(08-13-2020 11:10 AM)brock20 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 10:52 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Examples are those "house parties" in LA and other places, that ridiculous lake party in AR, that ridiculous lake party in IA, scads of crowded beach scenes from everywhere, crowded bars, birthday parties, etc. Remember the huge transmission jump when spring breakers returned to wherever they came from? If you've missed all these massive numbers of exposes, then you simply haven't been paying attention. I can hardly believe you've missed all those filmed and widely-criticized examples. I've seen literally dozens myself.

I feel like there may be other examples that arent listed, but why? What example of huge gatherings around the US are missing from your list?

Feel like we should rename this the Boomer Virus. Everyone who isnt a Boomer has to stay locked in their homes so that Boomers can feel slightly safer.

I wasn't about to make an exhaustive list. That would take too many hours. AND.............to be clear, in recent times, at some of these gatherings.......some people have been wearing masks. AND............altho we're nowhere near "herd immunity", there is (quite possibly) some small smattering of cross-protection from past exposure to other coronaviruses. (Still a strong matter of debate.) There are complex reasons behind all these things. I was merely listing some of the obvious examples that have been in the media. The ultimate(?) prime example is the superspreader event in Italy where the futbol (soccer) game went on despite early indications that this could get out of hand. Hard to find a more clear-cut example than that - and indeed it's been roundly condemned. But we also have to remember that we didn't yet know how bad this was going to get.

Here is a pretty reasonable approach. In my earlier posts I almost compared this situation to SIDs, but didn't. This guy does:

How to let young folks be out and about, yet be safe®

[That funny R there looking like a registered trademark symbol is supposed to be just an 'r' in parentheses, indicating that it's not fully "safe" - only safer.]

To be honest, I don't totally agree with this guy..........but by and large I think it's a sensible, middle-of-the-road compromise. IF such things were to magically appear, then the R would likely go down to below 1 fairly quickly - and then would continue to slowly drop. Not as good (imo) as getting it down faster, but likely a workable approach. The key problem with this is (despite the author's optimism) is that "kids will be kids", so I think too many are not amenable to 'behaving' properly, even in the context he proposes.

(08-13-2020 11:12 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:59 AM)Flippmb Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 04:08 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  While that's probably the way it will fall out, it shouldn't, and doesn't, have to be that way. A good, solid, 3-4 weeks of everybody "behaving" would quickly get us to where we need to be to have this under control. But we already have proven that that ain't gonna happen. It's the age-old story of humans being short-sighted and unable to submit to/accept delayed gratification. We are SLOOOOOW learners - with a short memory to boot.

We already shut down the whole country once, and for a lot longer than 3-4 weeks. During that time, we got about as much "behaving" as we are going to get.
*** Correct; which is part of what I wrote. HOWEVER.....that doesn't mean we don't have the power to stop it. We do - because other places in the world stopped it quickly when they learned what to do.
Well, I'd say that's great news! Tell me, what did those other countries do for 3-4 weeks that stopped the virus and allowed them to go back to normal?


Young people are more likely to die from the flu than they are to die from coronavirus. Yet, we aren't shutting down schools or cancelling sports to protect them from influenza.
*** WHAT?!?! Your first statement is likely wrong. That was a poorly-researched and poorly-understood narrative VERY early in the crises, but it's probably not true. (We don't really know for sure.) They likely are in the same order of magnitude, however. In some places, when it's bad enough, we most certainly shut down schools (and postpone sports). One only look no further than our region back this past winter to see that. Many, many, many local schools shut down for varying periods of time due to the flu. BUT, the main reason is that the flu is not nearly as lethal as COVID. I can't believe you're trying to make that equilibration.
Saying, "We don't really know for sure," usually means someone can't find any research to support their position. Here's what we know about the age group 0-24: According to the CDC, during the 2018-19 flu season, influenza killed just over 1000 young people in the U.S. Now, according to the American Council on Science and Health, as of June 17, there were 151 deaths from coronavirus in that same age group. That's 151 out of 103,000 total deaths. So, let's triple those numbers to come up with an estimate of 450 coronavirus deaths for ages 0-24, with 300,000+ deaths in the U.S. overall. As you can see, in this age group, COVID is indeed less lethal than the flu. The pessimists out there can quintuple those figures if they want to, and COVID would still be less lethal than the flu.

