be cool

In other news, coronavirus is now the leading cause of death in the United States.  Those stats don't sound like media hype to me. 

except, you cant really believe those numbers, as they are padding their stats. if they even think corona was any type of contributing factor, whether its secondary, tertiary, etc, it HAS to be labeled as primary cause of death, per the CDC.  So, dont believe a single "official" stat

Rawkfish... nobody said it was an enjoyable circle jerk...

 

In other news, coronavirus is now the leading cause of death in the United States.  Those stats don't sound like media hype to me. 

except, you cant really believe those numbers, as they are padding their stats. if they even think corona was any type of contributing factor, whether its secondary, tertiary, etc, it HAS to be labeled as primary cause of death, per the CDC.  So, dont believe a single "official" stat

I have a different view of the change made on April 14, which followed a normal epidemiology/scientific process.  Also, I have seen no evidence that the US was or is over counting cases, more likely actual cases were being under counted previously because an actual positive test for COVID-19 was required.  Certain politicians in DC may be suffering from a rectal cranial inversion but the scientists and experts continue to do their jobs well, including making good recommendations.

The change followed a position statement published by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to "create a standardized case definition for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) including asymptomatic infections caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and adds COVID-19 to the list of nationally notifiable conditions" because "Nationwide standardized surveillance is necessary to provide consistent case identification and classification, measure the potential burden of illness, characterize the epidemiology of medically attended and moderate to severe COVID-19 in the United States".

CDC now defines a confirmed as: "A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19.
CDC now defines a probable as:  A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19."

This table defines criteria for reporting which look quite rigorous to me (see notes at the bottom of the table).


Position statement:  https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf
CDC page with details of the change:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

" including making good recommendations"

The experts have whipsawed us back and forth to the point they've created credibility fatigue.

Not human transferable.
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG

— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) January 14, 2020

Masks.
“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit,” said Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program. “In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”

I get you're a big believer in the science of this.
Good to have those type of eyes on this mess.
I understand human behavior and the philosophy of "never let a crisis go to waste", another politician with a cranial rectal inversion by the way.
For every 10th person trying to do good and be good, there are 2 or 3 that will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate to avoid responsibility, cast blame, and consolidate power.
This applies to governments and NGOs of all types and sizes.

Cases and deaths are absolutely being undercounted.   

"New York City was among the first to provide data on at-home deaths. Officials said last week that roughly 200 residents were dying each day outside of hospitals and nursing homes. That’s compared with about 35 per day on average between 2013 and 2017, according to city records."

That's from an article that found similar trends in several other major cities as well.  The same thing happens in Wuhan.

 As far as that tweet from the WHO back in January goes, that was the very beginning when they were shooting in the dark, and as it clearly says they had no "evidence".  There is a standard for calling something "evidence" and it probably hadn't been met yet only a couple weeks after international healthcare community became involved. 

I feel the early guidance against the public wearing masks was a calculated lie.  The CDC knew better, but masks were already scarce and the supply chain couldn't even keep up with the increased demand for healthcare workers who need them worse than the general public.  They lied to lessen the run on the masks and other PPE.  Masks were mandatory in China from the beginning, and even when you account for their less than accurate statistics, they are doing better than us even though they have a much higher population density. 

I also don't get people gathering to protest the stay at home order.  It's so stupid.  "But it's my RIGHT" they say.  They forget that every right comes with a responsibility.  You have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you can walk into a crowded theatre and shout "fire".  You have 2nd amendment rights to firearms, but you know you can't head down to the local playground and start shooting targets next to the merry go around.  The same applies to peaceful protest.  You absolutely have the right to protest anything the government does or doesn't do, but it's your responsibility to do it in a way that doesn't endanger others.   Gathering into large crowds to protest during a deadly pandemic obviously is consistent with using that right responsibly.   

It's so stupid.  "But it's my RIGHT" they say.  They forget that every right comes with a responsibility.  You have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you can walk into a crowded theatre and shout "fire".

I love how this quote gets routinely misused.  It is from a court case that found that anti-war protests were akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" and the government was allowed to suppress the speech.  Courts have walked this one so far back that you are, indeed, allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater these days.

As for the heart of the protest matter - it's not stupid.  Some rights are worth fighting for and dying for.  It's stupid to think that people can go on for long with the government telling them that they are not essential and cannot make a living, and that they cannot even go catch their own food for dinner, but must rely on the government for everything.  Good luck with that.

It's so stupid.  "But it's my RIGHT" they say.  They forget that every right comes with a responsibility.  You have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you can walk into a crowded theatre and shout "fire".

I love how this quote gets routinely misused.  It is from a court case that found that anti-war protests were akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" and the government was allowed to suppress the speech.  Courts have walked this one so far back that you are, indeed, allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater these days.

If you want to be pedantic about the specific example provided, go for it.  However, the intended message is clear-eyed in my view.  If one wants to participate in a community, there are limits to personal rights. I can't go waive my junk at a classroom and claim "freedom of expression".

Additionally, here are some further pieces I'd like to submit for consideration in this discussion:

“Cities that implemented early and extensive non-pharmaceutical interventions (like physical distancing and forbidding large gatherings) suffered no adverse economic effects over the medium term. On the contrary, cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively experienced a relative increase in real economic activity after the pandemic subsided.

