Red Mosquito

Self wrote:

B wrote:

wtf

Lots of weird pics there. I'd never seen a "don't tread on me" rainbow flag before.

I was more wtf'd over the fact that someone would put kids at risk. I know it's low for hem, but still.

Self wrote:I was more wtf'd over the fact that someone would put kids at risk. I know it's low for hem, but still.

Yea, i gotcha. F'n idiots.

Rob wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maybe we can open the country:

https://www.studyfinds.org/study-rate-o ... med-cases/

Not sure of the math, this implies that over 99% of the infected show no symptoms. This kinda thing could very well move public sentiment in Trumps favor.

99% showing no symptoms seems like a red flag.

We should wait for more data. (From the article):

While these findings have not yet been peer-reviewed, the study’s authors plan to continue testing more residents in the coming weeks to get a better idea of the coronavirus’ spread throughout Los Angeles.

Good point. Trump has never been known to cherry pick out-of-context data.

Self wrote:I was more wtf'd over the fact that someone would put kids at risk. I know it's low for hem, but still.

you really shouldn't be surprised..its like westboro

Rob wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maybe we can open the country:

https://www.studyfinds.org/study-rate-o ... med-cases/

Not sure of the math, this implies that over 99% of the infected show no symptoms. This kinda thing could very well move public sentiment in Trumps favor.

99% showing no symptoms seems like a red flag.

We should wait for more data. (From the article):

While these findings have not yet been peer-reviewed, the study’s authors plan to continue testing more residents in the coming weeks to get a better idea of the coronavirus’ spread throughout Los Angeles.

I'm trying to understand what this means;

To come to these conclusions, drive-thru antibody testing sites were set up at six locations across LA county on April 10th and 11th. Tested locals were gathered from a database that is representative of the county’s population.

So, their sample is derived from a drive-thru testing site? There has to be something I'm missing, because even if that's not set up as a diagnostic testing site (to check currently symptomatic people on whether they're infected), by definition that will attract people who believed they may have had the virus, which would result in a higher rate of antibodies. That seems like such a no-brainer that I'm assuming there has to be more to it.

Bi_3 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Maybe we can open the country:

https://www.studyfinds.org/study-rate-o ... med-cases/

Not sure of the math, this implies that over 99% of the infected show no symptoms. This kinda thing could very well move public sentiment in Trumps favor.

I worry about the testing being shit. Like people test positive for all kinds of stuff, not just COVID19. That would make the numbers difficult to interpret. Maybe even useless.

Everyone agrees that New York State has had the most robust testing thus far; if the rate of infection is truly 55x the number of confirmed cases, as the study implies, that would be approximately 13.8 million (NYS currently has a population of 19.4 million). In NYC, it's even greater; 55x the current number of positive cases is about 7.6 million (the city's at about 8.3 million). Even the low percentage the article offers would mean 3.9 million out of 8.3 million would have had the virus.

These numbers are again ballpark and hastily done, but I think it helps to give an idea on what that article is actually saying. Suggesting 7 out of 8 New York City residents already had the virus in a span of a few months seems unlikely.

Self wrote:

B wrote:

wtf

That kid's hair is fine.

digster wrote:Everyone agrees that New York State has had the most robust testing thus far; if the rate of infection is truly 55x the number of confirmed cases, as the study implies, that would be approximately 13.8 million (NYS currently has a population of 19.4 million). In NYC, it's even greater; 55x the current number of positive cases is about 7.6 million (the city's at about 8.3 million). Even the low percentage the article offers would mean 3.9 million out of 8.3 million would have had the virus.

These numbers are again ballpark and hastily done, but I think it helps to give an idea on what that article is actually saying. Suggesting 7 out of 8 New York City residents already had the virus in a span of a few months seems unlikely.

I don't think any of us doubt that the number of people who have had this is higher (more testing just finds higher numbers), but no way it's anything like those numbers.

I feel lucky to have the governor I do.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/georgia ... -says.html

Ned Lamont:

“I think the things that come later are the things that Georgia opened up first, which surprised me, those things that have very close personal contact,” Lamont, a Democrat, said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “Bars, restaurants where you’re closed in, probably even barbershops, nail salons, places where you have close personal contact, there I think we’d have to wait until we have a little more testing and more masks.”

Self wrote:

B wrote:

wtf

I know you clarified but this one stuck out to me more than that one.

40k people dead so far is no big deal if it's actually smaller percentage of the total infection rate than we think.

Rob wrote:I feel lucky to have the governor I do.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/georgia ... -says.html

Ned Lamont:

“I think the things that come later are the things that Georgia opened up first, which surprised me, those things that have very close personal contact,” Lamont, a Democrat, said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “Bars, restaurants where you’re closed in, probably even barbershops, nail salons, places where you have close personal contact, there I think we’d have to wait until we have a little more testing and more masks.”

If there is any benefit at all to living in the tri-state area right now, it's that the weight of the infection we've seen here I think (and hope) will make it pretty much impossible that anyone's going to bend to opening prematurely if it's unsafe.

bune wrote:

Self wrote:

B wrote:

wtf

I know you clarified but this one stuck out to me more than that one.

TOO SOON LONGER!!! BE SMART WIN!!!

cutuphalfdead wrote:40k people dead so far is no big deal if it's actually smaller percentage of the total infection rate than we think.

This guy gets it.

B wrote:

bune wrote:

Self wrote:

B wrote:

wtf

I know you clarified but this one stuck out to me more than that one.

TOO SOON LONGER!!! BE SMART WIN!!!

That’s the best protest sign ever made.

Simple Torture wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:40k people dead so far is no big deal if it's actually smaller percentage of the total infection rate than we think.

This guy gets it.

"Just tell me the facts, and then we'll get to your personal interpretation of the facts" --Andrew Cuomo

Haven't seen anyone minimizing anything.

edit : (In this sub-forum).

Rob wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:40k people dead so far is no big deal if it's actually smaller percentage of the total infection rate than we think.

This guy gets it.

"Just tell me the facts, and then we'll get to your personal interpretation of the facts" --Andrew Cuomo

Haven't seen anyone minimizing anything.

edit : (In this sub-forum).

(and I am sure chud was, too)