Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


Recommended Posts

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. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hayduke1

    1804

  • Oxbow6

    1780

  • BarnWinterSportsEngelstad

    1134

  • The Sicatoka

    1069

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The only people who need to be tested are health care workers, the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions.  If you are young (under 50) and healthy and are taking up a test kit, crowding

This country is being bright to its knees by fear....not the virus. Recovery from getting the virus is a couple weeks. Recovery of society from this hysteria will be years.

It’s sad that about half the country still believes outlets like msnbc and cnn.  You would think after they lied everyday for 3 years about Russian collusion, people would get the hint of what their t

Posted Images

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 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. 

 

From a decision making standpoint looking backward at deaths doesn’t really effect the math used for decision making. What matters is how many new positives we are getting today vs yesterday. 
 

I see your point with flaws in counting a positive twice inflates overall infections. But when this happens, pick any % of double dipping, the rate of transmission still doesn’t change appreciably as long as the error rate stays roughly the same. Modeling with large numbers will count those errors as noise, which it probably is in larger states. (Theoretically, a moderate non recurring double dip in a low population state could skew Rt for a few days but would push it the opposite direction a few days later)  

Not perfection but they are getting pretty good at considering what is important to interpret and how to do the math. 
 

Where we could/will see the “number of tests” skewing Rt data is if we start asking very large groups of asymptomatic people to test in a short period. Such as several universities testing entire student bodies in September. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

P

1 minute ago, SWSiouxMN said:

 

Probably find out more on Monday but this is probably the first hint of what could come. 

With that said the Fargo Smart Restart would have middle and high school kids distance learning only if starting today. Elementary.....hybrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

P

With that said the Fargo Smart Restart would have middle and high school kids distance learning only if starting today. Elementary.....hybrid.

May as well move baseball to the fall and football to the spring.  Not sure about volleyball.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

P

With that said the Fargo Smart Restart would have middle and high school kids distance learning only if starting today. Elementary.....hybrid.

When does ND schools start again?  Has to pretty quick right?  

6 minutes ago, homer said:

May as well move baseball to the fall and football to the spring.  Not sure about volleyball.  

I would think that NDHSAA would have said something about that by now if they were going to do that.  Same with SDHSAA and MSHSL. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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. 

 

True,
I guess it matters what media someone uses. I see that pointed out repeatedly.

It’s easy to see that the increased testing is on healthier people, therefore lower death rate. We know with therapeutics we are losing a lower % of the at-risk.
 

But there two sets of stats, the at-risk, and everyone else. Despite better therapeutics a relatively large % of “at-risk” get sick as hell, so  they aren’t eating out or going to sporting events, and we shouldn’t reasonably expect differently. 
 

 For the most part,  at-risk folks are retirees with money and time, and the economy be broken without them.  It is what it is and it won’t change until a vaccine. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, homer said:

May as well move baseball to the fall and football to the spring.  Not sure about volleyball.  

Not a bad idea.  Kids have been doing strength and conditioning plus BB and VB open gyms in the FM area for weeks.

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

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.

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that if you accept the premise that the masks are not to protect you but to protect everyone else from your respiratory droplets, etc then letting people decide for themselves undermines the whole idea. And I understand that you may not accept that premise and there has been lots of contradictory information presented regarding the efficacy of masks and why they should or shouldn't be used. I'm just saying I think that's the reason maskers are so upset with anti-maskers and vice-versa (for lack of better terms). There's just a fundamental disconnect.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

89% of parents who responded the the Bismarck public school survey stated  they were comfortable sending their kids back to school. 47% without reservations.  42% with precautions in place.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the long run this is the quickest way to ending the Covid  pandemic "......Walz on the mask mandate.

I'm old enough to remember when sheltering in place  for 3 months and destroying the economy was way to go.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

"In the long run this is the quickest way to ending the Covid  pandemic "......Walz on the mask mandate.

I'm old enough to remember when sheltering in place  for 3 months and destroying the economy was way to go.

I think that is a fair question for Walz. Why was masking and socially distancing not the plan from the get go?
Lockdown and crippling the economy while ruining countless lives seemed like a better plan?

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

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that if you accept the premise that the masks are not to protect you but to protect everyone else from your respiratory droplets, etc then letting people decide for themselves undermines the whole idea. And I understand that you may not accept that premise and there has been lots of contradictory information presented regarding the efficacy of masks and why they should or shouldn't be used. I'm just saying I think that's the reason maskers are so upset with anti-maskers and vice-versa (for lack of better terms). There's just a fundamental disconnect.

Good way of putting it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

I think that is a fair question for Walz. Why was masking and socially distancing not the plan from the get go?
Lockdown and crippling the economy while ruining countless lives seemed like a better plan?

Because he isn’t Zoltan? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • UNDBIZ changed the title to 2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
  • UNDBIZ locked this topic
  • UNDBIZ unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...