Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
47 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Maybe you could hook her up with BuffalHokie13 who needs a date. What a date consists of you'll have to work out with him. 

I'm looking at late 20's, not middle aged :D

 

Yeah, yeah beggars/choosers. I know.

Posted
10 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I'm looking at late 20's, not middle aged :D

 

Yeah, yeah beggars/choosers. I know.

You realize the fact that she’s my sister in law means she’s married to my brother, right? 🙄

Posted
2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You realize the fact that she’s my sister in law means she’s married to my brother, right? 🙄

She could be your wife's single sister too.

Posted
2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

She could be your wife's single sister too.

I guess you’re right!. Alas, she’s not....just the nutcase my brother married. And now she’s got my nephews and my niece all hold up together in the house. At any other time it’d be considered child abuse.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

As a small business owner in dire need of CA getting back to work, this is absolutely infuriating to me.

 

 


Oh so now you NEED California.

 

😁

Posted

On track to make new lows for sometime in October if things continue to progress.

 

Cases over the past week seem to have temporarily bottomed out.  Illinois seems to be the new emerging hotspot.  Would make sense considering Chicago was never hit all that hard comparatively to other cities.

 

 

 

844 is the deaths per day 7 day moving average.

 

I saw that new model where they are expecting a dramatic increase in deaths by the end of the year. I suppose it’s possible, assuming they are right which I am highly skeptical it would essentially mean that the herd-like immunity from cross reactive T cell immunity is a bunk theory.

 

We shall see.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

I saw that new model where they are expecting a dramatic increase in deaths by the end of the year. I suppose it’s possible, assuming they are right which I am highly skeptical it would essentially mean that the herd-like immunity from cross reactive T cell immunity is a bunk theory.

 

We shall see.


@Magox I have not seen this new model, link please? 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, GG said:

What a difference a few months makes?   Wondering what made IHME  do an about face in their estimates?


I think the imminent colder weather is the main driver in their model.  They don’t expect the 20% herd immunity level that some have guessed at to hold any water. And the biggest takeaway here is, and I hesitate to say it, the modelers think that masks don’t work.  They expect a big case increase by the end of Oct.

 

Here’s hoping they are just smoking the wacky tabacy.  The modelers expected an abatement in the summer that didn’t happen, now they expect an increase in the winter that may not occur either.

Edited by BeerLeagueHockey
Posted
51 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said:


I think the imminent colder weather is the main driver in their model.  They don’t expect the 20% herd immunity level that some have guessed at to hold any water. And the biggest takeaway here is, and I hesitate to say it, the modelers think that masks don’t work.  They expect a big case increase by the end of Oct.

 

Here’s hoping they are just smoking the wacky tabacy.  The modelers expected an abatement in the summer that didn’t happen, now they expect an increase in the winter that may not occur either.

That's why the logic isn't consistent.  There was no abatement in cases during summer peak, but there was a significant drop in mortality.  If they're concerned that the virus will turn more deadly as the weather cools, wouldn't it make more sense to have greater exposure of healthier people in the summer when the virus is at its weakest? 

 

They also don't explain why the virus will get more deadly in the fall. I understand why transmissions could increase as more people socialize indoors, but why would it turn more lethal?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, GG said:

That's why the logic isn't consistent.  There was no abatement in cases during summer peak, but there was a significant drop in mortality.  If they're concerned that the virus will turn more deadly as the weather cools, wouldn't it make more sense to have greater exposure of healthier people in the summer when the virus is at its weakest? 

 

They also don't explain why the virus will get more deadly in the fall. I understand why transmissions could increase as more people socialize indoors, but why would it turn more lethal?


Definitely some inconsistencies when you look at the big picture. They are just modelers, their heads are deep in lots of data.


My guess for the dire modeling is this - the virus stays the same, but people get more susceptible to any virus as their immune systems wane in the low vitamin D winters.

 

All in all, I am a glass half full guy and the modelers are definitely glass half empty. I think we’ll be below the low end of their estimate, and I have a hunch it’ll be that dastardly thing called herd immunity. Time will tell.

Posted
2 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Yup this whole thing is a hoax and "the few cases" didn't turn into 190k deaths. All fake news

Wtf are you talking about?

 

Who said it was a hoax?   Take your BS and baggage to someone else.

  • Haha (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...