Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

But small groups of 50 to 150 Marines

About half women?


I believe the Coronavirus will put us in the bag for the Chinese to grab.

PBS did a show on life on a carrier a while back. This was a "coed" crew and the producers kept asking sailors how things were between men and women on board and they would get a big smile on their face and start to answer but the office following around the camera crew would make a warning sound and then the smile would go away. Funniest damn thing.

Interesting data point. This is a lagging indicator so it might best be used as a baseline of where were were at before lockdown and where we got to with restrictions. Again, a lagging indicator but in my limited experience it takes about 3 weeks for what we are actually doing to show up on the chart. So lets snap a chalk-line for May 7 https://covid19-projections.com/infections-tracker/

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Even though this looks terrible I can understand the motivation. The system is built on having the safety valve of lower level of care facilities for patients not sick enough for the expensive high support care of acute care hospitals. These are patients that need either permanent of extended support like physical therapy or injectable medications or even finish out antibiotic therapies. Sadly, these are often patients who have no or incompetent family support. Almost all could be managed at home with home nursing or nursing aides if their "family" gave a damn or didn't have other social problems.

The problem is the level of expertise is not the same as an acute care hospital and the caregiver might have 8 or more patients each and the economic margins are thinner so they likely skimp on PPE. Sending COVID patients still excreting virus to such a facility is signing a death warrant to the uninfected patients there because they ALL have pre-existing conditions.

Good insight!

This is kind of shocking.

Workers comp for contracting COVID-19 on the job now easier to claim under order signed by Gov. Newsom

https://ktla.com/news/california/califo ... us-claims/

Under the order, Californians diagnosed within two weeks of reporting to work between March 19 and July 5 will be presumed to have contracted the virus on the job.

It will fall on employers to refute any claims for medical coverage and benefits.

----

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Interesting data point. This is a lagging indicator so it might best be used as a baseline of where were were at before lockdown and where we got to with restrictions. Again, a lagging indicator but in my limited experience it takes about 3 weeks for what we are actually doing to show up on the chart. So lets snap a chalk-line for May 7 https://covid19-projections.com/infections-tracker/

John, welcome back! How're things for you and family? Good to see you here.

Thanks for the post. More interesting raw data plus projections. Interesting that every state but one is below the key 1.0 threshold on Ro.

Since my first interest is in my own state, I looked at that. The chart shows Georgia with an estimate of 131k cases on 4/15 (I don't know what the actual number was). With a 0.1% mortality level, that would translate into 1,310 deaths by some future date. If we used a three-week lag, then Georgia would be expected to reach that number around May 6. And, indeed, Georgia has 1,328 as of that date. That's so precise that it makes me think the info is working back - taking actual numbers of deaths as of yesterday, applying the estimated Ro figure, and using that to predict how many actual cases there were a month ago. Going forward, the estimate is about 405k cases by July 1. Applying the 0.1% mortality, that would be about 4,050 deaths - about 250 less than U. Washington projects one that date (or, if we apply the 3-week threshold, about 860 less than U. Wash. projects in late July).

So, this source is spot on with the current mortality in Georgia (and may have used it in modeling) and is somewhat more optimistic about the future for the state than IHME is.

Thanks for providing the source.

That's one way of dampening enthusiasm for re-opening. The threat of liability is a huge factor for business and their insurers. Lots of pressure applied through via this action. (The powerful trial lawyers organization will love this too; and you know which party they support).

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This is kind of shocking.

Workers comp for contracting COVID-19 on the job now easier to claim under order signed by Gov. Newsom

https://ktla.com/news/california/califo ... us-claims/

Under the order, Californians diagnosed within two weeks of reporting to work between March 19 and July 5 will be presumed to have contracted the virus on the job.

It will fall on employers to refute any claims for medical coverage and benefits.

----

That battle is currently being fought o the national stage, too. There have been myriad proposals for legislation protecting businesses and other entities (charities, governments) from Covid-19 liability. The trial lawyers associations and their allies oppose that. As a general rule, that means Democrat leaders oppose it. But there is pressure on some of them to sign it to allow things to get up and running again. Very tough weighing of factors for all involved.

In addition to all the other fallout, there will be massive impacts on insurance companies (who bear the brunt of litigations costs for entities being sued). Personal and business bankruptcies will skyrocket.

Every which way you look, there are minefields.

P.S. I don't think there's any way Governor Newsom can legally change the burden of proof in civil cases via executive order. That would take a bill passed by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor (and subject to constitutional provisions and possible interstate commerce implications). But his executive order will still have the desired chilling effect. Clearly, that's his real objective: dissuade business from reopening.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Lowpe




My best guess is to say it never really reached Cuomo, a decision was made down the line probably to save money as nursing homes cost less than hospitals.

