But essentially what I'm seeing is this is modeling, with a ton of assumptions, that people are reporting as actual data. People in my circles that are posting this have no idea the difference between a white paper and a study. Or maybe they don't care.

If it has the data from Phase III trials on safety and efficacy, I will get it as soon as distribution allows. I don't want one that doesn't have Phase III data. ETA: I am more optimistic on that timeline than some...late 2020 or early 2021.

I really don't understand how co-ed wrestling would work given the huge strength disparity between boys and girls even if they are the same weight class. Did not know this existed!

Aww, a thread from when my baby was a newborn!! I don't even remember writing a lot of this, lol.

Have you read The Promise of Sleep? I heard a comedian (Mike Birbiglia) who suffers from REM behavior disorder recommend it. I have no personal experience with it, just for the grain of salt.

I got down a cardiologist twitter trail because of the other day, and some were very skeptical about the in vitro stuff because you could expose heart tissue cells to a lot of otherwise innocuous things in a test tube that would cause damage. Maybe it was even that same guy? I am becoming increasingly wary of preprints that either show Very Bad or Very Good things.

Is this the in vitro study?

I think that outside of this forum what emotions, fears, anxieties, and grief people experience can be private and personal and maybe not something they discuss except with people very close to them. At a public health level and risk assessment level, emotions cannot be used to inform policy. And if, on a board about education, we cannot have an academic discussion of stats, risks, math, numbers, etc., without being accused of being heartless, then I'm not sure where that would be welcome. Also I'm rather surprised to hear people argue that emotion should be used as a basis for informing decisions rather than data and facts. My emotions and anxiety about this issue in particular are not good indications of what I should actually do or not do. Having this self awareness is a huge overcoming for me with anxiety in particular. And again, what I discuss on here is a tiny, tiny slice of me in life as a person.

As a follow up to my pp.

An agenda? I'm sure everyone has an angle, I guess, even cardiologist professors at the Imperial College 😂 Also, ETA, sorry, I referenced you because I thought he was talking about the math/stats being wrong, not the images. This was in the replies, maybe more helpful? (I don't know that guy either, so he may also have an agenda or could also be a big nobody)

I don't understand any of the math here, but it seems that maybe the paper about cardiac inflammation was somewhat flawed? Maybe @square_25 knows the lingo??

I do that (masking and distancing), so discussion of numbers, infection rates, etc., shouldn't be considered heartless, cruel, angering or whatever else has been thrown around in this thread.

What defines "caring" in terms of people dying of specific causes? Is it caring to be enraged at everyone who disagrees and calling them idiots with your definition of caring? If a 98yo dies of literal loneliness because we all care about people dying of the virus, then we care enough? If a walmart worker gets my groceries instead of me do I care enough? If everyone goes out of business except Amazon and big boxes, do we care enough? It's not just the disagreement. It's the idea that anyone who disagrees must carelessly want people to die that is disgusting. I don't assume that people who disagree with me don't care about small businesses or the economy, I think that they think of it differently than I do and perhaps have a different risk assessment or are more privileged to be able to avoid economic activity person-to-person. But there are posters here who seemed otherwise kind and understanding who now have a very thinly veiled (or not veiled at all) rage towards anyone who disagrees as if that person might want to murder their fellow man.

That's not a serious question, that's a gotcha. It would be like me asking you how many people losing their businesses or livelihood is acceptable for you to cancel such an event. I will say that I don't live my life as if any cost to save just one life is worth any measure, but neither does anyone else. Ideally, Cat, if I could wave a magic wand and no one could would get sick or die of contagious illness ever again, I would do it and so would you. But the problem with the question is of course the classic trolley problem, except no one on your side of the argument wants to admit that when they push the lever to avoid people getting hit by the virus that there is anyone else on the other track and certainly it couldn't possibly be more people than they avoided on the virus track. It has become an argument of avoiding the virus at all costs, which ironically has come down to asking people like me what cost from the virus is an acceptable toll. As if, minus a vaccine with incredible efficacy, if we all just stay home, (an *incredibly privileged luxury* btw) there will be no death. It's not an acceptable risk to you to have Sturgis open because if it closes it has literally zero affect on you continuing to live in comfort. Not everyone is that privileged, most the people who make a living off of Sturgis. Oh also, nice! with the name calling. As if the protestors that everyone finds acceptable aren’t the exact same college kids partying together and living it up once they have all gathered and shouted in the streets. I would bet dollars to donuts that the spread between the two groups (idiots and protestors) is probably pretty close to the same.

