OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[Red8911]

Watch on YouTube

[Chi town]

The medical care for undocumented immigrants is a worthy one to have with lots of layers. I have friends that are the very people in need right now and are sick and won’t leave their house for care in fear of getting Covid or getting less care than a citizen would.

Dresden, what are your thoughts on the homeless situation here in our backyard that is growing quickly in the tenderloin? Hotels? Free drugs? 3 meals per day delivered? I serve with a local non profit in the tenderloin. It’s quite a scene.

I don't know how to measure the homeless population and whether it's gotten worse during the pandemic. I know I did see a line of about 8 tents in a row on a sidewalk by the DMV the other day. But I don't know if there are more homeless or they are just not getting rousted as much during the pandemic. I read that they are being housed in empty hotels, but obviously not all of them are. I honestly don't know how to solve the homeless problem. That population has so many needs and I"m not real familiar with what is being done, and what's working and what's not. It's horrible to see human beings living like animals on the streets though.

1. Hundreds are being housed in hotels with 3 meals per day.

2. Free alcohol and drugs are being delivered and given to them in the hotels and on the streets.

3. The tenderloin homeless population has exploded. 300% increase.

4. Over 80% of SF homeless people have mental illness.

5. Child homelessness has grown a lot over the past 3 years.

It’s sad. Money and free drugs isn’t solving the problem.

[PlayerUp]

Did you ever hear of a president talking about a network as his own personal mouthpiece the way Trump talks about Fox? Did Obama or Clinton only talk to CNN or MSNBC? The fact that Trump feels so comfortable talking with the Fox anchors reflects just how uncritical they are towards anything he does. Obama and Clinton never got that sort of one sided coverage from CNN or MSNBC.

It's been almost 4 years now with Trump. You should already be used to how he acts by now and mute to what he says.

He isn't a standard politician which so many are used to having, he's a bully/jerk which is why so many people dislike him but at the same time it's also why people like him.

[Red8911]

Here's a good example of how biased Fox News is

Of course Fox News is biased towards the president. They are for the most part conservative with the exception of a couple more moderate leaning democratic anchors on there. The same argument is said about CNN/MSNBC which is completely anti Trump.

Those still debating if a news channel is biased or not for or against the president is delusional these days. It's crystal clear the news agencies and what party they represent.

Exactly it’s crazy that they don’t admit it, they actually think CNN and MSNBC are unbiased. Both of those networks are the same as Fox News just on opposite sides.

One example, their media is more concerned about President Trump taking Hydroxychloroquine than Vice President Biden assaulting a former staffer.

That tells you everything you need to know about these networks and the “journalists” that work for them.

[PlayerUp]

CNN is only "completely anti-trump" to the degree that the facts are completely anti-trump. he lies constantly, they report it. there simply isn't any way around it. his behavior is unprecedented

I think everyone knows this by now? It's nothing new. Trump talks a alot, can't control himself so he gets caught up saying BS in the process as he rambles on. No denying Obama was well spoken but I'm pretty mute to what any politician says at this point. I'm very anti federal government, I believe all of them are corrupt manipulating their voters with hidden agendas and pleasing the people who paid to get them into office which is why I support no party.

The US so badly needs more than a 2 party system and this years 2020 election is yet another example why we need just that.

[Dresden]

Great article on how good a job Florida's governor has done to limit the impact of the virus without enforcing draconian lockdown measures:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-crisis-ron-desantis-florida-covid-19-strategy/

Funny that his popularity numbers have gone down, while the popularity numbers of Governor Cuomo (NY) have gone up, despite his handling of the pandemic being an unmitigated disaster.

Just shows how powerful the media still is today and how gullible so many people are.

I don't know if Cuomo has been a disaster, but he has gotten a lot of praise, esp. vis a vis California and specifically San Francisco, which was one the first cities to lockdown, and has come out of this, so far, with a very low rate of infection.

I'll say one thing for Cuomo- at least he gets up in front of the microphones everyday and answers questions and gives people information and talks sensibly, unless our president, who comes off like a buffoon.

