Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (158 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
yeah they take data from JHU: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Increase in the numbers is showing that testing is still catching up with the real number of infected out there. For a population the size of the US, considering the delayed response in virtually every aspect, having only 20-30K officially infected is actually worrisome as it is indicative of inadequate testing procedures and availability. It is indicative of the government not having things under control as they likely lack idea of the real scope of the spread.
Having a good estimate of the number of infected, would allow for a good estimate of hospital beds and supplies that will be necessary in the coming days and months.
Also, a good estimate of the scale of infection would be helpful in taking more timely and better, more adequate, measures in terms of stopping the spread from growing.
For example, say you have a US state with only 50 official cases, that does't sound like a dire situation, and the governor of said state probably won't take sever lockdown measures. But what if tests were widely available and testing showed that the (projected) number of infected is not 50 but 50K. Having that information would result in more timely measures to limit the spread of the virus.
Having a good estimate of the number of infected, would allow for a good estimate of hospital beds and supplies that will be necessary in the coming days and months.
Also, a good estimate of the scale of infection would be helpful in taking more timely and better, more adequate, measures in terms of stopping the spread from growing.
For example, say you have a US state with only 50 official cases, that does't sound like a dire situation, and the governor of said state probably won't take sever lockdown measures. But what if tests were widely available and testing showed that the (projected) number of infected is not 50 but 50K. Having that information would result in more timely measures to limit the spread of the virus.
I don’t know the real problem behind it, but the amendment he added (which had to be put to vote and resulted in the delay) was total bs. It had 2 parts: people who receive aid should provide their social security number, and US troops should leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. Everybody knew there was no chance of this being passed, so it was just to delay the final vote, which makes it even worse.
To clarify my previous point - a real estimate of the spread you gain not by testing only people who are showing symptoms, but rather by testing people randomly, with or without symptoms. Once you build a large enough sample size, from there you can extrapolate and get a decent estimate of the actual scope of the spread.
Because the US still don't have enough available tests, they keep those tests only for people who are already showing symptoms. Whatever results you get out of such testing, considering the long incubation period, won't give you much of a useful estimate of the real scope of the spread.
Because the US still don't have enough available tests, they keep those tests only for people who are already showing symptoms. Whatever results you get out of such testing, considering the long incubation period, won't give you much of a useful estimate of the real scope of the spread.
Rand Paul, the only senator to vote against emergency coronavirus funding has now tested positive for coronavirus. 
Any country that doesn’t have aggressive testing and tracing is pretty much doomed to follow the Italy trajectory.
He's so cute 
Is that some sexual innuendo for all the available laydeez in the state?
And nail salons are hygienic disasters without coronavirus.
Now imagine how much worse the situation really is, when you factor in that the current, barely-available tests take several days to give you a result. That means that, even if the current tests were widely available, we would still be constantly playing catch-up with the real spread of the virus.
Supposedly a new type of test has been developed - one that gives a result in hours, not days - but it's anybody's guess how long it would take to produce enough of these tests and actually apply them properly.
Supposedly a new type of test has been developed - one that gives a result in hours, not days - but it's anybody's guess how long it would take to produce enough of these tests and actually apply them properly.
Last edited:
I meant US president. I see how my post was misleading. There are more examples in today’s world. Perhaps no better one than Iran’s supreme leader who said today “Iran has many enemies both from humans and genies, and they help each other too”. This was not a joke. He really believes what he says.
Last edited:
Still cringing over his attack on that reporter the other day who tried to give him a softball question on what he would say to those who are at home scared and looking for reassurance. It’s literally the most feel-good, softball question a leader can be asked during a crisis, and instead of reassuring and comforting the nation he leads, Trump called it a nasty question and went on a tirade personally attacking the reporter and the press.
I hope Tuzzers who voted for this fuckwit look long and hard in the mirror before casting a ballot this November.
