Re: Covid hits MSU athletes
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:15 pm
Exactly, and the only thing flawed is the governor reducing testing for asymptomatic people at the same time as ordering masks, thereby shaping the news (and no, the labs having a back log is not an excuse)! I've know his perception has been flawed for quite sometime though:)91catAlum wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:42 amIf you do fewer tests, you'll get fewer positive results than if you tested more. There is nothing flawed about it.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:44 amPositive test rate staying remarkably consistent, actually. Yesterday was anomalous in that it was much higher, but today back around that 5-7% area we've been hovering for a month. I don't have a narrative. 99s narrative was that "they" would test less to achieve less overall positives, thereby justifying the mask mandate. It's a flawed theory, and I'm pushing back on it. Go pick a day in the past week. One low positive rate day, one high, most right in the same area. My point is there's no conspiracy in the data, as bad as some want there to be.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:19 amOh fer cute, Goldstone was able to cherry pick one singular day of stats to help it fit his narrative...isn’t that specialGoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:40 am1800 tests yesterday, 224 positives. How's your theory aging so far? Still waiting on that fake decline in cases due to the propping up of that tyrannical face mask mandate...bobcat99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 pmLol.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:52 am88 cases in 5000 and change tests today. That's not a drop in testing, at least not yet. I believe testing of asymptomatic people will continue, but only as a part of contact tracing and not general surveillance. The mask mandate is likely to help some in crowded places. Plus, why not do it? The worst that could happen is it isn't effective, not like it'll sicken us, harm us our really adversely affect us at all. If it can help, why wouldn't we want them mandated for a time? Might avoid another shutdown. I maintain that were this state to try to pass a mandatory seat belt law today it couldn't happen. Basic public safety and health is taking a backseat to "individual liberty" when in reality no one's rights or liberties are affected in the least by a mask mandate. Might save some of your fellow members of society, though.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 amThat’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”
The tests that are reported today were taken 7-10 days ago most likely. They don't reflect the amount of tests taken today.
I wasn't talking about the rate, or percentage. I was referring to total numbers.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:44 amPositive test rate staying remarkably consistent, actually. Yesterday was anomalous in that it was much higher, but today back around that 5-7% area we've been hovering for a month. I don't have a narrative. 99s narrative was that "they" would test less to achieve less overall positives, thereby justifying the mask mandate. It's a flawed theory, and I'm pushing back on it. Go pick a day in the past week. One low positive rate day, one high, most right in the same area. My point is there's no conspiracy in the data, as bad as some want there to be.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:19 amOh fer cute, Goldstone was able to cherry pick one singular day of stats to help it fit his narrative...isn’t that specialGoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:40 am1800 tests yesterday, 224 positives. How's your theory aging so far? Still waiting on that fake decline in cases due to the propping up of that tyrannical face mask mandate...bobcat99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 pmLol.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:52 am88 cases in 5000 and change tests today. That's not a drop in testing, at least not yet. I believe testing of asymptomatic people will continue, but only as a part of contact tracing and not general surveillance. The mask mandate is likely to help some in crowded places. Plus, why not do it? The worst that could happen is it isn't effective, not like it'll sicken us, harm us our really adversely affect us at all. If it can help, why wouldn't we want them mandated for a time? Might avoid another shutdown. I maintain that were this state to try to pass a mandatory seat belt law today it couldn't happen. Basic public safety and health is taking a backseat to "individual liberty" when in reality no one's rights or liberties are affected in the least by a mask mandate. Might save some of your fellow members of society, though.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 amThat’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”
The tests that are reported today were taken 7-10 days ago most likely. They don't reflect the amount of tests taken today.
But we're not doing fewer tests. MSU is filling in some of the void that started this conversation. Over 5k on a day this week, most days between 1500-2500, right where we've been. Also, not absolutely true you'll find less cases with less tests. Depends who you're testing (symptomatics, close contacts, etc), hence the reason the positive rate has to matter to this conversation.91catAlum wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:42 amIf you do fewer tests, you'll get fewer positive results than if you tested more. There is nothing flawed about it.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:44 amPositive test rate staying remarkably consistent, actually. Yesterday was anomalous in that it was much higher, but today back around that 5-7% area we've been hovering for a month. I don't have a narrative. 99s narrative was that "they" would test less to achieve less overall positives, thereby justifying the mask mandate. It's a flawed theory, and I'm pushing back on it. Go pick a day in the past week. One low positive rate day, one high, most right in the same area. My point is there's no conspiracy in the data, as bad as some want there to be.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:19 amOh fer cute, Goldstone was able to cherry pick one singular day of stats to help it fit his narrative...isn’t that specialGoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:40 am1800 tests yesterday, 224 positives. How's your theory aging so far? Still waiting on that fake decline in cases due to the propping up of that tyrannical face mask mandate...bobcat99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 pmLol.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:52 am88 cases in 5000 and change tests today. That's not a drop in testing, at least not yet. I believe testing of asymptomatic people will continue, but only as a part of contact tracing and not general surveillance. The mask mandate is likely to help some in crowded places. Plus, why not do it? The worst that could happen is it isn't effective, not like it'll sicken us, harm us our really adversely affect us at all. If it can help, why wouldn't we want them mandated for a time? Might avoid another shutdown. I maintain that were this state to try to pass a mandatory seat belt law today it couldn't happen. Basic public safety and health is taking a backseat to "individual liberty" when in reality no one's rights or liberties are affected in the least by a mask mandate. Might save some of your fellow members of society, though.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 amThat’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”
The tests that are reported today were taken 7-10 days ago most likely. They don't reflect the amount of tests taken today.
