What If?

[allcat]

Well you sound just as hysterical as the people you're calling hysterical. I don't think anyone out of the norm is being hysterical. There's always a group of hysterical people on each end of the spectrum regarding any issue, so this is no different. You seem to think that everyone that isn't in lockstep with you on this, is hysterical. To me hysterical is someone having bunker mentality. I don't know a single person that's doing that. I'm sure some are though.

I've had two siblings die from cancer, but I don't recall needing to do anything like you're talking about, but maybe we should. You did and it didn't seem like you were being over the top by doing so. Seemed like it was the logical thing to do.

I'm actually pretty in the middle of this whole thing to be honest. I'm likely taking all the same precautions as you are. I think there are people on extreme sides both ways. There are people who think it's all made up by the government, controlling us, blah blah blah. That's not me. There's a guy I golf with who has literally been living in a hotel for 2 weeks now because he still works and his wife refuses to let him home. I find that extreme.

And ya in our case he was so vulnerable to getting sick while undergoing treatment, and especially after his bone marrow transplant, that even a minor cold could have killed him. I think this is the case with many people who's immune system is so compromised.

That to me is what is so interesting about this whole situation we're in. All of us could do so much more every day to protect the vulnerable. I think those that are so passionate about taking Corona precautions could take that way of thinking not just now, but always. But that won't happen. We'll power of this in the coming weeks and months and will go back to normal and this will be a blip on the radar.

So do you want people to start being more cautious in general? As in, after this is over, do you think people should be more conscious about spreading germs and do more to prevent germ spreading. Or do you just want this to get resolved and then go back to the way it was before?

Well, to be honest....both!

There are obviously two schools of thought, one being this is very dangerous virus and we need to take extreme caution; and the other being that this is a virus, take some action and let's get back to living.

Because of my personal opinion, I'd like to wrap this thing up and get back to living. I'm no more fearful of this thing than any other virus that could get me or my loved ones sick. That said, I'm doing what I'm told.

However, for those that are on the other side of the fence I would like to see them practice what they preach. By all means take any precaution necessary to keep yourself and others safe, and protect the vulnerable. But these actions could help save lives year round until the end of time. I'd think if you found it necessary now to wear masks, sanitize your hands often, wash your hands often, maintain a distance from people in stores and restaurants and everything else we are doing to fight this thing for the greater good, those would be happy doing the same things going forward.

My guess, and this is just a guess; is that most people are not willing to take those steps. Would those that are so passionate about wearing masks and keeping space right now be willing to do that indefinitely for the greater good? If sports can only be played in front of fans willing to wear masks and have an empty seat between them and other fans are you willing to do that? Or concerts or any large gathering? If they require you to have a table in between you and other guests in restaurants to maintain distance is that ok? Are we fine with limits of people in grocery stores permanently? Because these actions would benefit a lot of people and in some cases even save lives.

You mean after it's been resolved and there's a cure and vaccine? I'm the same, if so, and it will probably be an even smaller threat than the flu and pneumonia. If not, I disagree that currently the coronavirus is like anything else that can get me or my loved ones sick simply because there is no vaccine or cure for it.

It's a virus, not many get vaccines or cures. Aids as an example is being contained.

Oh, sorry, thought I'd heard they're working on a vaccine for it.

They are, but they are also working on an aids vaccine. Think about the flu, they have a vaccine every year,. but no one is immune to the new one next year. Always keep your fingers crossed.

[ilovethecats]

Well you sound just as hysterical as the people you're calling hysterical. I don't think anyone out of the norm is being hysterical. There's always a group of hysterical people on each end of the spectrum regarding any issue, so this is no different. You seem to think that everyone that isn't in lockstep with you on this, is hysterical. To me hysterical is someone having bunker mentality. I don't know a single person that's doing that. I'm sure some are though.

I've had two siblings die from cancer, but I don't recall needing to do anything like you're talking about, but maybe we should. You did and it didn't seem like you were being over the top by doing so. Seemed like it was the logical thing to do.