(Also, individual schools shutting down for a few days or a week to control the flu, or postponing a ballgame for a few days, is a far cry from shutting down school systems for months and cancelling entire sports seasons. I can't believe you're trying to make that equilibration.)


Young people are also more likely to commit suicide than to die from COVID-19, and we've seen that number rise dramatically as a result of the lockdowns. Nobody seems too worried about that.
*** Yes, there mostly definitely is worry about that. I've seen much ink about it, and initiatives to try and combat it. However, the *increase* is trivial compared to the number of people dying from this disease.
According to NIMH, just over 6800 people in 0-24 age group committed suicide in 2017. If the shutdown increases that figure by 10% (a conservative estimate), that's 680 people. So, if the death of 680 people from suicide is termed trivial, what descriptor should we apply to the lower estimated figure of 450 deaths in this age group from COVID?


We ought to be letting our young people go to school, go to camp, play sports, attend academic competitions, go to church, socialize with their friends, have their weddings, have their graduations, attend their proms, go to the gym, and keep their jobs. In the meantime, us old folk can wear our masks, social distance ourselves, stay away from crowds, and take all of the protective measures we see fit.

*** Wrong (in general). These "kids" can, and will, bring their viruses back into homes where some of the older folks live, even if they themselves are not sick. I've seen this with my own eyes, and I suspect some of you have, too. "Kids" are probably the main vectors, because they're more likely to be infected and yet asymptomatic. Masks only slow down transmission. They do not stop it. The "6-ft. social distance" thing is a false mantra, but so many peeps don't yet grasp that. This is NOT your garden-variety flu. The extra-long incubation period, the very small size of this virus, the semi-mysterious asymptomatic presentations, and the significant variations in presentation in general make this a particularly difficult enemy.
Kids WILL bring the virus home, and family members with high risk factors should act accordingly. Those parents in the typical age range, and with no complicating factors are still at very low risk of death from COVID. However, if that's considered intolerable, and we want to shut down schools and cancel sports to protect the adults, then let's be clear about it and stop acting like we're doing this in any way for the children.

I hope no one at ETSU says, "We cancelled fall sports for the kids." Our educators should know better.

We already shut down the whole country once, and for a lot longer than 3-4 weeks. During that time, we got about as much "behaving" as we are going to get.

*** Correct; which is part of what I wrote. HOWEVER.....that doesn't mean we don't have the power to stop it. We do - because other places in the world stopped it quickly when they learned what to do.

Well, I'd say that's great news! Tell me, what did those other countries do for 3-4 weeks that stopped the virus and allowed them to go back to normal?

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor -- I must assume you're kidding, too. All that stuff is VERY well documented -and has had massive amounts of news coverage. "Shutting down" being the easy way to describe it. And it worked. Then the problem recurred when reopening occurred too quickly (see U.S., Hong Kong, U.K. and many other places).

"Saying, "We don't really know for sure," usually means someone can't find any research to support their position."

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor -- LOL! This isn't the place to micro-discuss such things, and I *hate* doing this........but I'm going to "pull rank" on you here. I've read, analyzed, discussed with colleagues, assimilated, etc., probably 75-100 (could actually easily be over 100 (who's counting?)) scientific and/or medical research journal articles on COVID in the last few months, beginning in February. From the microbiology and molecular biology of it all, to the transmission vectors, the genetic factors, the roles of this and that, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. I'm QUITE well-versed and thoroughly up-to-date on ALL these kinds of things.

If I had infinite time.............we could get into this. I don't, unfortunately. I doubt I'll be able to change your mind on some of these things. You're entitled to your opinions, of course. But I just don't think there's any question that I'm MUCH better informed on these things than anyone else on this board - and more likely than any 10 of the next-best informed added together, for that matter. It's been a big part of my life these last few months. I've actually been advising hundreds of others around the world. Some physicians, some researchers, some neither.

June 17 was two months ago. Young person-deaths have *really* spiked since then. Yes, they're still less likely to be affected than oldsters, but that gap has narrowed A LOT. One can find tons and tons of reporting on that.

I may try and make time to return to this stuff, but I doubt I will. This is why I didn't get involved in this discussion back when you all first were going thru it. Too many talking heads, with an opinion, but only knowing parts of the story. Sure enough, this story is *still* evolving, and will continue too for quite a while, but the science is doing a 'pretty good' job of trying to ferret out the facts. Tough job.....
Nobody has all the answers, and some of the things we *think* we know will likely change going forward. That's the way science works, after all.

