Getting even with Quirt for his "upcoming disasters" contribution?

What? That article lost me right at the beginning, with this statement:

"Assuming we have just crested in deaths at 70k, that would mean that if we stay locked down, we lose another 70,000 people over the next 6 weeks as we come off that peak. That's what's going to happen with a lockdown."

Well, that's false.

A lot of those 70K deaths were for people exposed when there were *no* protective measures in place. Assuming that the protective measures are actually protective (and if they're not, why are we doing them?), there should be fewer people getting infected today than two months ago.

If we remain in lockdown for six more weeks, we will not have an additional 70K deaths, and I haven't seen a model that says that will happen.

I also was not impressed with the nonsense about catching the virus from the toilet flush of a previous occupant. Please prove to me that such an event would generate enough live virus to actually infect a person.

I also am underwhelmed with her focus on "new cases." What does that even mean in a country that has had a chronic testing shortage since Day One? The best analyses I have seen focus on hospitalizations and deaths. And in many places, those numbers are good and getting better.

I think your analysis is flawed with respect to the additional deaths. It's true that fewer people will die because of social distancing and containment measures, but they *will* keep dying.

edit: I had to look it up. Right now we're over 75K deaths; the IHME model predicts 135K by Aug 1. And I just heard Chris Murray (the IHME guy) say that they think that number is likely to go up given the current situation and states reopening at this point in time.

Erin's 70K number is in the ballpark.

What we've been trying to do all along is stretch what deaths do occur over a longer time frame so as not to overwhelm the system.

quote:

I also was not impressed with the nonsense about catching the virus from the toilet flush of a previous occupant. Please prove to me that such an event would generate enough live virus to actually infect a person.

From the blog:

quote:

Without a seat to close, a single flush releases ~8000 droplets into the air. If the person using the restroom before you was infected, you have a chance of contracting the virus via breathing the air in the bathroom. While the paper in question did not look for live virus, it is clear that infected people are releasing, at a minimum, viral RNA, in bowel movements. Until further experiments are done to determine whether is is just viral fragments, or infectious material, I would avoid public bathrooms or wait a few minutes before entering so gravity can bring the droplets to the floor.

Author is clearly stating there is no such proof and simply offered a recommendation.

You are free to ignore it, of course.

And by the way, Erin is a "he"



https://www.umassd.edu/directory/ebromage/

https://erinbromage.wixsite.com/covid19/home/

Tell him to stop spelling his name like a girl, then!

Seriously, without knowing their pronouns, any gender guess is just a guess, I guess.

Anyway . . . I agree that there could be 70K additional deaths from covid. The question is over what timeframe.

So what did Erin say in their analysis? Erin said the peak is 70K, and there should be as many deaths on the back side of the peak **over six weeks** than the front side. The analysis you provided, WTG, said that would occur by August, not six weeks (mid-June).

But I would love to see Erin's peer reviewed research on the viral load coming off of doo-doo that was expelled from an infected person's anus at high velocity before it struck the water 8 inches below the anus, generating a vicious backsplash of lethal virus that managed to find an avenue of escape past the airlock created by the generous buttocks into the air before landing harmlessly on the floor.

Cindy -- who would push past Erin while they are waiting for the virus to dissipate and use the darn toilet

Bravado in the face of a virus is just ridiculous. I'm seeing some of that.

If you’re referring to me, you can just say that.

Me, I’m just calling out BS. I think we’d all be better of if we collectively could stick to the facts.

And that goes for the deniers who are refusing to believe rather obvious facts.