I'm actually pretty in the middle of this whole thing to be honest. I'm likely taking all the same precautions as you are. I think there are people on extreme sides both ways. There are people who think it's all made up by the government, controlling us, blah blah blah. That's not me. There's a guy I golf with who has literally been living in a hotel for 2 weeks now because he still works and his wife refuses to let him home. I find that extreme.

And ya in our case he was so vulnerable to getting sick while undergoing treatment, and especially after his bone marrow transplant, that even a minor cold could have killed him. I think this is the case with many people who's immune system is so compromised.

That to me is what is so interesting about this whole situation we're in. All of us could do so much more every day to protect the vulnerable. I think those that are so passionate about taking Corona precautions could take that way of thinking not just now, but always. But that won't happen. We'll power of this in the coming weeks and months and will go back to normal and this will be a blip on the radar.

So do you want people to start being more cautious in general? As in, after this is over, do you think people should be more conscious about spreading germs and do more to prevent germ spreading. Or do you just want this to get resolved and then go back to the way it was before?

Well, to be honest....both!

There are obviously two schools of thought, one being this is very dangerous virus and we need to take extreme caution; and the other being that this is a virus, take some action and let's get back to living.

Because of my personal opinion, I'd like to wrap this thing up and get back to living. I'm no more fearful of this thing than any other virus that could get me or my loved ones sick. That said, I'm doing what I'm told.

However, for those that are on the other side of the fence I would like to see them practice what they preach. By all means take any precaution necessary to keep yourself and others safe, and protect the vulnerable. But these actions could help save lives year round until the end of time. I'd think if you found it necessary now to wear masks, sanitize your hands often, wash your hands often, maintain a distance from people in stores and restaurants and everything else we are doing to fight this thing for the greater good, those would be happy doing the same things going forward.

My guess, and this is just a guess; is that most people are not willing to take those steps. Would those that are so passionate about wearing masks and keeping space right now be willing to do that indefinitely for the greater good? If sports can only be played in front of fans willing to wear masks and have an empty seat between them and other fans are you willing to do that? Or concerts or any large gathering? If they require you to have a table in between you and other guests in restaurants to maintain distance is that ok? Are we fine with limits of people in grocery stores permanently? Because these actions would benefit a lot of people and in some cases even save lives.

You mean after it's been resolved and there's a cure and vaccine? I'm the same, if so, and it will probably be an even smaller threat than the flu and pneumonia. If not, I disagree that currently the coronavirus is like anything else that can get me or my loved ones sick simply because there is no vaccine or cure for it.

No, I mean right now. Just my opinion. I own essential businesses so I'm going to work every day. I deal with hundreds of people every day. I'm taking precautions, but not much more than I always did. I maintain a clean working environment, wash my hands often, etc. I see many of the same people day in and day out. Town is already much busier than a couple weeks ago.

But basically for me it's just a numbers game. I'm just not afraid of a virus I have very little chance of getting. Not trying to make light of it, but it's just how I feel.

So if Bullock, Trump et al just said, "oh the hell with it, everyone just go back to business as usual" you're cool with that and you don't think it would spread to a significant point and would fall in line with flu, pneumonia, etc.?

Tough to say with certainty in my opinion. I think there are too many unknowns at this point. But yes, if Bullock said today he wants to open the economy back up this weekend I would support that. We have a few hundred plus cases right now. If we opened up and that number dramatically increased to something awful obviously I'd expect them to act accordingly.

A couple things I consider. One, there are five states still today that haven't taken the measures of the rest of the country. I won't pretend that I have read the statistics because I haven't. But it doesn't appear these states have way more cases and deaths than other states. I'd assume if they did it would be making national headlines as very irresponsible. I have family in North Dakota and they can go meet friends for beers and dinner and the like. I'll dig into it a bit but you'd think if this inaction in these states was so dangerous there would be major uproar and federal government would be forced to step in.

Along these lines, all states are obviously not equal. So I don't think how we deal with this thing should be equal either. We haven't, nor will we ever deal with the things here they are dealing with in NYC and other hotspots. So while I'm not an idiot, and realize that the virus does not recognize state borders, I feel like that has to be a consideration. I'd expect we start getting some of our "freedom" back before crammed cities do.