Altogether, our findings suggest that pandemics can have substantial economic costs, and non-pharmaceutical interventions can lead to both better economic outcomes and lower mortality rates.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacosta/2020/04/03/pandemic-economics-lessons-from-the-spanish-flu-in-1918/#22c3ce9b797a

And...

“We find no evidence that cities that acted more aggressively in public health terms performed worse in economic terms,” says Emil Verner, an assistant professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management and co-author of a new paper detailing the findings. “If anything, the cities that acted more aggressively performed better.”

http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-recovery-0401

Further, I'd like to add that I don't believe anyone here is excited about this shit sandwich we're eating right now. I don't want local businesses to die off.  I want kids to go back to school.  I'd rather not eat a shit sandwich. 

Additionally, it didn't have to be this way.  And it also doesn't have to continue to be this way now. Our communities could be reopened quickly if we implemented some things that other countries have done, such as a dramatic ramp up of testing and contact tracking, support for quarantine, increased production for hospital supplies, etc.  Some localities are trying to do this, but there's no large-scale coordination.

Rawkfish, we are talking about two different though related things. 

As for the Forbes article, the graph shows that the correlation is weak without giving a number.  And for Emil Verner, the MIT professor, the article at the end acknowledges:
                   "The structure of the economy is of course different,” Verner notes. However, he adds, “While one shouldn’t extrapolate too directly from history, we can learn some of the lessons that may be relevant to us today.” First among those lessons, he emphasizes: “Pandemic economics are different than normal economics.”

        I don't know anything about Verner other than looking at his web page for 3 minutes, but the paper, which has yet to be peer reviewed, doesn't say anything too outrageous.  I would just reiterate that the economies of 1918 and 2020 are vastly different, and that the diseases themselves are vastly different, to the point that extrapolating from 100 year old data to make life and death decisions about the economy today seems unconvincing.  What the article does not talk about is more troubling.  There is no mention of the negative public health effects of an economic depression.  There is no mention of the advance of medicine or public sanitation.  I am not convinced that the study is really worth all that much, although it does provide a data point and shouldn't be ignored.

What is at play in the protests is the affront to personal liberties.  Shelter in place, stay home, etc. have been overbroad intentionally with public health and politicians deciding that they would rather deal with the fallout from overreaction than deal with the fallout from a widespread pandemic that overwhelms hospital systems.  Well, this is that fallout.  They can't be surprised that this is what would happen.

Valid points, for sure.
We don't have a lot of major pandemics to look back on in order to seek meaningful information on what the best policy approach is when dealing with this kind of thing. So any examples are better than nothing IMO. The similarities between this event and 1918 are helpful even if a lot is different because human nature doesn't change. The recent pandemic threats aside from the current COVID-19 outbreak were all kept relatively under control so we don't have a lot of studies that tell us the best way to fight this. Like I said, some countries are handling this much better than others, so as far as economics go, we'll just have to wait and see what the best approach was.

I guess what I'm trying to drive home is that while this current stay-at-home, everything-is-closed, personal-liberty-infringing stuff sucks, the idea of simply reopening the economy, or the country, as things are right now, without some kind of infrastructure to fix the spread of the virus, seems beyond bat-shit crazy to me. So I'm providing studies and information from experts because I'm not one. This is in response to several comments made in this thread that, to me, implied that we should save the economy regardless of the fact that we have a virus outbreak on our hands that has spread through our country like wildfire and is killing an obscene amount of people at an exponential rate.

What is at play in the protests is the affront to personal liberties.  Shelter in place, stay home, etc. have been overbroad intentionally with public health and politicians deciding that they would rather deal with the fallout from overreaction than deal with the fallout from a widespread pandemic that overwhelms hospital systems.  Well, this is that fallout.  They can't be surprised that this is what would happen.

Completely agree. 
If we all look back on this and there is a feeling of "perhaps we were too heavy handed", then that's a win in my book.  It means that the virus didn't kill as many people as it could have.

I observed several out-of-state license plates on vehicles parked at various pullouts overlooking Moolack and Beverly beaches yesterday: Washington, Idaho, California. Seemed innocent enough, but who knows where they might’ve stopped before and after their beach time. At least when they’re on the beach, folks seem to be following the social distancing guidelines.

Angling pressure’s been light in the Newport area. A very few kayaks and sport boats observed over the last couple weeks, along with a couple charter boats taking out families for “subsistence fishing”. I think it’s pretty cool of the charters to do that. A recent survey of local Newport businesses found that roughly 30% of them do not plan on re-opening after restrictions are lifted.

I really wish we were talking about all of the lingcod and trout were we were catching, but these are the times.

A recent survey of local Newport businesses found that roughly 30% of them do not plan on re-opening after restrictions are lifted.

That makes me ill.  Well on it’s way to being a company town if that’s true.

A recent survey of local Newport businesses found that roughly 30% of them do not plan on re-opening after restrictions are lifted.

This sucks so bad.

I can't wait to head out to the coastal communities and spread around some money when we start easing back into some new normal.  A burger and beer at Fort George is pretty high on my list.

Here's a good read:
Astoria and Warrenton cope with coronavirus shutdown, as Oregon Coast braces for an uncertain future
https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2020/04/astoria-and-warrenton-cope-with-coronavirus-shutdown-as-oregon-coast-braces-for-an-uncertain-future.html