11 hours ago, Outlaw said:

Nope. Don’t know of anyone who said that at all actually. 

Smells of denial, is that a cologne?

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

Smells of denial, is that a cologne?

No, it's a river.

23 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No one is suggesting staying closed forever. What everyone seemed to agree on was to wait for the cases to start dropping before trying to reopen. We might be at that point now had people not freaked out and insisted on mass gatherings.

We are at that point now, cases have been dropping. They're not going to fall off a cliff

46 minutes ago, DiPros said:

I feel pretty certain not everyone in the US will get a test.  These testing arguments are beginning to drive me a little nuts.  Health care and other essential workers, yes. Test often. 

From the Wuhan article just posted:

Six locally transmitted cases, reported on May 10 and 11, were found in people already under quarantine classed as being asymptomatic before testing positive, according to the local government. All six cases emerged from a single residential compound in Wuhan and were the first new infections found in the city since its lockdown was lifted on April 8.

In the US it will be impossible to test people in quarantine, no?  How did it get into a residence if they are in quarantine?  We will be dealing with this until a vaccine becomes available to all.

Yeah I find testing ridiculous at this point.  What good does a test do?  Unless you test positive and are nearly dead they won’t hospitalize your anyway.  And there’s not a magical cure. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic but what good is testing really? 

13 minutes ago, DBW said:

Yeah I find testing ridiculous at this point.  What good does a test do?  Unless you test positive and are nearly dead they won’t hospitalize your anyway.  And there’s not a magical cure. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic but what good is testing really? 

Tracing.  It's the best way to find clusters before they go all exponential.

8 minutes ago, DBW said:

Yeah I find testing ridiculous at this point.  What good does a test do?  Unless you test positive and are nearly dead they won’t hospitalize your anyway.  And there’s not a magical cure. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic but what good is testing really? 

It's incredibly important for isolation of positive individuals to limit spread and tracking to identify sources, hot spots that need intervention, and areas that are safe for relaxed regulations.  If your goal is opening up the country and having it remain open  through subsequent waves of disease, the safest way to do it is with en-masse testing.

President Drumpfster Fire has turned away states, saying they have to  get their own PPE but apparently, the US state of Russia has no issues securing promises of PPE.

 

Kind of funny, huh?

32 minutes ago, devpool said:

We are at that point now, cases have been dropping. 

No they haven't. That's the problem. 

2 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

President Drumpfster Fire has turned away states, saying they have to  get their own PPE but apparently, the US state of Russia has no issues securing promises of PPE.

 

Kind of funny, huh?

Nothing says "America First" like aiding our greatest enemy to the detriment of our countrymen. 

I don't believe the numbers from China or a bunch of other countries

11 hours ago, Outlaw said:

In certain areas...maybe. In quite a lot of others, no. 

I agree. Places that are very rural with population density very low

44 minutes ago, devpool said:

We are at that point now, cases have been dropping. They're not going to fall off a cliff

Increasing at a lesser rate and dropping are not the same thing mate.

15 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Yet another clinical hydroxychloroquine trial completed and it's showing no effects on patients other than increased rates of cardiac arrest.

Are we just going to pretend that less than a month ago Trump, Gooliani, and the entirety of Fox News weren't screaming for people to take hydroxychloroquine?

I still saw it on Fox News just last week. 

13 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Increasing at a lesser rate and dropping are not the same thing mate.

In PA we haven't even done that. They were up 3 days ago. It's supposed to be a 2 week decline to move into the next phase. People are acting like Wolf wants to keep everything closed which is patently absurd. 

 

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

It's incredibly important for isolation of positive individuals to limit spread and tracking to identify sources, hot spots that need intervention, and areas that are safe for relaxed regulations.  If your goal is opening up the country and having it remain open  through subsequent waves of disease, the safest way to do it is with en-masse testing.

But given that someone could be a carrier and asymptomatic for up to 14 days it’s nearly impossible to trace and lockdown areas where this person may have exposed people.  So again unless ever single human on the planet stays home for the next two months and the virus just dies off without a host, all this lockdown and testing is really just doing nothing.  We slowed the spread.  Great.  And people don’t want to open because of fear the spread rate will increase.  Well yeah that may happen.  But the virus isn’t going anywhere so it’s still going to spread regardless.  It’s a lose-lose situation not matter what you do.    