[seataccat]

Well you sound just as hysterical as the people you're calling hysterical. I don't think anyone out of the norm is being hysterical. There's always a group of hysterical people on each end of the spectrum regarding any issue, so this is no different. You seem to think that everyone that isn't in lockstep with you on this, is hysterical. To me hysterical is someone having bunker mentality. I don't know a single person that's doing that. I'm sure some are though.

I've had two siblings die from cancer, but I don't recall needing to do anything like you're talking about, but maybe we should. You did and it didn't seem like you were being over the top by doing so. Seemed like it was the logical thing to do.

I'm actually pretty in the middle of this whole thing to be honest. I'm likely taking all the same precautions as you are. I think there are people on extreme sides both ways. There are people who think it's all made up by the government, controlling us, blah blah blah. That's not me. There's a guy I golf with who has literally been living in a hotel for 2 weeks now because he still works and his wife refuses to let him home. I find that extreme.

And ya in our case he was so vulnerable to getting sick while undergoing treatment, and especially after his bone marrow transplant, that even a minor cold could have killed him. I think this is the case with many people who's immune system is so compromised.

That to me is what is so interesting about this whole situation we're in. All of us could do so much more every day to protect the vulnerable. I think those that are so passionate about taking Corona precautions could take that way of thinking not just now, but always. But that won't happen. We'll power of this in the coming weeks and months and will go back to normal and this will be a blip on the radar.

So do you want people to start being more cautious in general? As in, after this is over, do you think people should be more conscious about spreading germs and do more to prevent germ spreading. Or do you just want this to get resolved and then go back to the way it was before?

Well, to be honest....both!

There are obviously two schools of thought, one being this is very dangerous virus and we need to take extreme caution; and the other being that this is a virus, take some action and let's get back to living.

Because of my personal opinion, I'd like to wrap this thing up and get back to living. I'm no more fearful of this thing than any other virus that could get me or my loved ones sick. That said, I'm doing what I'm told.

However, for those that are on the other side of the fence I would like to see them practice what they preach. By all means take any precaution necessary to keep yourself and others safe, and protect the vulnerable. But these actions could help save lives year round until the end of time. I'd think if you found it necessary now to wear masks, sanitize your hands often, wash your hands often, maintain a distance from people in stores and restaurants and everything else we are doing to fight this thing for the greater good, those would be happy doing the same things going forward.

My guess, and this is just a guess; is that most people are not willing to take those steps. Would those that are so passionate about wearing masks and keeping space right now be willing to do that indefinitely for the greater good? If sports can only be played in front of fans willing to wear masks and have an empty seat between them and other fans are you willing to do that? Or concerts or any large gathering? If they require you to have a table in between you and other guests in restaurants to maintain distance is that ok? Are we fine with limits of people in grocery stores permanently? Because these actions would benefit a lot of people and in some cases even save lives.

You mean after it's been resolved and there's a cure and vaccine? I'm the same, if so, and it will probably be an even smaller threat than the flu and pneumonia. If not, I disagree that currently the coronavirus is like anything else that can get me or my loved ones sick simply because there is no vaccine or cure for it.

No, I mean right now. Just my opinion. I own essential businesses so I'm going to work every day. I deal with hundreds of people every day. I'm taking precautions, but not much more than I always did. I maintain a clean working environment, wash my hands often, etc. I see many of the same people day in and day out. Town is already much busier than a couple weeks ago.

But basically for me it's just a numbers game. I'm just not afraid of a virus I have very little chance of getting. Not trying to make light of it, but it's just how I feel.

So if Bullock, Trump et al just said, "oh the hell with it, everyone just go back to business as usual" you're cool with that and you don't think it would spread to a significant point and would fall in line with flu, pneumonia, etc.?

Tough to say with certainty in my opinion. I think there are too many unknowns at this point. But yes, if Bullock said today he wants to open the economy back up this weekend I would support that. We have a few hundred plus cases right now. If we opened up and that number dramatically increased to something awful obviously I'd expect them to act accordingly.