[PlayerUp]

Great article on how good a job Florida's governor has done to limit the impact of the virus without enforcing draconian lockdown measures:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-crisis-ron-desantis-florida-covid-19-strategy/

Funny that his popularity numbers have gone down, while the popularity numbers of Governor Cuomo (NY) have gone up, despite his handling of the pandemic being an unmitigated disaster.

Just shows how powerful the media still is today and how gullible so many people are.

I don't know if Cuomo has been a disaster, but he has gotten a lot of praise, esp. vis a vis California and specifically San Francisco, which was one the first cities to lockdown, and has come out of this, so far, with a very low rate of infection.

I'll say one thing for Cuomo- at least he gets up in front of the microphones everyday and answers questions and gives people information and talks sensibly, unless our president, who comes off like a buffoon.

Florida in general is a well managed state compared to others. Manageable debt, tons of upside, mixed cultures, no state income tax, moderate in general and plenty of money from tourism. They also have the 4th largest economy among all 50 states and the 17th largest economy globally if they were a standalone country.

[Ccwatercraft]

Great article on how good a job Florida's governor has done to limit the impact of the virus without enforcing draconian lockdown measures:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/coronavirus-crisis-ron-desantis-florida-covid-19-strategy/

Funny that his popularity numbers have gone down, while the popularity numbers of Governor Cuomo (NY) have gone up, despite his handling of the pandemic being an unmitigated disaster.

Just shows how powerful the media still is today and how gullible so many people are.

I don't know if Cuomo has been a disaster, but he has gotten a lot of praise, esp. vis a vis California and specifically San Francisco, which was one the first cities to lockdown, and has come out of this, so far, with a very low rate of infection.

I'll say one thing for Cuomo- at least he gets up in front of the microphones everyday and answers questions and gives people information and talks sensibly, unless our president, who comes off like a buffoon.

Florida in general is a well managed state compared to others. Manageable debt, tons of upside, mixed cultures, no state income tax, moderate in general and plenty of money from tourism. They also have the 4th largest economy among all 50 states and the 17th largest economy globally if they were a standalone country.

DeSantis has had a target on his back since he won the 2018 election, actually it started during the campaign, then they ramped it back up over the cruise ship situation, the Unemployment website and pretty much anything else they can dream up. Overall he's done a pretty darn good job. I'm very thankful that he's in charge and not his opponent from 2018 who was entering rehab last time I checked.

[moorhosj]

One can also be "caring" without believing that the needs of prisoners, or a "functioning" prison system, trump individual freedom (of what to do with what would be tax dollars).

Again, you are fighting a claim nobody made. You can't defend your positions without going to the absolute extreme end which nobody is advocating. The point is that any system where we rehabilitate people who have committed crimes requires (by definition) being funded by people who may have never personally committed crimes. Civilized society involves compromises between individual freedom and socialism (OH NO!). Traffic lights, the military, and roads are things we have generally socialized. Property rights, gun rights, and labor rights are things we have generally favored individual freedoms.

My point is that characterizing an enormous group of people as not caring because you have their religious beliefs figured out as hypocritical for them is a non starter. Good luck convincing them to modify their outlook while you're calling them immoral people. That's sure to be effective.

Not sure if you confused me with someone else, but I didn't do/say any of these things. No need to talk down to people.

[League Circles]

One can also be "caring" without believing that the needs of prisoners, or a "functioning" prison system, trump individual freedom (of what to do with what would be tax dollars).

Again, you are fighting a claim nobody made. You can't defend your positions without going to the absolute extreme end which nobody is advocating. The point is that any system where we rehabilitate people who have committed crimes requires (by definition) being funded by people who may have never personally committed crimes. Civilized society involves compromises between individual freedom and socialism (OH NO!). Traffic lights, the military, and roads are things we have generally socialized. Property rights, gun rights, and labor rights are things we have generally favored individual freedoms.

My point is that characterizing an enormous group of people as not caring because you have their religious beliefs figured out as hypocritical for them is a non starter. Good luck convincing them to modify their outlook while you're calling them immoral people. That's sure to be effective.

Not sure if you confused me with someone else, but I didn't do/say any of these things. No need to talk down to people.

