Here's a useful website, listing 4-year colleges and what they say their plans are for next year:
@Chico Escuela posted:Pedaldad, if you aren't exaggerating when you say the medical professionals you know are split on C-19 according to their political leanings, then that's the most frightening thing I have heard in a while. Although maybe more frightening than surprising...
Dismissing Fauci. et al. as "politicians" just isn't reasonable though. For one, anybody in public health administration is going to be involved in politics. If that disqualifies them, then by definition you aren't going to listen to anyone in a position to directly affect relevant policies. More importantly, I looked up Fauci's C.V. He publishes regularly, although many of those articles admittedly aren't research. It looks to me like he has a medical patent and a research paper at least as recently as 2015, and a long list preceding that. I'm not going to take the time to look up Birx and Redfield, but I expect their records look similar. So let's agree Fauci isn't a contender for a Nobel. To dismiss him and others as "politicians that also happen to have been physicians at one time" seems mighty unreasonable.
Folks in my neck of the woods are clearly tired of staying home and are starting to congregate in parks, etc. in ways that violate the relevant orders, which end May 8. The good news is that we're going to have a lot of new data by the time the fall semester begins. I am still convinced social distancing is going to be largely ineffective on a residential college campus (no matter what rules schools try to put in place), so I hope students will be able to return to something close to normal life by late August.
Like I said, politicians. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with research, but Fauci hasn't produced anything but opinion papers in over
...2 decades! No peer reviewed research.
@LuckyCat posted:I don't think we can know from comparing Georgia and Ohio right now whether "lockdowns" work or don't work because of the differences between the two states that you mention (and probably others). Perhaps Georgia's numbers would have been astronomically higher if metropolitan Atlanta hadn't effectively shut down as it did, even before Governor Kemp's shelter in place order.
Georgia's overall numbers have plateaued (for the moment), but they haven't started falling yet. There is a lag in the reporting on the Department of Public Health's website by as much as a week, so data within the last week isn't final yet. I suspect as metro Atlanta starts to get a handle on things (at least in the short term), any decreases there are being offset by increases in the surrounding rural areas. Plenty of poultry plant communities all over Georgia that could still be (perhaps already are being) affected by this. Hall County seems to be hit pretty hard, for example.
You are misunderstanding the data. GA is testing at a rate on May 1 at more than double April 10th, OH has increased about the same. The two states testing rates, well OH ranks 48th at only 13k tests per million and GA ranks 23rd at nearly 20k tests per million population. The total number of positives is going down in both. But it is going down quicker in GA. So what does this mean? It means GA's test positive rate (and OH's, and the rest of the country thank God) on May 1(1 week after the GA reopen) is less than half of what is was April 10 (1 week after the state stay-at-home orders). Numbers are not flat, they are steadily decreasing, and it is not too early to say wether lockdowns had significant influence, as we have the data. The lag you reference in reporting only accounts for a very numbers.
Attachments
Images (2)
@Pedaldad posted:...2 decades! No peer reviewed research.
Like these two from 2014?:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892810
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25419708
@Chico Escuela posted:Like these two from 2014?:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892810
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25419708
Please don't try to educate me on Peer Reviewed Research. Do you know why his name appears last in these citations? I do. Names appear in order of contribution to the research. When someone of Dr. Fauci's status and your name appears as number 22 out of 23 on a peer reviewed article, in academic circles we know how this happens. You got a chance to review the article before publication and are told, " we will attach your name to this if you could review it first." If he was at all involved in research, his name would be fat the very top.
I understand why you see it this way, but the facts are as follow: he hasn't seen a patient in over two decades, hasn't produced any of his own research in over two decades, and has a career full of self-promotion.
Meanwhile some of our country's most respected physician researchers with differing interpretations, better data, significant contributions to research on infectious disease( Ioannidis and Bhattacharya at Stanford who are doing great work)are being shoved aside despite much more valid data not compromised by their desire for status or recognition.
@Pedaldad posted:Please don't try to educate me on Peer Reviewed Research. Do you know why his name appears last in these citations? I do. Names appear in order of contribution to the research. When someone of Dr. Fauci's status and your name appears as number 22 out of 23 on a peer reviewed article, in academic circles we know how this happens. You got a chance to review the article before publication and are told, " we will attach your name to this if you could review it first." If he was at all involved in research, his name would be fat the very top.
I understand why you see it this way, but the facts are as follow: he hasn't seen a patient in over two decades, hasn't produced any of his own research in over two decades, and has a career full of self-promotion.
Meanwhile some of our country's most respected physician researchers with differing interpretations, better data, significant contributions to research on infectious disease( Ioannidis and Bhattacharya at Stanford who are doing great work)are being shoved aside despite much more valid data not compromised by their desire for status or recognition.