A couple things I consider. One, there are five states still today that haven't taken the measures of the rest of the country. I won't pretend that I have read the statistics because I haven't. But it doesn't appear these states have way more cases and deaths than other states. I'd assume if they did it would be making national headlines as very irresponsible. I have family in North Dakota and they can go meet friends for beers and dinner and the like. I'll dig into it a bit but you'd think if this inaction in these states was so dangerous there would be major uproar and federal government would be forced to step in.

Along these lines, all states are obviously not equal. So I don't think how we deal with this thing should be equal either. We haven't, nor will we ever deal with the things here they are dealing with in NYC and other hotspots. So while I'm not an idiot, and realize that the virus does not recognize state borders, I feel like that has to be a consideration. I'd expect we start getting some of our "freedom" back before crammed cities do.

I think this is generally correct. However you mentioned that there is very little chance of you ever catching this thing. I beg to differ and I think most virologists would agree. From my understanding the only real protection from this is herd immunity and that means that roughly 70-80% of the population will need exposure to it. That could be through a vaccine or just plain catching it. I for one am hoping to hold out for the vaccine. The real reason for the isolation is just to slow it and not swamp our medical facilities.

[TomCat88]

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/29 ... es-vaccine

ESPN poll says 72% won’t go to games without vaccine.

Of course that poll didn’t take into account that Montana football fans are much more rabid fans than the typical American college football fans.

[BleedingBLue]

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/29 ... es-vaccine

ESPN poll says 72% won’t go to games without vaccine.

Of course that poll didn’t take into account that Montana football fans are much more rabid fans than the typical American college football fans.

I'd like to see a poll of 762,000 instead of 762.

[catsrback76]

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/29 ... es-vaccine

ESPN poll says 72% won’t go to games without vaccine.

Of course that poll didn’t take into account that Montana football fans are much more rabid fans than the typical American college football fans.

I'm skeptical that we have a football season this year, but if we do, I think we will have a ton of people wanting to watch on TV while staying at home. IF I were involved in planning at the BSC level, I would be looking to get ESPN involved in our "new markets" to broadcast the games, sell local and regional advertising, and get as much $$ out of the tv market as I could.

It's true, some people will go no matter what, which is great, but the new normal will likely keeps crowds away until a vaccine arrives...in 1-2 years at the earliest.

[TomCat88]

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/29 ... es-vaccine

ESPN poll says 72% won’t go to games without vaccine.

Of course that poll didn’t take into account that Montana football fans are much more rabid fans than the typical American college football fans.

I'm skeptical that we have a football season this year, but if we do, I think we will have a ton of people wanting to watch on TV while staying at home. IF I were involved in planning at the BSC level, I would be looking to get ESPN involved in our "new markets" to broadcast the games, sell local and regional advertising, and get as much $$ out of the tv market as I could.

It's true, some people will go no matter what, which is great, but the new normal will likely keeps crowds away until a vaccine arrives...in 1-2 years at the earliest.

I think football (fall sports) is the most at risk. I think the second wave is supposed to begin rolling in around September.

Other than the big hit Washington took early on the west has faired pretty well. That’s encouraging since most of the games are vs teams from the west. I predict the Long Island game will have the lowest attendance.

[MSU01]

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/29 ... es-vaccine

ESPN poll says 72% won’t go to games without vaccine.

Of course that poll didn’t take into account that Montana football fans are much more rabid fans than the typical American college football fans.

I'd like to see a poll of 762,000 instead of 762.

I would also bet that peoples' responses on a poll about this at the height of the pandemic won't match very well with their actual behavior once games start up again.

[ilovethecats]

I think this is generally correct. However you mentioned that there is very little chance of you ever catching this thing. I beg to differ and I think most virologists would agree.

Well, as we know these are more of the numbers that are unknown now because of the virus itself. The biggest thing being that it’s said many people can have the virus and not show any symptoms at all. Combine that with the fact that our testing is not what it should be and that will skew numbers big time too. So we’re all just kind of guessing.