58 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

He's descended into a full blown political hack. 

19 minutes ago, DBW said:

But given that someone could be a carrier and asymptomatic for up to 14 days it’s nearly impossible to trace and lockdown areas where this person may have exposed people.  So again unless ever single human on the planet stays home for the next two months and the virus just dies off without a host, all this lockdown and testing is really just doing nothing.  We slowed the spread.  Great.  And people don’t want to open because of fear the spread rate will increase.  Well yeah that may happen.  But the virus isn’t going anywhere so it’s still going to spread regardless.  It’s a lose-lose situation not matter what you do.    

Unless you test everyone yes you will miss some asymptomatic carriers.  There are however many many people who present with a wide array of vague symptoms, as well as people who are asymptomatic who have a known exposure that can be identified and isolated by testing.  Giving up on identifying any positive cases just because you won't be able to identify 100% of them makes absolutely zero sense.  And this isn't just something that happens in theory.  Public health/Epidemiology "tracers" are being deployed en-masse right not in order to identify origins and sources of spread.  Again if you want to reopen the country mass testing and exposure tracing is by far the best way to do it while limiting spread, deaths and ICU overburdening.

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Again if you want to reopen the country mass testing and exposure tracing is by far the best way to do it while limiting spread, deaths and ICU overburdening.

How often are you going to test someone in your plan?

Champion of the little guy.

Anyone got any podcasts they'd absolutely recommend? 

I like football, comedy, fitness and hey if there's good business ones I wouldn't mind either. 

30 minutes ago, DBW said:

But given that someone could be a carrier and asymptomatic for up to 14 days it’s nearly impossible to trace and lockdown areas where this person may have exposed people.  So again unless ever single human on the planet stays home for the next two months and the virus just dies off without a host, all this lockdown and testing is really just doing nothing.  We slowed the spread.  Great.  And people don’t want to open because of fear the spread rate will increase.  Well yeah that may happen.  But the virus isn’t going anywhere so it’s still going to spread regardless.  It’s a lose-lose situation not matter what you do.    

We went into this testing symptomatic people only.  Testing asymptotic people requires the timeline and tracer back to someone who got sick. To me that person would need to be tested each day.  Not just once and done. 

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

Nothing says "America First" like aiding our greatest enemy to the detriment of our countrymen. 

Now now, Dear Leader is helping the true great cause

7 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Anyone got any podcasts they'd absolutely recommend? 

I like football, comedy, fitness and hey if there's good business ones I wouldn't mind either. 

BGN is the best podcast covering the Eagles. https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/bgn-radio

Green Light hosted by Chris Long/Chalk Media covers football more broadly from an inside, former-player perspective. And sometimes other sports. There is an Eagles bent because of Long's past playing career.  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc-u_lN1QZ_Dyt9kFp7KflfUxiBWHJq_-

Not a business podcast, but I enjoy the subjects and thought behind Freakonomics. https://freakonomics.com/

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

How often are you going to test someone in your plan?

There's no good answer here.  On a scale from frequent testing of the entire population to not testing anyone I believe there is a middle ground that can give us some data to identify/quell outbreaks without being unrealistic. 

If I had to throw out a (very raw and way outside my paygrade) proposal it would be anyone symptomatic or anyone with close exposure to someone who tests positive (or hospitalized as a presumptive positive).  Repeat no more than something like every 5-7 days  but with stipulations it could be sooner if you're a high risk person or if your symptoms progress to needed medical care.  If antibody testing is confirmed to be able convery some degree of immunity that would obviously change the plan.

I'd defer any actual proposals to trained epidemiologists/virologists though obviously. It seems like a lot but the way I see it our main goals right now should be 1) safely reopen the country 2) prevent any potential subsequent waves of infections from requiring large scale shut down again. Continued distancing/mask protocols with aggressive testing/tracing measures seems like the most realistic of a series of sheety options to achieve both.