaths per day on average on paper is a realistic and acceptable consequence of lifting restrictions. Is it not?

They expect by the end of May, that they will have between 1400 and 2000 deaths with the same 95% confidence. Again, this is an average of only 40 deaths to 80 deaths a day. So increasing 10 deaths per day for May is realistic and acceptable consequence, which can provide justification for now loosening restrictions. Extending shelter at home to may 31st would see a reduction in 60 deaths across may and 800 deaths across the entire year.

The range they expect for peak ICU demand is 2,000 to 5,200. I read this as peaking at an estimated 3400 on June 29th, trending upwards from May 18th. There are currently 200 ICU beds occupied via COVID patients. A large range of uncertainty and the tables could be labeled better. But enough time to add beds/vents/ staff if it holds true to ensure no hospitals are overwhelmed. Again, this could be considered good justification for opening up pending on your perspective. 

If no preventive action was taken, we only have a reference like NYC and Italy to go off of. NYC alone faced massive death tolls. which didn't slow down until a month after restrictions were put in place there. MN's metropolitan population is only 1/5th that of NYC metro. It is home to over 500,00 people aged 65+, of which ~70% has a chronic health condition on average. So that means there are 352,000 vulnerable elders in the MN metro area. If 1/4 of them get infected and only 1/3 of the infected die, that is 29,000 deaths from the metro area alone.

If there had been no action taken in New York City, what do you think the mass causalities would have been extended to?

 

[Goon]

2 hours ago, Redneksioux said:

Far from cheering for this to get worse, was more of jab at our president’s son....

https://mobile.twitter.com/erictrump/status/1260201200173101062

 

Nobody knows the long term effects of Coronavirus but new side effects are starting to show in people months after infection and now children are starting to deal with inflammatory immune response after being infected. Yet we continue to test and wear masks at such a high cost to society

 

 

Some context, he was talking about #SpyGate and not the Coronavirus. 

 

[Oxbow6]

21 minutes ago, dynato said:

For clairty: U of MN is looking at v3.0. Scenario 5 is being currently applied.
https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/MNmodel_PPT 5.13.20_FINAL 915AM_tcm1148-431824.pdf

For a 12 month period, they expect 29,000 cumulative deaths in MN. The confidence interval is 16,000 to 44,000. Which means based on the currently available data, as of May 13th, they expect deaths will fall within that range with 95% accuracy.  

16,000 deaths across a year is 44 deaths a day. 44,000 deaths in a year is 120 deaths a day for a year. MN is currently averaging 30 deaths a day with an extreme shelter in place. So they expect a 50% to 300% increase in deaths with restriction being lifted. Exponential growth works like that. To me, 14 more deaths per day on average on paper is a realistic and acceptable consequence of lifting restrictions. Is it not?

They expect by the end of May, that they will have between 1400 and 2000 deaths with the same 95% confidence. Again, this is an average of only 40 deaths to 80 deaths a day. So increasing 10 deaths per day for May is realistic and acceptable consequence, which can provide justification for now loosening restrictions. Extending shelter at home to may 31st would see a reduction in 60 deaths across may and 800 deaths across the entire year.

The range they expect for peak ICU demand is 2,000 to 5,200. I read this as peaking at an estimated 3400 on June 29th, trending upwards from May 18th. There are currently 200 ICU beds occupied via COVID patients. A large range of uncertainty and the tables could be labeled better. But enough time to add beds/vents/ staff if it holds true to ensure no hospitals are overwhelmed. Again, this could be considered good justification for opening up pending on your perspective. 

If no preventive action was taken, we only have a reference like NYC and Italy to go off of. NYC alone faced massive death tolls. which didn't slow down until a month after restrictions were put in place there. MN's metropolitan population is only 1/5th that of NYC metro. It is home to over 500,00 people aged 65+, of which ~70% has a chronic health condition on average. So that means there are 352,000 vulnerable elders in the MN metro area. If 1/4 of them get infected and only 1/3 of the infected die, that is 29,000 deaths from the metro area alone.

If there had been no action taken in New York City, what do you think the mass causalities would have been extended to?

 

I appreciate you regurgitating the highlighted numbers I pointed out. That was very helpful.

.....and what does NY have to do with anything related to MN or the numbers at hand?

That mentality of everywhere at some point is going to be NY is why most of this country is in the mess it is. Focus and stay on point......Minnesota.

Also surprisingly the article I read never mentioned NY. Why? Because it was about Walz and MN.

[Walsh Hall]

39 minutes ago, dynato said:

 

If no preventive action was taken, we only have a reference like NYC and Italy to go off of. NYC alone faced massive death tolls. which didn't slow down until a month after restrictions were put in place there. MN's metropolitan population is only 1/5th that of NYC metro. It is home to over 500,00 people aged 65+, of which ~70% has a chronic health condition on average. So that means there are 352,000 vulnerable elders in the MN metro area. If 1/4 of them get infected and only 1/3 of the infected die, that is 29,000 deaths from the metro area alone.

