Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

gainesville, you are not getting our games.....

 

VA says it won't stop use of unproven drug on vets for now

 

Nigerian cyber-criminals are making millions getting unemployment checks from several states, including Florida.

A Nigerian crime ring siphoned millions of dollars from US unemployment programs amid COVID-19 shutdowns, officials say

 

I am going to post this in the treatment, vaccines thread.

 

In other news that is difficult to believe, Mr. Rogers is now part of a gang that uses a Watermelon-head disguise to steal alcohol from convenience stores. Obviously, this coronavirus has been extremely hard on him, and it's likely that his neighborhood has gone downhill since he went off the air.

Two men caught stealing from convenience store with watermelons on their heads

Holy Sheetz, Batman!

No word yet on whether Mr. Rogers faked his own death in 2003 and waited 17 years before going on this crime spree, which has obviously been planned for a long, long time (including the clever change of his first name). Captain Kangaroo did not have any comment on the situation, and the police have not confirmed that he is the second suspect.

 

Good news, testing up, percentage down.

 

I mean, as testing rises, percentage falls, unless you are arguing that testing has been random or misallocated. Neither is a perfect measure of disease spread, which is why we need random testing.

 

does not random testing imply you just go up to someone and test them, even if they do not want to be tested, not quite sure that, unlike random drug testing for sports and employement would be legal, cannot, imo, make someone concent if they do not want to.

 

I Mean 95% of people tested tested negative. Sounds positive to me but I figured some would find a negative. Not surprising at all.

 

It would mean testing random people. Consent could bias somewhat, but probably not enough to make a huge difference in the results, as I dont know if those that wouldn't consent would be systematically be more or less likely to have the virus. As a time series tool, where we look at the overall prevalence of the virus, all of this would almost certainly not be important, as I doubt week by week you would see changes in the populations that would and wouldn't consent.

 

I'm sorry for bringing up math. *Shrug*

 

I brought the math to the post. You just came to bring the doom and gloom, again. Way to be consistent.

 

Heretic!!!!

 

No, you brought in an improper interpretation of numbers. That isn't math.

It wasn't even your interpretation that was wrong, but rather Clay Travis'. Travis is right that higher testing is likely related to a higher proportion of cases being caught, meaning that higher total case counts might not indicate disease spread. However, he then went one step too far, to claim that the metric of percentage of positive cases is the only one that matters when it is vulnerable to basically the same issue due to the strategic allocation of the expanding testing.

 

you could be right, you could be wrong.

 

no, I showed that of all the people who thought they might have Covid 19 just over 5% had it. Great numbers, but you keep being Dr Doom.

 

The problem with wishcasting is that many people who utilize it as a strategy tend to not understand that other people aren't trying to wishcast to their preferred numbers and are simply looking for accuracy in interpretation. As I pointed out, Travis could have stopped at a positive number, but he chose to take it one step further into something that isn't supportable.

 

No, I quoted Dr Gottlieb’s chart. There is no wishcradting going on. Only you being obtuse. Look at the numbers or don’t bother responding. Testing up, percentage positive down. 2 FACTS.

 

You have a really bad habit of insulting people who disagree with you. You are comparing testing from a time when people could get tested only when they were sick and had either traveled or showed they they were exposed to someone who tested positive. Sick people weren’t getting tested. Now they are. Some will not have COVID. Because the testing criteria has changed, we have a confounding factor that has to be taken into account in concluding that the reason the percentage is lower is reduced spread. In some areas, that is true because of the shutdowns. In other areas, not necessarily. Under the earlier criteria, you were going to get a higher percentage of positive tests and they is why they had the criteria they did; to maximize testing to those who needed it the most. Personal insults are the weakest form of argument, because they do not address the argument made at all. Needless to say, they are particularly embarrassing when the conclusion you are arguing or unwarranted.