This started because Dresden suggested that it was hypocritical for christian people to not support free healthcare for illegal immigrants. I believe you replied to my reply to him and it went from there. I'm not sure you've been aware of the context of my comments that you've been replying to in this line of discussion.

I haven't argued for or against free healthcare for illegal immigrants. I suggested that it's counterproductive to suggest that those who oppose it are religiously hypocritical because "we call ourselves a christian nation" (his words) and because (paraphrasing) "the bible says help your brother so that must mean you also have to support forcing others by law to help their brothers."

It's not an important issue to me either way. I just try to get partisan people to correctly identify and respect the values of those on the other side, simply because in this sociopolitical climate, I think it's a pre-requisite for meaningful change on complex, divisive issues. I thought he was going beyond what was needed to advocate for his position.

But just to briefly address your specific points here, not everyone believes in the rehabilitation component of the prison system. A lot of people in this country, deep in their hearts, are a lot closer to anarchists than they realize IMO. At least at the federal level. So just because you point out that we've socialized certain things in this country, which of course we have (and medical care is significantly, but not fully socialized here), that doesn't really mean anything in this context. I'm describing the perspective of a lot of people, not the current law.

I don't think belief that socialized services should be limited to people with legal status is really that big of a moral issue, so I disagree with Dresden. Everything has limits, often somewhat arbitrary. If morality required that we provide free medical care to illegal immigrants, why not to tourists? It's not like there is a surplus of health care professionals in this country (that I'm aware of, I could be wrong).

[moorhosj]

It's not an important issue to me either way. I just try to get partisan people to correctly identify and respect the values of those on the other side, simply because in this sociopolitical climate, I think it's a pre-requisite for meaningful change on complex, divisive issues. I thought he was going beyond what was needed to advocate for his position.

I think you could learn a lot from yourself.

But just to briefly address your specific points here, not everyone believes in the rehabilitation component of the prison system. A lot of people in this country, deep in their hearts, are a lot closer to anarchists than they realize IMO. At least at the federal level. So just because you point out that we've socialized certain things in this country, which of course we have (and medical care is significantly, but not fully socialized here), that doesn't really mean anything in this context. I'm describing the perspective of a lot of people, not the current law.

This doesn't really say anything, though. There are "a lot of people" who believe in Bigfoot or that the Moon Landing was faked. Bringing it up is just a way to ignore the actual argument. If we can be arguing whether "a lot" of people think something, then we won't be focusing on your claim that we can have a functioning society without contributors subsidizing non-contributors. You refuse to concede that point for whatever reason.

Hell, look at our healthcare system today. We have taken every vulnerable population out of the market (read: Medicare for older people, Medicaid for poor people, CHIP for children, VA for Veterans) and socialized their healthcare. Meanwhile, we funnel everyone else (read: healthy, working age population) into the private healthcare system. It's just another example of our failed system unable to decide between freedom and socialization and instead getting the worst of both worlds. An expensive, private system for wage-earners who finance a free, public system for the most vulnerable populations.

[League Circles]

It's not an important issue to me either way. I just try to get partisan people to correctly identify and respect the values of those on the other side, simply because in this sociopolitical climate, I think it's a pre-requisite for meaningful change on complex, divisive issues. I thought he was going beyond what was needed to advocate for his position.

I think you could learn a lot from yourself.

What exactly is it that you think I'm advocating? What values have I failed to identify among those who oppose whatever you think I'm advocating?

But just to briefly address your specific points here, not everyone believes in the rehabilitation component of the prison system. A lot of people in this country, deep in their hearts, are a lot closer to anarchists than they realize IMO. At least at the federal level. So just because you point out that we've socialized certain things in this country, which of course we have (and medical care is significantly, but not fully socialized here), that doesn't really mean anything in this context. I'm describing the perspective of a lot of people, not the current law.

This doesn't really say anything, though. There are "a lot of people" who believe in Bigfoot or that the Moon Landing was faked. Bringing it up is just a way to ignore the actual argument. If we can be arguing whether "a lot" of people think something, then we won't be focusing on your claim that we can have a functioning society without contributors subsidizing non-contributors. You refuse to concede that point for whatever reason.