 

I don't think NYC and Italy would be substantially similar demographics to make a valid comparison.   NYC - 5.6 million subway rides each day.  Minneapolis - quote from S.T. - "The line had its highest single-day ridership on Aug. 31 when 68,071 rides were taken on a day when the Twins, Vikings, Gophers and Saints all had home games and the State Fair was going on."

It's hard to take the "experts" seriously when the only thing they appear to be experts in is being incredibly wrong, and always wrong in one direction.

I think that all the "experts" being quoted and used should have their estimates from prior epidemics/pandemics listed under their name like baseball card stats.  I wish I could be so inept at my job.

[dynato]

4 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

I appreciate you regurgitating the highlighted numbers I pointed out. That was very helpful.

.....and what does NY have to do with anything related to MN or the numbers at hand?

That mentality of everywhere at some point is going to be NY is why most of this country is in the mess it is. Focus and stay on point......Minnesota.

Some of the points you mentioned were slightly wrong. I was summarizing their work more clearly so anyone who actually cares doesn't get any wrong ideas about it.

You can't just categorically denounce the MN model projection for a no stay at home 12 month case with no basis or allowance for comparison. Thus NY as a frame of reference for the worst case scenario for deaths. MN will NOT be impacted the same magnitude as NY. They took early drastic caution to ensure that, much like CA did. However, it is absolutely reasonable to assume MN would have been impacted at a slightly lower magnitude than NY had no action been taken. MN trends within 30% of NY when it comes to traditional airborne diseases.

[Oxbow6]

11 minutes ago, dynato said:

Some of the points you mentioned were slightly wrong. I was summarizing their work more clearly so anyone who actually cares doesn't get any wrong ideas about it.

You can't just categorically denounce the MN model projection for a no stay at home 12 month case with no basis or allowance for comparison. Thus NY as a frame of reference for the worst case scenario for deaths. MN will NOT be impacted the same magnitude as NY. They took early drastic caution to ensure that, much like CA did. However, it is absolutely reasonable to assume MN would have been impacted at a slightly lower magnitude than NY had no action been taken. MN trends within 30% of NY when it comes to traditional airborne diseases.

"Slightly wrong"......is that like kind of pregnant? Take it up with Forum Communications. Was right there in black and white.

For the second time.....there was no mention of NY in any way shape or form in the discussion of the article. That fact you feel in interjecting NY into this topic real has zero relevance in this discussion. NY is their own dumpster fire. Has zero to do with MN.

And to reiterate this was just another predictive model.....all of which have been total trash.

[Siouxperfan7]

Ever wonder where the term "flattening the curve" went?  Don't even hear that anymore.  The purpose of shutting everything down was to not overwhelm the health care system.  The curve has been flattened and hospitals are not being overwhelmed.  Elective surgeries are being resumed, ventilators are being returned, and hospital workers are being furloughed.  So now that the curve has "flattened" there should be no reason for every state to do a slow reopen.  All of a sudden now it went from flattening the curve to finding a cure.  Since when has that been the solution to fighting diseases?! 

[yzerman19]

so many variables...nutritional deficiency, Vitamin D, ethnic heritage, blood type, hormone levels, conditions, medications, age, gender, living conditions, air, sunlight, pollution, cockroaches, allergies, inflammation, immune response, BMI, body fat %,  tension feedback, vaccinations, housing..on and on and on.  Tough to model with all those variables

[yzerman19]

3 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Ever wonder where the term "flattening the curve" went?  Don't even hear that anymore.  The purpose of shutting everything down was to not overwhelm the health care system.  The curve has been flattened and hospitals are not being overwhelmed.  Elective surgeries are being resumed, ventilators are being returned, and hospital workers are being furloughed.  So now that the curve has "flattened" there should be no reason for every state to do a slow reopen.  All of a sudden now it went from flattening the curve to finding a cure.  Since when has that been the solution to fighting diseases?! 

Agree- A few of us have been saying the same for the past 3-4 weeks.  

[dynato]

2 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

"Slightly wrong"......is that like kind of pregnant? Take it up with Forum Communications. Was right there in black and white.

For the second time.....there was no mention of NY in any way shape or form in the discussion of the article. That fact you feel in interjecting NY into this topic real has zero relevance in this discussion. NY is their own dumpster fire. Has zero to do with MN.

And to reiterate this was just another predictive model.....all of which have been total trash.

Okay. You were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers of the MN model you do not care about. If it was copy and past from forum communications, then they were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers. You need to either post your source so I can fault them instead or check your sources better. 

Some models are useful, some aren't. CDC tracks all models for a better forecast. Again, a lot of variables, but we need something to reference and will never go in blind. 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html

Is the Harvard model which plainly states that ND can open up and should have never shut down trash too? 
https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Harvard-study-says-ND-doing-enough-testing-to-control-pandemic-spread-570316681.html

Let me ask you, what are your projections for a global pandemic with no preventative measures in place for a state with a population of 7 million and a metro population of 3.4 million people? On what basis did you arrive to that number? Will any number be 100% right? 
 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

8 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Ever wonder where the term "flattening the curve" went?  Don't even hear that anymore.  The purpose of shutting everything down was to not overwhelm the health care system.  The curve has been flattened and hospitals are not being overwhelmed.  Elective surgeries are being resumed, ventilators are being returned, and hospital workers are being furloughed.  So now that the curve has "flattened" there should be no reason for every state to do a slow reopen.  All of a sudden now it went from flattening the curve to finding a cure.  Since when has that been the solution to fighting diseases?! 

