COVID-19 - Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[MOPanfisher]

1 hour ago, oneshot said:

Thinking go across from the Dock by the Dam.

oneshot

FYI if you want to crappie fish that shoreline to the left of those fishing docks by the dam is pure money.  All the way back to that little notch.  There will be tons of folks on the dock but few on the shoreline and it's a shorter walk.  Have caught a LOT of crappie there and little white bass as well.  Feed thm a crappie jig in your favorite color 1/132 or 1/16 if yu prefer and bring a bucket.  Can even twitch them under a little bobber and do well.  Wish I could meet you there and I would carry bucket for ya, but carrying and walking g along shoreline is out for me right now.

[oneshot]

1 hour ago, MOPanfisher said:

FYI if you want to crappie fish that shoreline to the left of those fishing docks by the dam is pure money.  All the way back to that little notch.  There will be tons of folks on the dock but few on the shoreline and it's a shorter walk.  Have caught a LOT of crappie there and little white bass as well.  Feed thm a crappie jig in your favorite color 1/132 or 1/16 if yu prefer and bring a bucket.  Can even twitch them under a little bobber and do well.  Wish I could meet you there and I would carry bucket for ya, but carrying and walking g along shoreline is out for me right now.

Thanks sounds good!

oneshot

[Mitch f]

I heard that the states that didn’t have any lockdowns were compared to the states which did have lockdowns. They used  mathematical regression to adjust for size and population density and found absolutely zero difference in the number of virus cases. I think the  professors name was Wilfred Reilly and he challenged anyone to refute his numbers and so far no one has. 

[Al Agnew]

1 hour ago, Mitch f said:

I heard that the states that didn’t have any lockdowns were compared to the states which did have lockdowns. They used  mathematical regression to adjust for size and population density and found absolutely zero difference in the number of virus cases. I think the  professors name was Wilfred Reilly and he challenged anyone to refute his numbers and so far no one has. 

Mitch, I read the article Reilly wrote about this in Spiked...tried to read it carefully and decide whether he was missing anything.  What I came up with was a question or two...

First question:  Does the date of WHEN the lockdown orders came into effect have anything to do with it?  What was the situation in a given state when they decided to go lockdown instead of just advising measures like social distancing?  In other words, was a greater number of cases and greater number of deaths already "in the pipeline", so to speak, by the time they put everything in lockdown?  Were many of those states already having greater numbers than the states that never instituted lockdowns?

Second question:  And related...what was the progression of cases in lockdown states compared to non-lockdown states?  From 7 days or 14 days after lockdown, was the graph of new cases and deaths as steep or steeper in lockdown states as non-lockdown states?  Did lockdown flatten the curve as much or more in the lockdown states (starting 7-14 days after lockdown) as the non-lockdown states?  You figure the cases within the first 7-14 days were already in the pipeline, but did lockdown help or not after that, compared to states that never locked down?

Third question:  He took into account in his statistics the population density of lockdown and non-lockdown states.  But the non-lockdown states have one big thing in common...they do not have ANY really large cities, except for Utah with Salt Lake City.  And, some of them have very large areas with VERY small populations...and not a lot of reasons for people outside those areas to come to them during this thing.  Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming are the states.  Of those, only Arkansas and Iowa don't have huge areas with very few people and not much attraction to visit.  There are still a lot of counties in most of those states with ZERO cases, and not much chance of somebody coming into those counties carrying the virus.  The only chance is if a resident of those counties travels to a larger city and picks it up and brings it back.  And because of the lack of population density in those types of places, how many people is that person actually going to contact and give it to?

While I think the guy did a pretty good job of considering variables, I don't think you can make any kind of valid comparison unless you are comparing states that are VERY similar in all ways.  Missouri has two major cities with surrounding suburbs, and a lot of smaller towns scattered all over...and it has a lot of places that people are wanting to visit while this thing is going on.  You can't compare it to Nebraska, with only one city that could even come close to being considered major (barely), a bunch of counties with few towns, and nowhere in it that would attract a whole bunch of people from Omaha to go and play.  Not to mention the much greater diversity of jobs and industry in Missouri compared to Nebraska.

I don't know if locking things down was the best thing to do or not.  But in a lot of states, including Missouri, it wasn't a panic decision, it was more based upon the fact that people apparently weren't paying much attention to the guidelines that had been set up, so they were made mandatory.

And I think we may not be far enough into this thing to be making any decisions as to whether lockdown was a good idea or not.  I'm waiting to see what happens as states decide to drop the lockdown, like Georgia is doing.  If, as many expect, the curve shoots back up, THAT will tell you more about whether the lockdown was useful.  Heck, it's all a big experiment, because this is all completely new and nobody had a clue how to handle it.  The whole world is flying by the seat of its pants on this thing.

[Mitch f]

7 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Mitch, I read the article Reilly wrote about this in Spiked...tried to read it carefully and decide whether he was missing anything.  What I came up with was a question or two...

