• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Non-Political Coronavirus Thread

Oh it absolutely does, if you do it correctly. If the vulnerable isolate so that they have no contact with the virus, then you let the virus run through the non-vulnerable who recover from it. Then when you reintroduce the vulnerable they don't get it because it has already run its course from the non-vulnerable. So your overall recovery rate increases because those who were going to recover are going to recover, and those who weren't going to recover don't get it.

I know math is hard, but you are reducing your denominator while your numerator remains constant, which increases the percentage.

You can’t recover from a virus you don’t get.
 
Oh it absolutely does, if you do it correctly. If the vulnerable isolate so that they have no contact with the virus, then you let the virus run through the non-vulnerable who recover from it. Then when you reintroduce the vulnerable they don't get it because it has already run its course from the non-vulnerable. So your overall recovery rate increases because those who were going to recover are going to recover, and those who weren't going to recover don't get it.

I know math is hard, but you are reducing your denominator while your numerator remains constant, which increases the percentage.

And then the Tooth Fairy rides in on a unicorn... You have described a totally ridiculous scenario that has no basis in reality. You can't only isolate the vulnerable and let the non-vulnerable quickly get infected - that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.
 
See this I can potentially get behind as a solution. But how long do you realistically think it will be before we have a vaccine that you are actually willing to take? Months? Years? As I said before, I'm taking my chances with the virus over the first few iterations of this administration's vaccine before they get it right.

And to answer your question, we'd be there a hell of a lot quicker if we didn't have this half-assed lockdown of the people who won't be affected by it.

It is not about you. It is about spreading it to others.
 
How are the hospitalizations in Forsyth looking Rafi?

The Forsyth Co numbers just keep getting worse. Today there were a record number of new cases (162). The previous record was Friday (97), and the record before that was 61 on May 14. There were also 3 more deaths - a person in their 30s, one in their 50s, and one in their 80s.
 
Well thank god the next 999 people who get it in their 30's won't die.

you've seen this release from the CDC, correct?

as previously discussed on this thread, the numbers seem overly optimistic, but the CDC is saying that 1 of every 2,000 individuals exhibiting symptoms aged 0-49 will die
 
you've seen this release from the CDC, correct?

as previously discussed on this thread, the numbers seem overly optimistic, but the CDC is saying that 1 of every 2,000 individuals exhibiting symptoms aged 0-49 will die

That’s a lot of people for a virus that spreads so easily. And I’m guessing those odds are higher for ages 35-49.
 
Or to put it differently, 1.65M Americans who would die if all Americans were infected (and obviously older folks have a much higher chance of dying).
 
Or to put it differently, 1.65M Americans who would die if all Americans were infected (and obviously older folks have a much higher chance of dying).

no - CDC is showing death rate per symptomatic individual and is also publishing percentages of those who are infected who then show symptoms (CFR vs. IFR)

CDC is saying that if 350 million American get infected, a total of 910,000 will die as their best estimate
 
Is that the same CDC release that basically disregarded the information from like 45 days entirely (the most recent 45 days)?
 
Is that the same CDC release that basically disregarded the information from like 45 days entirely (the most recent 45 days)?

I believe it used data through April 29 and was released on May 21 but I would imagine that is available somewhere in the link I provided
 
based on the fact that everyone is now reopening and not going back, what do you expect the total US death toll to be at the end of June? If 2&2 is right, it should still be fairly low, right? Let's get some predictions on record.
 
A death toll prediction contest seems to be in pretty poor taste, but that’s just me
 
I mean we are basically at 1K a day still. It will likely be around 130K by the end of the month assuming we have plateaued.

Increased deaths from the exposure due to reopening of states and the gatherings at protests won't hit until July.
 
A death toll prediction contest seems to be in pretty poor taste, but that’s just me

to be clear i'm not suggesting a "contest" with a winner....but it would be instructive on how seriously to take future predictions from all of the parties if it turned out that their viewpoint was ultimately borne out by facts.
 
I mean we are basically at 1K a day still. It will likely be around 130K by the end of the month assuming we have plateaued.

Increased deaths from the exposure due to reopening of states and the gatherings at protests won't hit until July.

I think the latest projection I saw said 120K by the end of the June which seems unrealistic. I agree that a 1000 a day clip seems to be the minimum.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top