You probably could count on one hand the state administered nursing homes that could safely handle positive covid patients.

Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk "The buck stops here" and maybe some people need to remember that.

warspite1

I think that is very unfair. To blame a dead ex-President for the problems with New York nursing homes is wrong and I'm sure Mr Truman didn't mean to imply he would take responsibility for that......

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Harry S Truman had a sign on his desk "The buck stops here" and maybe some people need to remember that.

warspite1

I think that is very unfair. To blame a dead ex-President for the problems with New York nursing homes is wrong and I'm sure Mr Truman didn't mean to imply he would take responsibility for that......

[:D]

warspite1

Well at least you and HansBolter saw the funny side... I guess everyone's sense of humour is different [:)]

Get tested for Coronavirus, show negative. Get infected 2 days later at work, store. home, etc.



Real time bio-monitoring?

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

That battle is currently being fought o the national stage, too. There have been myriad proposals for legislation protecting businesses and other entities (charities, governments) from Covid-19 liability. The trial lawyers associations and their allies oppose that. As a general rule, that means Democrat leaders oppose it. But there is pressure on some of them to sign it to allow things to get up and running again. Very tough weighing of factors for all involved.

In addition to all the other fallout, there will be massive impacts on insurance companies (who bear the brunt of litigations costs for entities being sued). Personal and business bankruptcies will skyrocket.

Every which way you look, there are minefields.

There was a good statement from the Scottish First Minister a few weeks back to the effect that businesses can reopen, industry can grow back and the economy can be fixed, but dead people stay dead.

The measure strikes me as a reasonable one to ensure worker safety and that businesses will seriously consider appropriate precautions.

That applies to every danger in life. If we are willing to isolate ourselves at home, no drunk driving, no seasonal flu transmission, presumably no sexually transmitted diseases or lightning strikes, etc.

There is a risk here, as with life in general. Everybody's trying to balance those risks. Total and indefinite lockdowns are not an option, at one end, and neither do people expect a near-term return to life as normal. Figuring out the optimal medium is what most are trying to do.

Obvert isn't in the room, at the moment. He may be mowing the grass or painting a wall, but he mentioned Tuesday that Mrs. Obvert is due any minute now. Continued best wishes to the family.

One of Trump's personal valets has tested positive for coronavirus
23 mins ago


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz


"A member of the US Navy who serves as one of President Donald Trump's personal valets has tested positive for coronavirus, CNN has learned Thursday, raising concerns about the President's possible exposure to the virus.

The valets are members of an elite military unit dedicated to the White House and often work very close to the President and first family. Trump was upset when he was informed Wednesday that the valet had tested positive, a source told CNN, and he was subsequently tested again by the White House physician."

Coronavirus: Is it time to free the healthy from restrictions?
7 May 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52543692



"But have we got this out of perspective? How much actual risk does coronavirus present?

The people who are most at risk are older people and those with pre-existing health conditions. The overwhelming majority of deaths has been among these groups.

But young people are, of course still, dying - by late April there had been more than 300 deaths among the under-45s.

What is more, there are many more who have been left seriously ill, struggling with the after-effects for weeks.

So how should we interpret that? And what does that mean for post-lockdown life? "

Trump and some top aides question accuracy of virus death toll
22 hours ago

https://www.axios.com/trump-coronavirus ... 5fb34.html


"President Trump has complained to advisers about the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated, suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view, according to sources with direct knowledge."


"Medicare is giving hospitals a 20% bonus for their treatment of coronavirus patients as a way to help them make up for the money they’re losing because they’ve had to postpone a lot of non-coronavirus care.
Intentionally misdiagnosing patients with coronavirus would be fraud, and so far no one in the administration has publicly leveled such an accusation. "

Things more terrifying than Coronavirus:



An Asian Boy Band doing a cover of Blinded by the Light

I don't remember if this was the case during 9/11. I think I would remember.

New York is Charging Samaritan’s Purse Income Tax After the Charity Worked for Free

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/ma ... d-for-free

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Interesting data point. This is a lagging indicator so it might best be used as a baseline of where were were at before lockdown and where we got to with restrictions. Again, a lagging indicator but in my limited experience it takes about 3 weeks for what we are actually doing to show up on the chart. So lets snap a chalk-line for May 7 https://covid19-projections.com/infections-tracker/

A very interesting site. I like the presentation. The predictions are scary.