First question:  Does the date of WHEN the lockdown orders came into effect have anything to do with it?  What was the situation in a given state when they decided to go lockdown instead of just advising measures like social distancing?  In other words, was a greater number of cases and greater number of deaths already "in the pipeline", so to speak, by the time they put everything in lockdown?  Were many of those states already having greater numbers than the states that never instituted lockdowns?

Second question:  And related...what was the progression of cases in lockdown states compared to non-lockdown states?  From 7 days or 14 days after lockdown, was the graph of new cases and deaths as steep or steeper in lockdown states as non-lockdown states?  Did lockdown flatten the curve as much or more in the lockdown states (starting 7-14 days after lockdown) as the non-lockdown states?  You figure the cases within the first 7-14 days were already in the pipeline, but did lockdown help or not after that, compared to states that never locked down?

Third question:  He took into account in his statistics the population density of lockdown and non-lockdown states.  But the non-lockdown states have one big thing in common...they do not have ANY really large cities, except for Utah with Salt Lake City.  And, some of them have very large areas with VERY small populations...and not a lot of reasons for people outside those areas to come to them during this thing.  Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming are the states.  Of those, only Arkansas and Iowa don't have huge areas with very few people and not much attraction to visit.  There are still a lot of counties in most of those states with ZERO cases, and not much chance of somebody coming into those counties carrying the virus.  The only chance is if a resident of those counties travels to a larger city and picks it up and brings it back.  And because of the lack of population density in those types of places, how many people is that person actually going to contact and give it to?

While I think the guy did a pretty good job of considering variables, I don't think you can make any kind of valid comparison unless you are comparing states that are VERY similar in all ways.  Missouri has two major cities with surrounding suburbs, and a lot of smaller towns scattered all over...and it has a lot of places that people are wanting to visit while this thing is going on.  You can't compare it to Nebraska, with only one city that could even come close to being considered major (barely), a bunch of counties with few towns, and nowhere in it that would attract a whole bunch of people from Omaha to go and play.  Not to mention the much greater diversity of jobs and industry in Missouri compared to Nebraska.

I don't know if locking things down was the best thing to do or not.  But in a lot of states, including Missouri, it wasn't a panic decision, it was more based upon the fact that people apparently weren't paying much attention to the guidelines that had been set up, so they were made mandatory.

And I think we may not be far enough into this thing to be making any decisions as to whether lockdown was a good idea or not.  I'm waiting to see what happens as states decide to drop the lockdown, like Georgia is doing.  If, as many expect, the curve shoots back up, THAT will tell you more about whether the lockdown was useful.  Heck, it's all a big experiment, because this is all completely new and nobody had a clue how to handle it.  The whole world is flying by the seat of its pants on this thing.

One thing is for sure, I won’t risk my health or my family’s health for no good reason. I don’t go out to any retail store or gas station without an N95 mask, which we still have about 60 of them. I practice social distancing and wash hands often. 

[ness]

20 hours ago, BilletHead said:

                 I would say it is not a fly by night lawyer and it is the state doing this. IMO it will not amount to anything but we will see.            

State AGs looking to grab the spotlight. Sovereign Immunity — I suspect this will go nowhere. 

[oneshot]

I was talking with some wanting to open the state for Tourism in May cases and deaths be dang. Right now it is kind of slow so they don’t care.

Talked with one guy he says he is not wanting the state to open but he don’t work and his wife is still working and he went to Mardi Gras and travels so he is not really that worried.

oneshot

[Johnsfolly]

9 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

The only chance is if a resident of those counties travels to a larger city and picks it up and brings it back.  And because of the lack of population density in those types of places, how many people is that person actually going to contact and give it to?

This is where the lockdown here in Maryland is being effective. On the Eastern shore there have been very few cases maybe less than 400 whereas the counties surrounding Baltimore, Annapolis and DC account for over 11K cases. With the population density model, we may all have the same infection rate and thus fewer cases in these less populated counties. However if there was no lockdown, those folks from those counties would be travelling through our area towards the beaches. So the likelihood of coming into contact with a carrier would have been much greater than we are experiencing now. That would have likely created a spike in cases in these rural counties. I still suspect that will happen if they open Maryland in the next month or so. As you said Al it is all new at this point.

[oneshot]

On the local News they had a piece on how hard it is getting UE during Coronavirus.

They had a guy that signed up to be Substitute Teacher but the schools shut down and he didn’t work.

He was trying to get UE through the schools but was denied. He says this shows he is ineligible for UE.

???? No kidding dummy you have to work before you can get UE. Must have been a slow day.

oneshot

[MOPanfisher]

My SIL was laid off during this, but will be doing OK with the benefits and is able to stay with grandson and daughter still works.  Son is working part time still and just plugging along not getting nearly as much as if he had opted to be laid off and take the benefits.  But he is pretty low maintenance, little food, a little gas, and he is fine.  no clue where he gets that from.