You are moving the goalposts. Your contention was "no peer-reviewed research in 20 years." Now you want to talk about where his name appears (and yes, I'm familiar with the convention).
You want to disagree with Fauci? Cool, tell me what you think. You want to argue he is basing his decisions on politics, not science? I'm willing to listen to what you have to say about that. You want to try to tell me Fauci is not an authority in this field? Sorry, but you are pissing on my shoes and trying to tell me it's raining. You simply cannot expect me to take that contention seriously.
This is a silly argument. Yes, Fauci's name is last on those articles; that means he wasn't much involved in the research, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't know what it was about, or that he doesn't understand scientific data. Pedaldad, you yourself said in an earlier post that doctors' ideas about what should be done in this crisis depended on their political leanings; that means that every doctor is "political". And yes, they are, of course; "political" means that they have differing approaches and philosophies to risk and benefit. You can cite Ioannidis and Bhattacharya (who, I would note, are the last authors on many articles, such as the Santa Clara antibody one), and others can cite Bergstrom and Lipsitch. Epidemiologists don't agree. They are all "political." Anyone who works in government has to be "political" in a different sense, namely to be aware of the meaning of data and interpretation to policies that the government either will or will not support because of their broad social and economic implications. So calling Fauci "political" is simply stating a fact.
I think back to all the discussions on this site of "politics" in baseball... Some pretty heated discussions about whether that exists or not.
@Viking0 posted:@TPM, I am sorry for the harsh language sent your way, since you and Chico both always have thoughtful posts even if I often disagree with them. However, I do not personally think how close we stay at home will increase the chances that things will be able to restart in the Fall. What staying at home does is decrease the rate of infection. In this country, it seems that people will not do the extreme measures that would truly decrease the infections to such a small degree that it can be managed with the schemes that work in some countries. My opinion is that the cases will probably just stay steady with only modest differences due to government policy. Nobody will do Mardi Gras, a huge parade, or have a stadium full of people, but stay at home orders are really no longer being followed as they are.
For others that want to see a community with a real curve, just google "New Orleans coronavirus cases" and see what happened there. There was a major peak in new cases April 2 that quickly shrunk, and now the case rate is fairly steady. That was probably due to a combination of Mardi Gras earlier, and then the ramping of testing.
Thank you.
I sometimes don't get my point across, I don't want anyone to think I have been hiding in the corner. I live in Florida, it's rained 2 maybe 3 days in 6 weeks. I am out quite a bit, walking, hanging with neighbors, 6 feet apart, see both kids once a week, can't have them come inside, son goes to office, my daughter has two teenagers. Now some of our facilities are open, parks, golf courses, no beaches yet, no casinos, no gyms, no malls, no restaurants, but most have done a bang up business in take out. We dont cook here in Florida. Grocery stores, home depot, Loews, drugstores, Wal-Mart, etc. never closed. Stores figured out a way for you to buy online and pick up at the door. No barbers, no nail or hair salons, no massage envy. There has been a lot of the personal service stuff going on for weeks.
Stay at home orders were followed as best as anyone could, here in South Florida. We got hit hard and fast. It was bad. No one really wanted to go out. It was scary. Through all of this we have not lost anyone close, I have one friend that had the virus. Her entire family. You don't want it. Her teenage daughter had the toughest time, still hasn't bounced back. Yes our older population really suffered from this virus.
But I stand by what I said. Have you all read about the college baseball games to be played in Texas? Did you read what precautions are being taken to protect the players? For those planning to send your boys out to play summer ball, or tournaments, what precautions are they taking? If you are sending your players to tournaments for recruiting, will coaches be out watching you?
Ok, anyone who wants to be nasty, go ahead. All I know is that I care about the players, I care about the coaches. I care about people getting back to work.
I have not heard, other than in a pm, anyone say that they needed to get to work. If your working from home or your employer is covering your salary, that's great, it's not that easy for many people.
Done.
@Pedaldad As the AJC reported two days ago, the CDC's own report to the White House says the numbers in Georgia have plateaued at a high level.
"In Georgia, the CDC said, metro Atlanta and other populous regions of the state are among the areas “whose burden continues to grow,” or that, at best, have seen new diagnoses level off at a high plateau."
It looks like this...
@Go44dad posted:It looks like this...
LMAO....luv the final call!
@Go44dad posted:It looks like this...
That's a classic. I sent it to everyone and posted on FB page.
We all need a good laugh these days.
Go44, Love this!
@Chico Escuela posted:You are moving the goalposts. Your contention was "no peer-reviewed research in 20 years." Now you want to talk about where his name appears (and yes, I'm familiar with the convention).
You want to disagree with Fauci? Cool, tell me what you think. You want to argue he is basing his decisions on politics, not science? I'm willing to listen to what you have to say about that. You want to try to tell me Fauci is not an authority in this field? Sorry, but you are pissing on my shoes and trying to tell me it's raining. You simply cannot expect me to take that contention seriously.Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.
