Jump to content
chasfh

Coronavirus: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I questioned two Whitmer decisions.

It is our duty as citizens to question ALL politicians on all policies, executive orders, messages, agendas, so on and so forth.  It doesn't matter if it's a D, R or independent.  Too many people let their political team affiliation get in the way of objectively viewing the actions of politicians, and is a serious problem our nation is dealing with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BetRivers Michigan Sports Betting

BetRivers Michigan $50 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching in January 2021. Pre-register at BetRivers Sportsbook and get a free $50 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan Now

Just now, Euphdude said:

It is our duty as citizens to question ALL politicians on all policies, executive orders, messages, agendas, so on and so forth.  It doesn't matter if it's a D, R or independent.  Too many people let their political team affiliation get in the way of objectively viewing the actions of politicians, and is a serious problem our nation is dealing with.

Ewsieg was simply playing victim. Nobody said you can't question them. That's not what people are getting annoyed about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

The fact is that all  simple paradigms like "flatten the curve" break down pretty quickly for real world data because even at a state level, where most tracking is done, we are not talking about one population, but dozens of different population cells with varying levels of isolation or communication with each other. On one hand, we were clearly TOO LATE to flatten the curve in Detroit. Hospital capacity was overrun there and the fact the epidemic was eventually brought into better control does not change the fact the 'the flatten the curve' objective of keeping hospitals from being over stressed was NOT achieved in Detroit. Again, there was a local situation in Kent county that reached the point of threatening capacity there. On the other hand, on a state wide basis we have never some close to overrunning total bed capacity. But that is hardly meaningful. There is no single result definable for anything as large and heterogeneous as the state of Michigan, or probably any other US state. 

Even California, which is still at one of the lowest fatality rates of any major state, failed to flatten the curve within its prison population and the prison medical system, which is effectively a separate epidemiological subset, while on the other hand, LA county, which has an extremely high - basically out of control case rate of 33 cases per day per 100k right now, is not overrunning their hospital capacity, partly because they are being blessed with relatively low virulence so far (population density factors again?), but also not the least in part because they have a lot of hospital capacity. Yet the infection is out of control there none-the-less.

So I would not make too much intellectual investment in simple conceptual models of idealized data used primarily for explanatory purposes when it comes to assessing the complexity of data from the real world.

If 'flatten the curve' means you never go over it, then yes, Michigan failed to flatten the curve.  Since that failure, Michigan has achieved in flattening the curve though.  I can see a valid argument in that if we look back at the numbers, by me saying 'Michigan' one could dishonestly say Michigan had a flat curve throughout as total capacity may not have been reached, even though specific areas were overrun.  In no way am I saying that.  If any region/county/city is above capacity, I would view that as Michigan spiking above that capacity dotted line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ewsieg said:

If 'flatten the curve' means you never go over it, then yes, Michigan failed to flatten the curve.  Since that failure, Michigan has achieved in flattening the curve though.  I can see a valid argument in that if we look back at the numbers, by me saying 'Michigan' one could dishonestly say Michigan had a flat curve throughout as total capacity may not have been reached, even though specific areas were overrun.  In no way am I saying that.  If any region/county/city is above capacity, I would view that as Michigan spiking above that capacity dotted line.

 

If the UP has 87 available ICU beds, what is the number for cases in the UP that you consider to the curve to not be flattened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

It is our duty as citizens to question ALL politicians on all policies, executive orders, messages, agendas, so on and so forth.  It doesn't matter if it's a D, R or independent.  Too many people let their political team affiliation get in the way of objectively viewing the actions of politicians, and is a serious problem our nation is dealing with.

Is it our duty to misrepresent what an executive order plainly says?

Is it our duty to misrepresent an anecdote as to whether a brother's facility had a COVID patient he couldn't transfer to a hospital, only to find out that his brother thought he had a COVID patient?

Is it our duty to conflate a "vacant facility" with a "designated facility" to make a point on the internet?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems like michigan had started to "flatten the curve" in mid june.  but after the state started to open up a bit, the curve began to slowly rise and become "unflattened."

so in an effort to stop that rise, the bars are being closed in places where they had once been opened because bars have been shown to be major transmitters of the disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which seems to be the pattern everywhere (except nyc).  when you open the bars, people get sick.

does the fact that nyc and sweden have not seen big resurgences like florida or texas or california or belgium mean that the correct strategy was to let the virus rage and then die out?  i guess we'll see what happens in texas in another couple months.  or see if it comes back to nyc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pfife said:

Is it our duty to misrepresent what an executive order plainly says?

Is it our duty to misrepresent an anecdote as to whether a brother's facility had a COVID patient he couldn't transfer to a hospital, only to find out that his brother thought he had a COVID patient?

I admitted I misspoke on the order itself.  I still stand by the fact that her decision worked only on paper and required the testing we need, not the testing we have.  And yes it's anecdotal, but my brothers facility did have multiple Covid patients, for up to 2 weeks, sitting in his facility.  For all I know, maybe his facility is the only one that has had trouble getting adequate and quick testing to help them mitigate that risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Buddha said:

probably.  

i wonder how much money restaurants are making with carry out only?  especially the high end places?