Hell, look at our healthcare system today. We have taken every vulnerable population out of the market (read: Medicare for older people, Medicaid for poor people, CHIP for children, VA for Veterans) and socialized their healthcare. Meanwhile, we funnel everyone else (read: healthy, working age population) into the private healthcare system. It's just another example of our failed system unable to decide between freedom and socialization and instead getting the worst of both worlds. An expensive, private system for wage-earners who finance a free, public system for the most vulnerable populations.

If you think "the argument" is whether or not to provide free health care to illegal immigrants, you haven't been reading closely. I've expressed no position on it, and been explicit that it's not an important issue to me. I just think that, for those who do believe it's an important issue (on both sides), they will be able to come to agreements much more quickly if they don't jump to an accusation of immorality or religious hypocrisy.

I'm not refusing to concede any point. I'm not claiming that we can have a "functioning" society (as if that's a binary thing) without contributors subsidizing non contributors. I'm saying that what someone like you may view as a functioning society may not be valued as highly as others for a wide variety of reasons, and not all of those people who identify as christians are being hypocritical in their hierarchy of values, so it's counterproductive to label them as such.

I agree with your critique of our system. I want it changed radically, though I'm open to a wide variety of changes.

It's worth noting that most illegal immigrants are among the "healthy, working age" population for whom we have not socialized medical care.

[_txchilibowl_]

When Florida becomes the new New York we'll see how well everyone thinks DeSantis is doing....

[Ccwatercraft]

When Florida becomes the new New York we'll see how well everyone thinks DeSantis is doing....

If NY is going to be the baseline, as soon as he figures out how to kill off 26,000 more residents we will see his popularity soar!

[_txchilibowl_]

When Florida becomes the new New York we'll see how well everyone thinks DeSantis is doing....

If NY is going to be the baseline, as soon as he figures out how to kill off 26,000 more residents we will see his popularity soar!

Except, y'know, Cuomo had this dumped in his lap and DeSantis is practically inviting it. Other than that...spot on observation.

[molepharmer]

An article about superspreaders and clusters of Covid-19. Describes a "dispersion" factor comparing various outbreaks (SARS, MERS, Ebola, etc) with Covid-19; suggests Covid-19 more likely spreads through the clusters.

“Probably about 10% of cases lead to 80% of the spread,” Kucharski says.

...Researchers in China studying the spread of the coronavirus outside Hubei province—ground zero for the pandemic—identified 318 clusters of three or more cases between 4 January and 11 February, only one of which originated outdoors. A study in Japan found that the risk of infection indoors is almost 19 times higher than outdoors....

Why do some COVID-19 patients infect many others, whereas most don’t spread the virus at all?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/why-do-some-covid-19-patients-infect-many-others-whereas-most-don-t-spread-virus-all?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=0f2156291a-briefing-dy-20200520&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-0f2156291a-45255538

[moorhosj]

When Florida becomes the new New York we'll see how well everyone thinks DeSantis is doing....

If NY is going to be the baseline, as soon as he figures out how to kill off 26,000 more residents we will see his popularity soar!

No need to worry, just erase the data!!

Jones also told CBS12 in Tallahassee on Monday that she refused to “manually change data to drum up support for the plan to reopen” the state.

That day, according to the Miami Herald, reporters contacted the department to ask about the “EventDate” field of data, which showed when people first reported coronavirus symptoms or positive test results. Some people had listed dates as early as January 1, indicating people reported symptomatic or tested positive much earlier than when cases were confirmed in March. It is unclear when the state learned about those cases, or when the people were tested.

Sometime that day, the column vanished from the “Person Cases” data, which lists anonymized records for every confirmed case in Florida. The Palm Beach Post reported the disappearance the next day, May 5.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/05/19/florida-health-department-officials-told-manager-to-delete-coronavirus-data-before-reassigning-her-emails-show/

[Dresden]

Here's a good example of how biased Fox News is

Of course Fox News is biased towards the president. They are for the most part conservative with the exception of a couple more moderate leaning democratic anchors on there. The same argument is said about CNN/MSNBC which is completely anti Trump.

Those still debating if a news channel is biased or not for or against the president is delusional these days. It's crystal clear the news agencies and what party they represent.