That seems like a wise choice on the part of the administration. I'm not sure why, because of a majority of a town votes against something, that that makes them automatically in the right or is proof that not holding the rally wouldn't have devastated local business?

Well and that's why it can't be productive. If any discussion of a low attack rate (which should be good news) is a dismissal of very real pain and suffering incurred thus far (which is what I think you're saying above), then there is no reasonable discussion to be had about outdoor events, risks thereof, reasonable precautions, etc. There's no answer to an appeal to emotion and big numbers out of context of any other factors or tradeoffs. If one case is too many, if we are averting all deaths of this virus at any cost, that is magical thinking. It was magical thinking by probably February, if not sooner. Eradication is years away at this point. If we can agree on that, then the differences we have are about acceptable risk. And if the attack rate seen at Sturgis is unacceptable, then really almost nothing can be open at all, even outdoors and no one can travel for leisure because of the possibility of bringing something back. ETA: Not sure where you got that I was being sarcastic? I do feel like people think this genuinely.

I feel like this is an example of where this board is having two different conversations. That infection rate for that amount of people is amazingly low, and the economic impact of canceling Sturgis would have had far reaching implications for thousands of people who rely on that income for an entire year...think Black Friday sales. And yet, the latter isn't even considered and anything above zero cases is a catastrophe and any discussion is considered dismissing the lives lost. It's not in any way productive discourse. It can't be.

Our Walmart must be the exception? I don't even like going in during normal times, but pickup is 👌. When pandemic craziness hit it was hard to get stuff and time slots were cut, but since about beginning of May-ish I can get a time almost anytime or day, and almost everything is in stock all the time except cleaning wipes. I sometimes get something subbed but I've only had one truly weird item. If I order store brand or a small size they sub with brand name or bigger size if they have it at the same price. They are always friendly and almost always wear their masks properly.

I can imagine it, but the most common number I've heard for reopening stuff like this is 5% positivity (combined with other factors usually). So back to the topic of this thread, and something I asked about in the schools thread, was, are people expecting zero cases, and if the standard is percent positivity and downward trends in order to open up, then they have to be prepared to communicate to the public that when that happens, people will test positive and even a low level of spread can get out of control quickly. But a low level of positivity still can mean a lot of cases if your population is large enough of course.

I was responding to FuzzyCatz...didn't realize there were schools doing no testing at all. 😬

All the colleges I've seen opening are testing their populations quite a lot? Is it not happening a lot of places? And a school I happen to be familiar with specifically advertised their partnership with the local health system/hospital, I figured that wouldn't be uncommon but maybe? What I have seen failing is the students' willingness to not to do normal college student stuff.

Where I am looking at buying soon is a bit weird because sellers seem to be trying to capitalize on a tight market by pricing high, but those houses are definitely sitting until they go lower. On the other hand, stuff in a more reasonable range goes pending sale within 24 hrs. So it's definitely a seller's market, but not inflating prices too much just yet it seems.

I don't know any state that has had no leadership on this issue, although some has been quite bad, IMO. I would guess that would vary person to person based on what one thinks is a reasonable response and what isn't. I got information overload from the federal task force briefings, so I stopped watching for a bit, but the actual info was interesting and helpful to a point, I thought. And then when people started advocating for the executive branch to institute mask mandates or shutdowns nationwide I was hoping that wouldn't go to anyone's head about how much power they should/could have. But I did have to do quite a bit of digging to find out specific aspects of what the feds have actually done, so maybe I am just not watching enough news or it's not in my bubble of info?

I have, but it was on Twitter, never to be found again (I have tried!!).

Going through Foyle's War again on Acorn. Last time I watched it was in 2013? and I forgot how much I loved Christopher Foyle and Sam Stewart together.