Sure ... Dr. Fauci has served as the director since NIAID in 1984, has been on the front lines in diagnosing and understanding all worldwide infectious diseases in this country for thirty years, including overseeing the research that led to the effective clinical treatments for HIV/AIDS that essentially ended it as a fatal diagnosis, as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika, and overseeing and supporting researchers in academic centers across this country with an annual budget of $5.9 billion and is widely recognized for delineating the precise ways that immunosuppressive agents modulate the human immune response.
Sure ... Dr. Fauci's praises have been sung publicly and repeatedly by every president in this country going back to Reagan, hailed as our national leader in public health and infectious disease by his peers and colleagues across the world, has advised six presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues, was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and helped pioneer the field of human immunoregulation by making important basic scientific observations that underpin the current understanding of the regulation of the human immune response.
Sure ... Dr. Fauci ranked as the 41st most highly cited researcher of all time in a 2019 analysis of Google Scholar citations and ranked 8th out of more than 2.2 million authors in the field of immunology by total citation count between 1980 and January 2019.
Sure ... Dr. Fauci has delivered major lectures all over the world and is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest honor given to a civilian by the President of the United States), the National Medal of Science, the George M. Kober Medal of the Association of American Physicians, the Mary Woodard Lasker Award for Public Service, the Albany Medical Center Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research, the Robert Koch Gold Medal, the Prince Mahidol Award, and the Canada Gairdner Global Health Award. He also has received 45 honorary doctoral degrees from universities in the United States and abroad.
Sure ... all so impressive. Yada yada yada.
But what has Fauci done to impress PEDALDAD of HS Baseball Web.com fame!!!???
Huh??? Anything??? [silence follows]
That's what I thought.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/0...le-staying-home.html
Food for thought. More people need to stop believing what they are told. Most believe what they are told first instead of looking for themselves and accept it as though it is fact.
Most people believe Jackie Robinson was the first African American in the major leagues, but he was definitively not. But that is the narrative MLB wants to write. It suits them better than acknowledging the pervasive racism that permeated the sport. There were African American players, then a ban, then there was Jackie breaking the color barrier. But most have been told JR was first so that is what they believe.
How powerful is being first. Jackie Robinson was a first ballot hall-of-famer, and deservedly so. But what about the 2nd African American in baseball. His career numbers were probably better than Jackie's. He started about 2 months later(June 1947 vs April 1947). He was "first" in the all the AL parks, and faced all the same racist BS that Jackie did in the NL. Also like Jackie, he was a class act. Sure Jackie had a better career batting average .311 to .283. But, they were both World series MVPs. Also, he hit 116 career more home runs than Jackie, he had about 250 more career RBIs than Jackie, He was an ALL-star 7 times to Jackie's 6. But most people don't even know Larry Doby's name.
Worse than that. LD was not a first-ballot hall-of-famer. When did he get in, more than thirty years later. It took special election by the players. That's right, he never got in by vote of the baseball writers. Some of you may have know this story, most didn't. The ones that did know, they looked for themselves. I recommend to stop believing what you are told, start looking for yourself.
Yes, the numbers that Cuomo presented about the demographics of recent new cases were surprising and disturbing, especially for those of us who are 50+. But then again, everytime I go for a walk I see that 50% of New Yorkers either don't wear masks as mandated, or they think they are meant to cover just the chin, or the chin and mouth.
The other thing that was surprising was that if you remove NY from the national numbers, as a country we are very far from being on the back side of the curve.
That's okay, I'm going to stick with the AJC for my understanding of what's going on in Georgia. They rely on experts at Columbia University, Ga Tech, and elsewhere.
The latest is the experts agree that the shutdown worked in GA and that lifting it so soon is worrisome and that infections are likely to accelerate by the end of this month and may overwhelm our healthcare system by late summer in a second wave:
Not sure why anyone would be surprised to find out that numbers are bound to go up. Most states didn’t have a curve to begin with so the last two months did nothing. Unless a good portion of the population was infected there would be nothing to flatten. This why some of us posted the term “flatlining” on this board. Most states are really just exactly where they were at the beginning of the shutdown. There are plenty of folks out there that can get it just as easy as they could two months ago. Which is why so many of us have voiced our frustration over a policy of quarantining the healthy. It’s just plain wrong and cannot work once the genie is out of the bottle.
At least it appears most governors are approaching it differently now. Virginia’s governor has stated that individual counties can decide the speed at which they open up. Some counties in VA do not have a single case. Hotspot counties, like in NoVa, can elect to open slower than more rural areas within the state. This is the approach that each state should have taken two months ago.