And please..........do not take my lack of response to each of your points as accepting them. I really am time-limited, and actually shouldn't even be doing this much here.

(08-14-2020 01:16 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  We already shut down the whole country once, and for a lot longer than 3-4 weeks. During that time, we got about as much "behaving" as we are going to get.

*** Correct; which is part of what I wrote. HOWEVER.....that doesn't mean we don't have the power to stop it. We do - because other places in the world stopped it quickly when they learned what to do.

Well, I'd say that's great news! Tell me, what did those other countries do for 3-4 weeks that stopped the virus and allowed them to go back to normal?

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor -- I must assume you're kidding, too. All that stuff is VERY well documented -and has had massive amounts of news coverage. "Shutting down" being the easy way to describe it. And it worked. Then the problem recurred when reopening occurred too quickly (see U.S., Hong Kong, U.K. and many other places).

Simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant if everyone would just lock down and behave for 3-4 weeks, we would "stop" the virus (meaning it would no longer be a threat, and we could get back to normal). Apparently, what you really meant was, we need to lock down for 3-4 weeks, then remain in lock down for an additional 10-16 months until we develop a vaccine.

Is that about right?

(08-14-2020 01:41 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  "Saying, "We don't really know for sure," usually means someone can't find any research to support their position."

posterformerlyknownasthedoctor -- LOL! This isn't the place to micro-discuss such things, and I *hate* doing this........but I'm going to "pull rank" on you here. I've read, analyzed, discussed with colleagues, assimilated, etc., probably 75-100 (could actually easily be over 100 (who's counting?)) scientific and/or medical research journal articles on COVID in the last few months, beginning in February. From the microbiology and molecular biology of it all, to the transmission vectors, the genetic factors, the roles of this and that, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. I'm QUITE well-versed and thoroughly up-to-date on ALL these kinds of things.

If I had infinite time.............we could get into this. I don't, unfortunately. I doubt I'll be able to change your mind on some of these things. You're entitled to your opinions, of course. But I just don't think there's any question that I'm MUCH better informed on these things than anyone else on this board - and more likely than any 10 of the next-best informed added together, for that matter. It's been a big part of my life these last few months. I've actually been advising hundreds of others around the world. Some physicians, some researchers, some neither.

June 17 was two months ago. Young person-deaths have *really* spiked since then. Yes, they're still less likely to be affected than oldsters, but that gap has narrowed A LOT. One can find tons and tons of reporting on that.

I may try and make time to return to this stuff, but I doubt I will. This is why I didn't get involved in this discussion back when you all first were going thru it. Too many talking heads, with an opinion, but only knowing parts of the story. Sure enough, this story is *still* evolving, and will continue too for quite a while, but the science is doing a 'pretty good' job of trying to ferret out the facts. Tough job.....
Nobody has all the answers, and some of the things we *think* we know will likely change going forward. That's the way science works, after all.

And please..........do not take my lack of response to each of your points as accepting them. I really am time-limited, and actually shouldn't even be doing this much here.

I don't mind you pulling rank. I want to get it right as much as anyone else, and I assure you I am open to new facts. You've not pointed out any flaws in my logic, so I assume you are saying I'm mistaken because I've used old data (which was the latest set of figures I could find that were broken down by age). No doubt, you and your colleagues have access to up-to-the-minute totals, and I'd be very pleased if you would provide them here.

However, I get the impression you are tired. Take a break, and maybe respond with current data (and comments about my other points) after you've had a chance to rest up. I look forward to it.

(08-14-2020 03:10 PM)Flippmb Wrote:  I don't mind you pulling rank. I want to get it right as much as anyone else, and I assure you I am open to new facts. You've not pointed out any flaws in my logic, so I assume you are saying I'm mistaken because I've used old data (which was the latest set of figures I could find that were broken down by age). No doubt, you and your colleagues have access to up-to-the-minute totals, and I'd be very pleased if you would provide them here.

However, I get the impression you are tired. Take a break, and maybe respond with current data (and comments about my other points) after you've had a chance to rest up. I look forward to it.