We’re only able to test people showing severe systems. Well those people and celebrities, politicians and athletes; but that’s a separate topic. If we could test everyone we’d know a lot more obviously. Most likely we’d find that far more people have the virus than we know, but if that’s the case it’ll obviously lower the death rate substantially.

Of those symptomatic patients who checked all the boxes to even get tested, still only about 1 in 4, 1 in 5ish test positive. I’ve seen several figures here so not sure how accurate that is.

So to be fair as of now I guess you’re correct. Maybe I’ve had it, or very likely to get it. Maybe there’s a chance 80% or more of our population will get it. I have no idea. I guess for me deaths are the only stat that matters. I would need deaths or even severe illness attributed to this virus to be MUCH higher before I became worried.

As of this morning 1.6 million people worldwide have tested positive. 97,000 have died. Big numbers, but minuscule considering we have about 7.8 billion people! That’s like a fraction of a fraction of a percent, though admittedly I didn’t run the numbers.

In the US it’s 467,000 cases and just under 17,000 dead. Again, big numbers. However we have 327 million people in this country. Again, this is a fraction of a percent.

Montana we have 354 cases and 6 deaths. Population nearing 1.1 million I believe.

I just have a hard time being to fearful, and seeing our community and the world being basically shut down for something that likely won’t kill a tiny fraction of 1% of people. I’m far more concerned about a plethora of other things that could hurt or kill me, one being the state of living when big brother deems it ok to work and go to school again.

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

[MSU01]

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this kind of viewpoint is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. I'm seeing an increasing number of people on social media post stuff about "we've all already had it", or "I probably had it back in December when I got sick" - both of which are frankly untrue or at best extremely unlikely. Whatever the true death rate turns out to be (and I agree that it's likely much lower than the death rate looking at only confirmed cases), this IS more dangerous than the flu, it IS something we need to continue working to prevent the spread of, and the people on Facebook trying everything they can to rationalize away the threat did NOT have it back in December or January before there was even a confirmed US case yet.

[ilovethecats]

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this kind of viewpoint is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. I'm seeing an increasing number of people on social media post stuff about "we've all already had it", or "I probably had it back in December when I got sick" - both of which are frankly untrue. Whatever the true death rate turns out to be (and I agree that it's likely much lower than the death rate looking at only confirmed cases), this IS more dangerous than the flu, it IS something we need to continue working to prevent the spread of, and NO you didn't have it back in January before there was even a confirmed US case yet.

With all due respect, why is that dangerous? Part of what people tout as the reason this virus is so dangerous because it’s possible that people have it without showing any symptoms at all. They claim the percentage of positives is likely much higher because of this. So it’s very likely that people have probably had it and never knew.

Also, I can’t speak on what you read on social media or who is saying what. But it’s factual that our testing system has been terrible. I’m not for a second convinced that our first positive case was in fact our first positive case. But like most with this virus, this is impossible to prove either way.

That said, if it’s not possible that people have had this virus and didn’t know it I’m even less concerned than I was before. However, if it IS possible to have this virus and not have any clue, I don’t see how it’s dangerous for me to say I could have had it. Especially considering I own 3 essential businesses and have been in all three over the last month in contact with thousands of people.

[catatac]

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this kind of viewpoint is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. I'm seeing an increasing number of people on social media post stuff about "we've all already had it", or "I probably had it back in December when I got sick" - both of which are frankly untrue or at best extremely unlikely. Whatever the true death rate turns out to be (and I agree that it's likely much lower than the death rate looking at only confirmed cases), this IS more dangerous than the flu, it IS something we need to continue working to prevent the spread of, and the people on Facebook trying everything they can to rationalize away the threat did NOT have it back in December or January before there was even a confirmed US case yet.

