Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston, Florida: occupancy, owning, forest)

[htfdcolt]

Very interesting overlay here. You can see the impact of the sheltering directives on the transmission rate.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

It’s not that I don’t trust. It’s just that the sample size seems small.

I’m still rereading the study. 510 pupils, 42 teachers, 641 parents and some others. 1300 or so in total and 10% of that total caught the virus. 61% of the parents/caretakers of an infected student caught it and 2 adults were hospitalized.

If anything, that tells us that the kids themselves aren’t really transmitting it much between themselves, but if it does happen there’s a strong chance they will bring it back to their household and infect the other members of that household.

That data suggests that the entire reason schools were closed was valid.

That is a very low hospitalization rate, and a 0% death rate. Fact is, almost everyone recovers completely. I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I see now reason to believe this is any worse than say the common cold among kids and their parents based on this study.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

That is a very low hospitalization rate, and a 0% death rate. Fact is, almost everyone recovers completely. I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I see now reason to believe this is any worse than say the common cold among kids and their parents based on this study.

I think it's because you're failing to see the point he and others like Geoff are trying to make. I lived in a multigen household. My brother in-law needs the support of four 65+ individuals, three of which have high risk chronic conditions, to manage childcare/financials. There are many households like this.

I agree with BostonMIke, the results seem to indicate that children remain dangerous vectors for the virus if also in contact with higher risk individuals. A 61% infection rate is pretty damning, particularly when paired with poor IFR rates amongst at risk groups.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

That is a very low hospitalization rate, and a 0% death rate. Fact is, almost everyone recovers completely. I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I see no reason to believe this is any worse than say the common cold among kids and their parents based on this study.

I'm incredulous. Have you read any of the accounts of the effects of this illness on those who do experience symptoms? Lesions on the lung that last for weeks (who knows how long)? Blood clots? And these are in the <60 population. Continuing to insist this is no worse than the common cold is downright dangerous and irresponsible.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I'm incredulous. Have you read any of the accounts of the effects of this illness on those who do experience symptoms? Lesions on the lung that last for weeks (who knows how long)? Blood clots? And these are in the <60 population. Continuing to insist this is no worse than the common cold is downright dangerous and irresponsible.

At least he didn't say Kung Flu. /s

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I'm incredulous. Have you read any of the accounts of the effects of this illness on those who do experience symptoms? Lesions on the lung that last for weeks (who knows how long)? Blood clots? And these are in the <60 population. Continuing to insist this is no worse than the common cold is downright dangerous and irresponsible.

Just so you're keeping up, we are referencing the study that said 2 people out of 1300 were hospitalized.

Do you read anything?? Like, Ever??

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I think it's because you're failing to see the point he and others like Geoff are trying to make. I lived in a multigen household. My brother in-law needs the support of four 65+ individuals, three of which have high risk chronic conditions, to manage childcare/financials. There are many households like this.

I agree with BostonMIke, the results seem to indicate that children remain dangerous vectors for the virus if also in contact with higher risk individuals. A 61% infection rate is pretty damning, particularly when paired with poor IFR rates amongst at risk groups.

The fact is, you are still at lower risk than you think. Don't be fooled by all this "case" stuff. Do we need to review who is actually predominately at risk again? It's mostly the over 80 crowd.

But hey, stay home forever. I really don't care what individual people do.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

At least he didn't say Kung Flu. /s

At least I read studies and don't rely on headlines. You guys really can't follow anything here. It boggles the mind.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

The fact is, you are still at lower risk than you think. Don't be fooled by all this "case" stuff. Do we need to review who is actually predominately at risk again? It's mostly the over 80 crowd.

But hey, stay home forever. I really don't care what individual people do.

Here's the issue and why people are calling you out ... your use of "mostly".

Other tangible high risk scenarios: 48yo obese male with underlying but manage pulmonary issues, 22yo female who is a recovering cancer patient who actively needs transfusions, 55yo male with moderately high BMI and type II diabetes, etc.

In your world, society would have to be okay with all of the above scenarios being hospitalized at a minimum. I don't think society or corporate legal teams are okay with this scenario.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by redplum33

38k new positive cases in the US yesterday. That's the highest amount ever.

Originally Posted by redplum33

And 39k new cases today. Prior to the past 2 days, the highest amount had been 34k - which was at the end of April.

40k new cases in the US today. This is the 3rd straight day a new all time high was set.