It was inevitable that there would be a pandemic in the jet age and in the globalized economy.  Modern medicine has advanced so far in the past 100+ years, and I submit we would have weathered it societally and economically just fine.  It's just unfortunate that it happened in the information age, as well.  Too many people given too much information and far too great a platform to spout nonsense and create vulnerabilities for people-pleasing or image-conscious policymakers.

[dynato]

5 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Ever wonder where the term "flattening the curve" went?  Don't even hear that anymore.  The purpose of shutting everything down was to not overwhelm the health care system.  The curve has been flattened and hospitals are not being overwhelmed.  Elective surgeries are being resumed, ventilators are being returned, and hospital workers are being furloughed.  So now that the curve has "flattened" there should be no reason for every state to do a slow reopen.  All of a sudden now it went from flattening the curve to finding a cure.  Since when has that been the solution to fighting diseases?! 

I agree with this. The entire shutdown was to prevent healthcare collapse. Once it was evident that was not going to happen, efforts should have switched to opening up with a line of support ready if necessary. The thing that has most politicians spooked is exponential growth, which has proven to be unstoppable once it gains traction. No one can predict when it would be too late to stop, so most states banked on the side of extreme caution.

[Walsh Hall]

5 minutes ago, dynato said:

Okay. You were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers of the MN model you do not care about. If it was copy and past from forum communications, then they were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers. You need to either post your source so I can fault them instead or check your sources better. 

Some models are useful, some aren't. CDC tracks all models for a better forecast. Again, a lot of variables, but we need something to reference and will never go in blind. 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html

Is the Harvard model which plainly states that ND can open up and should have never shut down trash too? 
https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Harvard-study-says-ND-doing-enough-testing-to-control-pandemic-spread-570316681.html

Let me ask you, what are your projections for a global pandemic with no preventative measures in place for a state with a population of 7 million and a metro population of 3.4 million people? On what basis did you arrive to that number? Will any number be 100% right? 
 

My dog estimated zero deaths.  She has been far more accurate than the "experts."  I'm not sure if she finished with her modeling methods as she got distracted by a squirrel.  Any which way, I stand my her projection as it has been the most accurate to date.

[Oxbow6]

22 minutes ago, dynato said:

Okay. You were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers of the MN model you do not care about. If it was copy and past from forum communications, then they were undeniably wrong on several interpretations, dates, and numbers. You need to either post your source so I can fault them instead or check your sources better. 

Some models are useful, some aren't. CDC tracks all models for a better forecast. Again, a lot of variables, but we need something to reference and will never go in blind. 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html

Is the Harvard model which plainly states that ND can open up and should have never shut down trash too? 
https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Harvard-study-says-ND-doing-enough-testing-to-control-pandemic-spread-570316681.html

Let me ask you, what are your projections for a global pandemic with no preventative measures in place for a state with a population of 7 million and a metro population of 3.4 million people? On what basis did you arrive to that number? Will any number be 100% right? 
 

To the bolded part.........our resident liberal newspaper hack Jim Shaw is waiting for you on line 2.

Also you seem intelligent enough to know there is a difference between a (predictive) model and a study? You cited a study but said it was a model. I mentioned that Harvard study awhile back....again it was a study not a model.

And to your last 3 questions......huh?

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

3 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

My dog estimated zero deaths.  She has been far more accurate than the "experts."  I'm not sure if she finished with her modeling methods as she got distracted by a squirrel.  Any which way, I stand my her projection as it has been the most accurate to date.

We should have adopted The Price is Right model...all projections have to be close without going over.  #ShowcaseShowdown

[dynato]

4 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

It was inevitable that there would be a pandemic in the jet age and in the globalized economy.  Modern medicine has advanced so far in the past 100+ years, and I submit we would have weathered it societally and economically just fine.  It's just unfortunate that it happened in the information age, as well.  Too many people given too much information and far too great a platform to spout nonsense and create vulnerabilities for people-pleasing or image-conscious policymakers.

I agree with this. People need to be more conscious of death, but not dismiss it entirely. The problem is indeed a collective problem,  your actions can infringe on the health of others, so there needs to be extended caution. The "experts" are medical professionals who are on the side of saving as many life as possible. Give them unlimited funding and they will do as much as they can to save a life. If you don't want them to take your life seriously, let them know at your next medical visit. The problem came when politicians took that same approach to do as much as they can to save a life, which really has never been the case before.

[Walsh Hall]

3 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

We should have adopted The Price is Right model...all projections have to be close without going over.  #ShowcaseShowdown

In that analogy all the contestants would be guessing $50,000 for a dorm fridge and standing there with a confused look on their faces.