Disc Golf Course Review

Disc Golf Course Review (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Disc Golf Chat (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Are we not taking Covid-19 seriously (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136199)

LateWesternSky 06-11-2020 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiscFifty (Post 3595860)
ah..ok.. my wording is off, thank you for the clarification. So just to clear.... overall..the more people that actually get it and are confirmed to have it, that would lower the "case fatality rate". Without sounding morbid.. and I mean do disrespect to those suffering, but isn't lowering the case fatality rate a good thing? This is the discussion I am seeing alot of in social media. Thx.

It depends on how you are lowering the case fatality rate. Lowering it by not overcrowding hospitals and creating a vaccine is a good thing. But using math to manipulate the rate to be as low as possible is pointless.

Monocacy 06-11-2020 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiscFifty (Post 3595860)
ah..ok.. my wording is off, thank you for the clarification. So just to clear.... overall..the more people that actually get it and are confirmed to have it, that would lower the "case fatality rate". Without sounding morbid.. and I mean do disrespect to those suffering, but isn't lowering the case fatality rate a good thing? This is the discussion I am seeing alot of in social media. Thx.

Hmm, not sure I understand the question. Lowering the case fatality rate just means we are doing a better job of testing. The value of testing is knowing who is infected, so that we can trace their potential contacts, and so people who are infected can take precautions to avoid infecting others.

More testing does not help those who are already suffering, but it can help reduce future suffering.

Current data from the CDC website:

112,967 = current deaths in the US
1,994,283 = reported cases in the US

This yields a case fatality rate of 5.7%. If the infection fatality rate ends up in the 0.5 to 1% range (estimates vary considerably), we are still only identifying 10% to 20% of those who are infected.

Hard to control a pandemic when you don't know who is infected and potentially infectious.

One of the metrics that some states / localities are using is the percent positive tests. When the percent positive tests is lower, it means that the state / locality is identifying a higher percentage of people who are infected.

Does that answer your question?

Monocacy 06-11-2020 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LateWesternSky (Post 3595876)
It depends on how you are lowering the case fatality rate. Lowering it by not overcrowding hospitals and creating a vaccine is a good thing. But using math to manipulate the rate to be as low as possible is pointless.

Yes, exactly. Developing better treatments can also lower the fatality rate.

DiscFifty 06-11-2020 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monocacy (Post 3595879)
Does that answer your question?

Thank you (and others) for the reply. I guess I'm looking at the data (yah..I know I'm going to get blasted for this) as a general risk assessment for "going out into the world". So it just seems like the more that actually have it means a higher survival rate, hence the perceived risk assessment would go down. I've seen other people discuss this exact same thing due to having to make decisions about going back to work, going out, etc.

Monocacy 06-11-2020 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiscFifty (Post 3595892)
Thank you (and others) for the reply. I guess I'm looking at the data (yah..I know I'm going to get blasted for this) as a general risk assessment for "going out into the world". So it just seems like the more that actually have it means a higher survival rate, hence the perceived risk assessment would go down. I've seen other people discuss this exact same thing due to having to make decisions about going back to work, going out, etc.

Oh I get that. Just keep in mind a couple of things:

1. Antibody testing shows that, in most parts of the country, low single-digit percent of the population have been exposed. So the vast majority of people, even in hard-hit areas, remain susceptible, and infection rates are starting to increase again in many parts of the country.

2. Survival rates vary considerably by age, health status, etc. So the fact that healthy children are mostly bulletproof doesn't help an 80-year old in assisted living (I'm assuming you fall somewhere in between lol).

3. Quite a few people who survive are left with serious medical problems.

My usual advice is this: Assume you are infected; assume those around you are infected; and take appropriate precautions - mask or face covering, distancing, hand washing, covering coughs, avoiding crowds (especially indoors), etc. Most people make exceptions for household members, but if your significant other works in the emergency room . . .

ejvogie 06-11-2020 10:39 PM

My wife is a post-partum nurse. She's refused to kiss me for the past 3 months.

I promise it's due to Covid :D

Monocacy 06-12-2020 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiscFifty (Post 3595892)
. . . general risk assessment for "going out into the world". . .

Just in case you or others are interested, the CDC has a web page on that:

CDC COVID-19: Deciding to Go Out (clicky)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejvogie (Post 3595975)
. . . I promise it's due to Covid :D

Gotta be the Covid :D

Monocacy 06-16-2020 06:33 PM

Bunch of recent research showing that wearing masks in public may be the best way to control Covid infections:
Here we show that airborne transmission is highly virulent and represents the dominant route to spread the disease. . .

We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with simultaneous social distancing, quarantine, and contact tracing, represents the most likely fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic.
Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19 (PNAS May 16, 2020)

We conclude that facemask use by the public, when used in combination with physical distancing or periods of lock-down, may provide an acceptable way of managing the COVID19 pandemic and re-opening economic activity.

A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with ‘lock-down’ in managing the COVID-19 pandemic (Royal Society Proceedings A - May 18, 2020

BogeyNoMore 06-16-2020 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monocacy (Post 3595897)
My usual advice is this: Assume you are infected; assume those around you are infected; and take appropriate precautions - mask or face covering, distancing, hand washing, covering coughs, avoiding crowds (especially indoors), etc. Most people make exceptions for household members, but if your significant other works in the emergency room . . .

This just makes sense.

The kind of common sense 'Murica doesn't seem to possess.

:(

Innova63 06-16-2020 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BogeyNoMore (Post 3597482)
This just makes sense.

The kind of common sense 'Murica doesn't seem to possess.

:(



This is "good sense"....

If more people had it, then it would be common...

"common sense" is not common enough to be common...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.