You know.........I am tired. I've been stretched thin lately - for multiple reasons.
But............I'll tell ya what............I'm extremely appreciative of your reply. I honestly am not trying to pick fights and engender any ill will here. Quite the contrary. Yes, a big flaw is the outdated report, but it's not that simple. We all no doubt want to save lives and get this behind us as quick as possible. I will try to return to this as time permits. I'm all about education on this stuff. That's something I've been going full tilt on already as time permits to others.
Again - I'm extremely grateful you took my comments in good spirits.

LOL. I didn't even have to go looking. This just came up as the main headline on cnn.com:

COVID rates in children rapidly rising

Here's the CDC report, which starts out essentially identical, but then gives a lot of guidelines. Not a whole lot more on prevalence:

information and recommendations for pediatric health care providers

Again, this is not "my response" to your query. Just came across it organically. More later.................

Here's one more hot-off-the-presses (but nothing really brand new) that I just happened up whilst doing my 'normal' background research - not even looking for replies to your concerns about youngsters and the disease. Bold highlight is mine since it may be relevant to college athletes:

"Covid and kids: It's complicated"

This is not intended to be a full response, because I'd try to structure it a bit. This is only for the time being. BTW, "Stat" is a pretty good source for keeping up with this stuff, on a mostly lay level. I am pretty sure the 'audience' on this site is all over the map in terms of background medical information, so I will try to be as general as possible, and yet (when I get around to it) make it relevant to our concerns on this discussion on this board.

[And @ brock20......the camp in GA having that explosion of cases is another of oodles of examples that you wanted me to list, but as I said there were too many to name. Just sayin'.]

"Early in the pandemic, it looked like there was a silver lining to the disease cloud sweeping across the world. Children, it seemed, didn’t develop the severe symptoms that were sending adults to hospitals struggling for breath, and they very rarely died. It even seemed that kids didn’t contract the disease at the same rates as adults did.

But everything Covid is complex, and kids are no exception. While deaths among children and teens remain low, they are not invulnerable. And they probably contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2, though how much remains unclear.

We’ve learned younger children and teenagers shouldn’t be lumped together when it comes to Covid. Teens seem to shed virus — emit it from their throats and nasal passages — at about the same rates as adults. Kids under 5 have high levels of virus in their respiratory tracts, but it’s still not clear how much they spread it or why they don’t develop symptoms as often as adults do.

A recently published report from a Georgia sleep-away camp shows how quickly the virus can spread among kids. The camp had to be closed within 10 days of starting its orientation for camp staffers, because within days of children arriving, kids and staff started getting sick. (The campers ranged in age from 6 to 19.) The camp did not require campers to wear face masks.

A recent report on Covid infections in children from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that while they remain low, U.S. hospitalization rates for Covid-19 in children have risen since the pandemic started. And one in three children hospitalized with the disease ends up in intensive care. The highest rate of hospitalizations in children was among those under 2 years of age.

Black and Latino children were hospitalized at higher rates than white children. And like adults, children with other health conditions — obesity, chronic lung diseases, or infants who were born premature — are at higher risk than otherwise healthy children.

Perhaps most alarmingly, it’s become clear that a small proportion of children infected with Covid-19 go on to develop a condition where multiple organs come under attack from their own immune system. Called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or MIS-C, this condition seems to occur about two to four weeks after Covid-19 infection. Most children who develop this syndrome recover.

From CNN:

"The top infectious disease doctor in the US, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said Monday, “We’d better be careful when we say ‘Young people who don’t wind up in the hospital are fine, let them get infected, it’s OK.’ No, it’s not OK."

“In individuals who are young and otherwise healthy, who don't require hospitalization but do get sick and symptomatic enough to be in bed for a week or two or three and then get better, they clear the virus -- they have residual symptoms for weeks and sometimes months,” he said during a American Society for Microbiology briefing.

Fauci said subsequent check-ups show that many “have a substantially high proportion of cardiovascular abnormalities, evidence of myocarditis by MRI and PET scans, evidence of emerging cardiomyopathies.”

He said this is “really troublesome” because it is evolving on a day by day basis.

“These are people that supposedly recovered from Covid-19,” Fauci said.

“I'll guarantee you if we have this conversation again, six months to a year from now, we’ll be reviewing the literature about talking about the long-term deleterious effects of non-hospitalized patients,” Fauci said.

Everyone quit caring about this thread. You did your normal long winded posts that don’t really say anything.

(08-18-2020 06:25 AM)brock20 Wrote:  Everyone quit caring about this thread. You did your normal long winded posts that don’t really say anything.