I think it's entirely possible there are a lot of people that had it and didn't know, and I'm one of them. Not sure why you think it's so dangerous to say that? Are you saying it's not possible... and if so, why? The FACTS about this thing, as others have pointed out is that people can have it and not show any symptoms. Additionally, for some people that DO test positive and DO show symptoms, those symptoms are relatively mild, like a bad cold. People seem to freak out when they hear that but it's the truth. It's also true that some people show symptoms that are much worse, like a bad case of the Flu. It impacts people differently. What I DON'T think has happened, or if it has it is incredibly rare is that a healthy person get this thing and drops dead because of it.

[MSU01]

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this kind of viewpoint is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. I'm seeing an increasing number of people on social media post stuff about "we've all already had it", or "I probably had it back in December when I got sick" - both of which are frankly untrue. Whatever the true death rate turns out to be (and I agree that it's likely much lower than the death rate looking at only confirmed cases), this IS more dangerous than the flu, it IS something we need to continue working to prevent the spread of, and NO you didn't have it back in January before there was even a confirmed US case yet.

With all due respect, why is that dangerous? Part of what people tout as the reason this virus is so dangerous because it’s possible that people have it without showing any symptoms at all. They claim the percentage of positives is likely much higher because of this. So it’s very likely that people have probably had it and never knew.

Also, I can’t speak on what you read on social media or who is saying what. But it’s factual that our testing system has been terrible. I’m not for a second convinced that our first positive case was in fact our first positive case. But like most with this virus, this is impossible to prove either way.

That said, if it’s not possible that people have had this virus and didn’t know it I’m even less concerned than I was before. However, if it IS possible to have this virus and not have any clue, I don’t see how it’s dangerous for me to say I could have had it. Especially considering I own 3 essential businesses and have been in all three over the last month in contact with thousands of people.

Have more people had COVID-19 than the number of confirmed cases? Absolutely, that's undeniable. Could any of us have had an asymptomatic case? Again, yes. What I think is dangerous is for individual people to assume or think that they've already had it and as a result stop taking precautions against contracting it and infecting others, without any testing to back up this belief/hunch.

[MSU01]

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this kind of viewpoint is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. I'm seeing an increasing number of people on social media post stuff about "we've all already had it", or "I probably had it back in December when I got sick" - both of which are frankly untrue or at best extremely unlikely. Whatever the true death rate turns out to be (and I agree that it's likely much lower than the death rate looking at only confirmed cases), this IS more dangerous than the flu, it IS something we need to continue working to prevent the spread of, and the people on Facebook trying everything they can to rationalize away the threat did NOT have it back in December or January before there was even a confirmed US case yet.

I think it's entirely possible there are a lot of people that had it and didn't know, and I'm one of them. Not sure why you think it's so dangerous to say that? Are you saying it's not possible... and if so, why? The FACTS about this thing, as others have pointed out is that people can have it and not show any symptoms. Additionally, for some people that DO test positive and DO show symptoms, those symptoms are relatively mild, like a bad cold. People seem to freak out when they hear that but it's the truth. It's also true that some people show symptoms that are much worse, like a bad case of the Flu. It impacts people differently. What I DON'T think has happened, or if it has it is incredibly rare is that a healthy person get this thing and drops dead because of it.

Of course there have been many asymptomatic and mild cases that have gone untested and which people have recovered from. It's not dangerous to say that, because it's true. But that's looking at it from a much larger country-wide perspective. For an individual person to self-diagnose himself as having had COVID-19 without having been tested for it is dangerous - maybe not for himself if he's at a low risk of having a serious case, but definitely for those he might infect who are in high-risk segments of the population.

[allcat]

I heard an anecdotal statement from a drive through testing thing in Chicago. They said that while 10- 20% of the people tested positive for the active virus, 30-50% tested positive for the antibody.

[Helcat72]

A lot of this discussion is focused on the Spectator's at these games. What about the players. They all need to be tested, and those who don't have antibodies are in danger of getting the virus from another team's member. If all teams are tested, they need to be tested before every game so one doesn't contract the disease and contaminate his team as well as the opponent. It's gonna be tough call to get this football season off the ground.

[MSU01]

I heard an anecdotal statement from a drive through testing thing in Chicago. They said that while 10- 20% of the people tested positive for the active virus, 30-50% tested positive for the antibody.

