Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

N is for nowledge said:
Institute for health metrics and evaluation, as part of University of Washington.  They are the major model the federal, and local governments have been using to prepare.  These are the referenced 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 models I’ve referenced.
Click to expand...
So, the graph that you are basing your opinion on doesn't even know who exactly they are basing their data from?  FYI...It's IHME....not IMHE like is put several times on the graph.

So...again...who put the graph together and is publishing it?

 
N is for nowledge said:
I’m saying is it rational to use Italy, and NYC as the starting data set to rollout as a model across the entire USA.  Is NYC kind of unique in someways.  Is NYC anything like Omaha, Lincoln, or Valantine NE for that matter.  
 

im saying it could have been used but was the main trigger presented to potus to close US through April.  It’s now been proven pretty overstated, through 2.0 and into 3.0.  Yet we are still using it to gauge or response on a federal and local level.  Should there not be a better way, a better analysis.
Click to expand...


What should we have done differently?

 
BigRedBuster said:
So, the graph that you are basing your opinion on doesn't even know who exactly they are basing their data from?  FYI...It's IHME....not IMHE like is put several times on the graph.

So...again...who put the graph together and is publishing it?
Click to expand...
So I’ll agree.  The graph seems put together by someone outside IHME.  However it does cite them as a reference as it does the covid research project.  Here are a couple others from the April 6th update or 3.0.  Was off the day they released it.  I get wanting to know where stuff comes from but the numbers are the numbers regardless of who put the graph together, yes or no.

A887E92E-8957-46B9-9684-3B58C7E2CBFF.png

85CA05B0-C425-4EBE-8261-664CB63EF053.png

 
N is for nowledge said:
So I’ll agree.  The graph seems put together by someone outside IHME.  However it does cite them as a reference as it does the covid research project.  Here are a couple others from the April 6th update or 3.0.  Was off the day they released it.  I get wanting to know where stuff comes from but the numbers are the numbers regardless of who put the graph together, yes or no.
Click to expand...
It's very easy to just post the tweet.  Then people can see the source and research it more.  Many times it's imbedded in a tweet thread that can give more context and information.

I still don't know where this data is coming from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I'm not sure this graph shows anything to what you are trying to convince me of.
Click to expand...
It does when you look at it in view Of the other picture from cuomo presser from the same day

again, the numbers projected vs actual are wildly different and well documented.  Graph or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
N is for nowledge said:
It does when you look at it in view Of the other picture from cuomo presser from the same day

again, the numbers projected vs actual are wildly different and well documented.  Graph or not.
Click to expand...


Really?

Fox News graphic shows 4376 ICU beds used.

Other graph shows the range of beds needed to be 3777 - 9277.  So, it's in range.

Fox News - beds needed 16,479

Other graph - beds needed range 14,947 - 37,756. So, it's in range.

What am I missing?

I think whomever created the first graph that you posted (the IMHE one) has an ulterior motive.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Really?

Fox News graphic shows 4376 ICU beds used.

Other graph shows the range of beds needed to be 3777 - 9277.  So, it's in range.

Fox News - beds needed 16,479

Other graph - beds needed range 14,947 - 37,756. So, it's in range.

What am I missing?

I think whomever created the first graph that you posted (the IMHE one) has an ulterior motive.
Click to expand...
Systems are prepping for peak so yes 37k vs 16K is off substantially.  This is why governors are saying don’t have enough “x”.  Reserving beds, furloughing healthcare workers because they are looking at this model.  They have to prep for the peak, a peak that will never come

 
I don't see how anyone is claiming to have any kind of definitive numbers on this when one of the most thorough and widely-cited statistics gathering groups has said this:


 
Loebarth said:
@N is for nowledge

The majority of posters/readers here won't like this post... oh well, so what. I totally agree with everything you're saying here bud and that said, I think you've proven that you can't fix stupid/ignorance/sheepals blind beliefs. Follow my lead on this one, read the forum, stay informed, speak only with your loved ones and immediate friends on this while letting the sheepal cater to their own fears. :o :facepalm:
Click to expand...


Loebarth said:
D'oh... thought I hit edit. sorry for the double post. I'm such a noob forum user. :facepalm:

as for the original question..

No there won't be a season without an inoculation. The reason is simple, risk vs reward.

Team A plays Team B week 1 and Team C week 2.

Team A has a player test positive before week 3 game and is forced to forfeit.

Teams B & C because they were exposed and may also have infections will also be required to forfeit.

The team (say team D) that played team B in week 2 may also be exposed to they too are required to forfeit.

and well.... on and on and on go the forfeits...

Nope, I don't see a 2020 season. Hope I'm wrong though.
Click to expand...
These are hilarious back to back posts. First you say you totally agree with N is for nowledge and go on to insinuate people who disagree are stupid, ignorant sheeple. Then in your 2nd post you dispute N’s original premise.  :facepalm: :lol:

You’re right about one thing, you can’t fix it.  :lol:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top