Five days ago, you wrote this:

"I feel like there may be other examples that arent listed, but why? What example of huge gatherings around the US are missing from your list?"

I was just giving you an additional data point to your request. With just a few minutes time, I could list a dozen or more easily. And I've already given you the "why".

But more generally................what is your beef with me, dude? If *you* quit caring, ok, there was no need to chime in again. I'm just trying to educate our fellow fans - maybe save some lives or at least keep people from getting sick.

(08-18-2020 02:08 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Five days ago, you wrote this:

"I feel like there may be other examples that arent listed, but why? What example of huge gatherings around the US are missing from your list?"

I was just giving you an additional data point to your request. With just a few minutes time, I could list a dozen or more easily. And I've already given you the "why".

That statement was sarcasm to ask you why you listed examples of gatherings at the beach or parties but conveniently left out days of massive protests around the country.

(08-18-2020 02:08 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I'm just trying to educate our fellow fans - maybe save some lives or at least keep people from getting sick.

Good grief.

(08-18-2020 02:32 PM)brock20 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:08 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Five days ago, you wrote this:

"I feel like there may be other examples that arent listed, but why? What example of huge gatherings around the US are missing from your list?"

I was just giving you an additional data point to your request. With just a few minutes time, I could list a dozen or more easily. And I've already given you the "why".

That statement was sarcasm to ask you why you listed examples of gatherings at the beach or parties but conveniently left out days of massive protests around the country.

(08-18-2020 02:08 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I'm just trying to educate our fellow fans - maybe save some lives or at least keep people from getting sick.

Good grief.

Now, there have been politicians who have actually said that the protests and mob behavior ARE NOT contributing to the spread. Mainstream media seems to concur. So, if a national mandate to wear masks comes down with a new administration in Washington, wonder if the mob will get an exemption?

(08-18-2020 02:32 PM)brock20 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 02:08 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  Five days ago, you wrote this:

"I feel like there may be other examples that arent listed, but why? What example of huge gatherings around the US are missing from your list?"

I was just giving you an additional data point to your request. With just a few minutes time, I could list a dozen or more easily. And I've already given you the "why".

That statement was sarcasm to ask you why you listed examples of gatherings at the beach or parties but conveniently left out days of massive protests around the country.

(08-18-2020 02:08 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I'm just trying to educate our fellow fans - maybe save some lives or at least keep people from getting sick.

Good grief.

Good grief indeed. So you were crafting a snarky remark about Black Lives Matter, and expected me to pick up on that???? I was thinking along HEALTH lines - not political - and imo that's kinda a stretch to expect me to make that jump.

That said............no doubt there was *some* disease transmission during all that chaos. But since 95-99% of it was outdoors, and many (far from a majority) protesters were wearing masks, then the transmission would likely have been low. Buc66's post seems to confirm that that's what he's heard, too. Nor have I heard of any "hot spots" that came from those protests. Doesn't mean there weren't some, of course. And I *do* think it's likely there was some transmission. Hard for there not to be some. But those protesters, of the ones I saw interviewed, had made the conscious decision that this movement was important enough to take that risk.

Needless to say - except to you maybe - taking part in an important movement/protest (whether one is on board with that or not) is kinda a different thing than going to a big pool party, house party, ball game, or to a crowded bar, doncha think?

Well, I'm glad I now know the story. I was afraid it might have been hurt feelings from those times I took you baseline or swatted away that weak sh** you brought into the paint.

Hey, Poster. Glad to see you are feeling perky again! Have you been able to find those up-to-date COVID figures for children and young people? Thanks.

(08-19-2020 07:00 AM)Flippmb Wrote:  Hey, Poster. Glad to see you are feeling perky again! Have you been able to find those up-to-date COVID figures for children and young people? Thanks.

No; my plate is pretty full at the moment. But did you read the links I posted in post #129 above?

(08-19-2020 10:18 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 07:00 AM)Flippmb Wrote:  Hey, Poster. Glad to see you are feeling perky again! Have you been able to find those up-to-date COVID figures for children and young people? Thanks.

No; my plate is pretty full at the moment. But did you read the links I posted in post #129 above?

I did, as well as the link you provided in #130. No hard data in any of them, which is typical of what I find when searching. I'm hoping you have access to databanks not necessarily available to the layman.