I don't know.  I know we've gone the take out mode since March and I'll tip the same as if we ate there.  We've probably done a little bit more restaurant food vs cook at home than we would have in the past.

I imagine the higher end places are having a tougher go of it.  That's not our game.  But I have noticed reduced menus at some of our favorite places, and so I would guess they are trying to reduce costs by reducing less used ingredients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

Too many people let their political team affiliation get in the way of objectively viewing the actions of politicians, and is a serious problem our nation is dealing with.

Yes to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Buddha said:

which seems to be the pattern everywhere (except nyc).  when you open the bars, people get sick.

does the fact that nyc and sweden have not seen big resurgences like florida or texas or california or belgium mean that the correct strategy was to let the virus rage and then die out?  i guess we'll see what happens in texas in another couple months.  or see if it comes back to nyc.

NYS has been a lot more cautious than most other states in terms of reopening... I'm guessing this plus the prior experience of being a hot spot is a factor as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Buddha said:

it seems like michigan had started to "flatten the curve" in mid june.  but after the state started to open up a bit, the curve began to slowly rise and become "unflattened."

This is how I would characterize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I believe that means 30 total cases of Covid, not necessarily current cases.

I don't understand the difference.  I also don't think we should use 30 if it's not current case count.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also struggle with the idea that we are beholden to a short-term goal set in April to address a crisis with regards to how to handle the disease, policy wise, long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pfife said:

I don't understand the difference.  I also don't think we should use 30 if it's not current case count.  

Also, shouldn't the total case number be way higher than the current case number? It can't be less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, pfife said:

Is it our duty to misrepresent what an executive order plainly says?

Is it our duty to misrepresent an anecdote as to whether a brother's facility had a COVID patient he couldn't transfer to a hospital, only to find out that his brother thought he had a COVID patient?

Is it our duty to conflate a "vacant facility" with a "designated facility" to make a point on the internet?

Questioning politicians doesn't mean blatanly misrepresenting them or their policies for politically adventageous or vengeful purposes.  Just because Whitmer has a D after her name doesn't mean her policies are beyond reproach....just like any politician with an R after their name shouldn't be assumed to be evil and stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Buddha said:

i think bars should be shut down nationwide and masks should be mandatory indoors outside of your own home.

seems like a reasonable ask.

Why do you hate America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pfife said:

If the UP has 87 available ICU beds, what is the number for cases in the UP that you consider to the curve to not be flattened?

The correct answer for that region is 88 new ICU patients without losing any existing ICU patients (patients exceed capacity).  Obviously Whitmer can't waive a magic wand and make sure it stays at or under 87 new ICU patients.

I just found out you can sort by region at michigan.gov.  Looks like Region 7 and 8 are trending differently from the State. They were trending up before the State was.  30 cases in the last week represents a downtrend for them.  Looks like they were averaging about 10 per day throughout July.  Michigan was averaging roughly 500 a day.  

This adds some support to Whitmers decision on bars.  I think it adds to my questioning on if this was needed for Region 7/8, why not more for the rest of Michigan and certainly not lessening restrictions.

Michigan

21033 beds, 15878 in use

2902 ICU beds, 2259 in use 

Region 7/8

277 ICU beds, 166 in use.

Roughly 300 new cases in region 7/8 in the last month.  If 1 in 3 ends up going to the ICU, that region is screwed.

Roughly 15000 new cases in Michigan, if only 1 in 23 goes into the ICU, Michigan is screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Who argues that premise?

I'm guessing nobody does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Euphdude said:

Questioning politicians doesn't mean blatanly misrepresenting them or their policies for politically adventageous or vengeful purposes.  Just because Whitmer has a D after her name doesn't mean her policies are beyond reproach....just like any politician with an R after their name shouldn't be assumed to be evil and stupid.

Right - what I listed is what Esweig did.   And he's also admitted it since I made that list.   I won't ordain myself to speak for anyone else, but I am questioning his questioning of Whitmer b/c of the items I listed that you quoted and he admitted, not because of my political leanings.    

I would argue that he was, in fact, NOT challenging Whitmer, given he didn't represent the EO correctly.  Nor did he represent the anectdote correctly that he was using to challenge Whitmer.   Go ahead, challenge whitmer, I challenge pols here all the time, but challenge what whitmer is doing, not.... whatever he was challenging that wasn't what whitmer was doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I also struggle with the idea that we are beholden to a short-term goal set in April to address a crisis with regards to how to handle the disease, policy wise, long-term.

Agreed. And this comes back to the inability of US leadership to communicate usefully or clearly on this issue. Of course in turn the Trump administration cannot communicate and build consensus around a coherent plan because it has no plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

<snip>

Too many people let their political team affiliation get in the way of objectively viewing the actions of politicians, and is a serious problem our nation is dealing with.

Yes, for sure.  I have a better idea.  As does this fine lady with a cool name;

I approve her message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps in January 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


×
×
  • Create New...