I read this article and would take those statistics with a large grain of salt, given that the source is a single phlebotomist technician working at the testing site. No confirmation from the hospital itself or any doctors who would have seen the actual testing results.

There are studies underway though to determine how many people have antibodies, and that could be a huge role in determining exactly what the path forward will be with this. We've got some really smart people working on this!

[catatac]

But I get your point about getting the virus and you’re probably right. Hell I’ve probably had it. When they’re able to do mass testings to determine who’s had the virus, that’s when things will really be fascinating! As well as very helpful.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this kind of viewpoint is pretty dangerous, in my opinion. I'm seeing an increasing number of people on social media post stuff about "we've all already had it", or "I probably had it back in December when I got sick" - both of which are frankly untrue or at best extremely unlikely. Whatever the true death rate turns out to be (and I agree that it's likely much lower than the death rate looking at only confirmed cases), this IS more dangerous than the flu, it IS something we need to continue working to prevent the spread of, and the people on Facebook trying everything they can to rationalize away the threat did NOT have it back in December or January before there was even a confirmed US case yet.

I think it's entirely possible there are a lot of people that had it and didn't know, and I'm one of them. Not sure why you think it's so dangerous to say that? Are you saying it's not possible... and if so, why? The FACTS about this thing, as others have pointed out is that people can have it and not show any symptoms. Additionally, for some people that DO test positive and DO show symptoms, those symptoms are relatively mild, like a bad cold. People seem to freak out when they hear that but it's the truth. It's also true that some people show symptoms that are much worse, like a bad case of the Flu. It impacts people differently. What I DON'T think has happened, or if it has it is incredibly rare is that a healthy person get this thing and drops dead because of it.

Of course there have been many asymptomatic and mild cases that have gone untested and which people have recovered from. It's not dangerous to say that, because it's true. But that's looking at it from a much larger country-wide perspective. For an individual person to self-diagnose himself as having had COVID-19 without having been tested for it is dangerous - maybe not for himself if he's at a low risk of having a serious case, but definitely for those he might infect who are in high-risk segments of the population.

But what makes you think it's "Untrue" or "Extremely unlikely" that I've already had it, along with thousands or millions of others?

[Helcat72]

I heard an anecdotal statement from a drive through testing thing in Chicago. They said that while 10- 20% of the people tested positive for the active virus, 30-50% tested positive for the antibody.

Then Chicago really got hit, because it's one of the hottest spots around. It upsets me that some people quote good statistics like this that have no relation to the existential problem.

It's good that maybe a lot of people are immune, but what about the people who are dying or have nowhere to go to get food, shelter, or medical assistance. Hospitals are overflowing and people who are intubated have over a 90% chance of dying. In fact I heard one doctor on TV say that intubation is almost the kiss of death. So just think of all the respirators being used in the country....these will be deaths more often than not, and a lot of the respirators are being used 4, 5, 6 times!

That's the kind of thinking that will open up our society too early...and cause a second wave of the pandemic.

[allcat]

I heard an anecdotal statement from a drive through testing thing in Chicago. They said that while 10- 20% of the people tested positive for the active virus, 30-50% tested positive for the antibody.

Then Chicago really got hit, because it's one of the hottest spots around. It upsets me that some people quote good statistics like this that have no relation to the existential problem.

It's good that maybe a lot of people are immune, but what about the people who are dying or have nowhere to go to get food, shelter, or medical assistance. Hospitals are overflowing and people who are intubated have over a 90% chance of dying. In fact I heard one doctor on TV say that intubation is almost the kiss of death. So just think of all the respirators being used in the country....these will be deaths more often than not, and a lot of the respirators are being used 4, 5, 6 times!

That's the kind of thinking that will open up our society too early...and cause a second wave of the pandemic.

New York hospitals are overflowing, no where else. They are also dismantling a couple of the files hospitals in New York and the one in Seattle. I'm not advocating giving up on this but there is going to be even more pain by maintaining the shutdown.