Exactly it’s crazy that they don’t admit it, they actually think CNN and MSNBC are unbiased. Both of those networks are the same as Fox News just on opposite sides.

One example, their media is more concerned about President Trump taking Hydroxychloroquine than Vice President Biden assaulting a former staffer.

That tells you everything you need to know about these networks and the “journalists” that work for them.

A). there has been widespread coverage of Biden's sexual assault allegation. Easily 10x the amount of air time than that given to Trump's use of hydroxy, which has just popped up in the news a day or two ago. So that claim is completely bogus.

B) No one is claiming MSNBC or CNN are unbiased. Or very few.

C). However, that is not to say they are the same. There is having a slant, and then there is Fox, which is on a whole other scale biases. Fox, unlike the other two, often puts out information that is an outright lie, or something that has been thoroughly debunked (such as that Corona is no more than a democratic hoax), with no regard whatsoever for facts or proof. That's the big difference. CNN or MSNBA might be the Houston Astros or NE Patriots- they might bend the rules to the breaking point at times, Fox is WWF- not even to be confused with real sport.

[Dresden]

New study on prevalence of infection in LA country, which shows LA County has about 2/3's of the number of infections as there are "confirmed cases" in the whole country:

Results adjusted in large-scale Los Angeles County COVID-19 antibody study

By Eric Ting, SF Gate

Researchers behind a large-scale COVID-19 antibody study conducted in Los Angeles County in April have provided more specific estimates for county-wide antibody prevalence in a revised version of the study published in the Journal for American Medicine earlier this week.

The study was conducted by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health on April 10-11 and, unlike a similar study conducted in Santa Clara County where participants were recruited via Facebook ads, the participants in the Los Angeles County study were recruited by market services firm LRW Group, which used a large proprietary database to create a random sample of the county population.


Of the 863 individuals tested in early April, 4.1 percent were found to have COVID-19 antibodies. When adjusting for statistical margin of error, researches originally estimated that 2.8 percent to 5.6 percent of the county's adult population has already been infected, which translates to 221,000 to 442,000 people. In the new updated JAMA version, researchers settle on a more precise prevalence figure of 4.65 percent, or 360,000 residents infected by early April. For reference, there were nearly 8,000 confirmed cases when the study was conducted.

"The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases is a poor proxy for the extent of infection in the community,” said lead investigator Neeraj Sood, professor at the USC Price School for Public Policy and senior fellow at the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. “We need to update models and forecasts based on new evidence. We’re still far away from herd immunity or the end of the epidemic. We need to look at a longer time horizon when evaluating policy decisions.”

The Stanford researchers behind the Santa Clara study recently adjusted their own findings to estimate that 2.8 percent of the county had been infected in early April, which translates to 54,000 actual infections compared to just 1,000 confirmed cases. The researchers use a 19-day lag from infection to death, and when using the 94 deaths in the county reported on April 22, are able calculate a "true infection fatality rate" of .17 percent.

However, the Santa Clara study's weighting system and methodology have been criticized by other scientists. Immediately after the initial version of the study was released, Dr. George Rutherford, an epidemiologist at UCSF, expressed skepticism of the study's weights and suggested that people should look at the raw antibody prevalence percentage of 1.5 percent. An unweighted antibody prevalence of 1.5 percent translates to a total of 28,920 residents in the county that had been infected, a figure that can be used to calculate an infection fatality rate of .33 percent — a figure almost identical to the infection fatality rate calculated following antibody tests in a hard-hit German town.

The authors of the Los Angeles study did not calculate a "true fatality rate," but when using the same 19-day infection-to-death lag the Stanford researchers used in their study, one can calculate an infection fatality rate of .31 percent in Los Angeles County when using the 1,148 total deaths recorded on April 29. That figure is almost perfectly in-line with the unweighted Santa Clara figures as well as the German town estimations. After large-scale antibody testing in New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo hypothesized the true infection fatality rate in his state was around .5 percent.

[Dresden]

So the undercount by that study is just less than 40 to 1, and the fatality rate is .31 %, or about 3 times more deadly than the flu. But still only about 5% infection rate, no where near herd immunity, which needs to be about 50% of the population.