@ABSORBER posted:At least it appears most governors are approaching it differently now. Virginia’s governor has stated that individual counties can decide the speed at which they open up. Some counties in VA do not have a single case. Hotspot counties, like in NoVa, can elect to open slower than more rural areas within the state. This is the approach that each state should have taken two months ago.
Not quite. Last I read he had stated Virginia would not open piecemeal although he has also said he is considering letting the counties/jurisdictions decide. That was the latest information I had come across.
Last I checked my county had ~35 confirmed cases with a recent "outbreak" at a local nursing home (two employees and two residents testing positive).
The hot spots are northern VA and Richmond.
The 2019 Military World Games, officially known as the 7th CISM Military World Games and commonly known as Wuhan 2019, was held from October 18–27, 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.
🤔
Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak
2020 ‧ Documentary ‧ 1 season
🤔
🤔
And then there is this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...r.com/amp/3008506001
How long will it take to develop a vaccine again? 12-18 months, right?🤔
This is my final things that make you go 🤔 post.
@hshuler posted:https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...r.com/amp/3008506001
How long will it take to develop a vaccine again? 12-18 months, right?🤔
All this means is that none of the recipients of the first shot had any significant adverse reactions, there is no indication that this vaccine works...safe does not equal effective. They basically hit the fairway off the 1st tee....still a lot of holes left to play.....
@22and25 posted:All this means is that none of the recipients of the first shot had any significant adverse reactions, there is no indication that this vaccine works...safe does not equal effective. They basically hit the fairway off the 1st tee....still a lot of holes left to play.....
You could very well be right but I didn’t say this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...testing-2020-4%3famp
I guess I have no idea what points you are trying to make. You seemed to be saying that a vaccine was immanent based on the article you linked about the 2nd round of shots. Maybe a little more of your own commentary along with the links would make it easier to understand what you are trying to say🤔
Just food for thought.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...arch-1500741%3famp=1
...and clearly there’s nothing to be suspicious of here.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/s...ding-vaccine-tattoo/
By the way, the recently approved vaccine was developed by this company.
Can you try paraphrasing whatever it is you are trying to say by posting a bunch of links I have no interest in clicking because I don’t know what they are about
I've been confused since Pedaldad's post about Jackie Robinson. It's not a secret that there were African-American baseball players before 1899, and Robinson was only the first after that. You only have to google it. Sure, there is a widely known narrative about Robinson, but baseball historians know the whole story. Is the point that you can't just believe what you see in the news? that you have to dig and find the evidence behind whatever news report you see? I would always recommend that. That experts know more than laymen, and oversimplify things for laymen? I'd agree with that, too.
I do prefer to read the scientific papers, but the preprints are often heavily criticized; anyway, try these, my current hopeful favorites:
Vitamin D might help: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten...020.04.08.20058578v3
Most people with virus have antibodies: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten...020.04.30.20085613v1
The links are for those who feel like clicking.
By the way, I think college fall semesters will be closer to normal than not.
Baseball is being played in Korea, NFL has a plan to for re-entry and just released the full schedule tonight and MLB is close to a reopening proposal for the player’s union.
I also just read that he state of Kentucky just cleared youth sports to resume on June 15th.
@ABSORBER posted:Not sure why anyone would be surprised to find out that numbers are bound to go up. Most states didn’t have a curve to begin with so the last two months did nothing.
Not to mention testing is more widespread, so of course the numbers diagnosed will increase.
One point to remember is that the timeline of 12-18 months for a vaccine is for approval... that does not preclude more than several hundred thousand doses being available for emergency use for the severe and critical cases much sooner... likely in the fall following current timelines. 12-18 months, if not more, will be needed to test safety... we will likely know efficacy much sooner.. b/c no one will feel confident vaccinating the less at risk prior to having safety data from a long period of time. The severe and critical are a different story.
I agree with glofisher. I'm by no means and anti-vaxxer, but I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with something like this that is rushed. If I were in a high risk group I would certainly be willing to give it a shot (pun intended)
Not surprised that Fauci gave his endorsement to the Moderna vaccine.
He’s on the Leadership Council for the effort mention in the link below.
Some may view it as a conflict of interest and some may not.
https://www.gatesfoundation.or...ccines-Collaboration
@TerribleBPthrower posted:I agree with glofisher. I'm by no means and anti-vaxxer, but I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with something like this that is rushed. If I were in a high risk group I would certainly be willing to give it a shot (pun intended)
I never thought about it, but one of the things they test for in developing a vaccine is that it doesn't mutate the virus into something worse. Wouldn't that be ironic, push something through because everyone is up in arms about a .1% mortality rate and end up pushing it up to 10/20%.
10 to 20% would be 33-66 million people. There’s no way this would occur. A vaccine with this kind of potential devastation would never be given to the entire country.