I think it will cause a decline, I'm with you. I just don't agree with some that the decline in cases will be due to less testing, and thereby be used as justification for masks. There's no doubt in my mind that if everyone both honored the mask mandate and was very militant about social distancing, avoiding groups etc, the infection rate would be drastically reduced. It seems clear to this point we're not, as a people, willing to do those things for any realistic length of time, so here we are.MSU01 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:39 amI'm not saying the mask mandate is 100% going to cause a decline in cases, but given the incubation period of COVID-19 and the time it takes for testing results to be received, the majority of the cases being announced now would've been contracted before the mask mandate went into effect. If a week or two from now the numbers stay where they are, then there's more room for discussion about its effectiveness.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:44 amPositive test rate staying remarkably consistent, actually. Yesterday was anomalous in that it was much higher, but today back around that 5-7% area we've been hovering for a month. I don't have a narrative. 99s narrative was that "they" would test less to achieve less overall positives, thereby justifying the mask mandate. It's a flawed theory, and I'm pushing back on it. Go pick a day in the past week. One low positive rate day, one high, most right in the same area. My point is there's no conspiracy in the data, as bad as some want there to be.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:19 amOh fer cute, Goldstone was able to cherry pick one singular day of stats to help it fit his narrative...isn’t that specialGoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:40 am1800 tests yesterday, 224 positives. How's your theory aging so far? Still waiting on that fake decline in cases due to the propping up of that tyrannical face mask mandate...bobcat99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 pmLol.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:52 am88 cases in 5000 and change tests today. That's not a drop in testing, at least not yet. I believe testing of asymptomatic people will continue, but only as a part of contact tracing and not general surveillance. The mask mandate is likely to help some in crowded places. Plus, why not do it? The worst that could happen is it isn't effective, not like it'll sicken us, harm us our really adversely affect us at all. If it can help, why wouldn't we want them mandated for a time? Might avoid another shutdown. I maintain that were this state to try to pass a mandatory seat belt law today it couldn't happen. Basic public safety and health is taking a backseat to "individual liberty" when in reality no one's rights or liberties are affected in the least by a mask mandate. Might save some of your fellow members of society, though.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 amThat’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”
The tests that are reported today were taken 7-10 days ago most likely. They don't reflect the amount of tests taken today.
Yes we are doing fewer tests.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:56 pmBut we're not doing fewer tests. MSU is filling in some of the void that started this conversation. Over 5k on a day this week, most days between 1500-2500, right where we've been. Also, not absolutely true you'll find less cases with less tests. Depends who you're testing (symptomatics, close contacts, etc), hence the reason the positive rate has to matter to this conversation.
https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-workingAs a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.
This argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
Thanks for the vote of confidence....but "we will get through this together"ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:04 pmThis argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
It hasn’t worked for me and I’ve been banging the drum since March. Ha.arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:29 pmThanks for the vote of confidence....but "we will get through this together"ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:04 pmThis argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
It depends on all sorts of factors. For the population, as a whole, it’s likely going to settle in at about 1%. Which is about the Same death risk of BASE jumping or getting hooked on meth. If you think, “Hey, only 1% of meth addicts die of an OD, it must be pretty safe”...well, then...ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:49 pmIt hasn’t worked for me and I’ve been banging the drum since March. Ha.arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:29 pmThanks for the vote of confidence....but "we will get through this together"ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:04 pmThis argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
It’s like MSU grads don’t understand basic statistics: if you increase testing of asymptomatic people, you total number of positives will increase Very slightly, but your positive test % will go down. If you increase testing of symptomatic people, or people exposed, then your numbers will go up AND your positive test % will go up too.codecat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 1:18 pmExactly, and the only thing flawed is the governor reducing testing for asymptomatic people at the same time as ordering masks, thereby shaping the news (and no, the labs having a back log is not an excuse)! I've know his perception has been flawed for quite sometime though:)91catAlum wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:42 amIf you do fewer tests, you'll get fewer positive results than if you tested more. There is nothing flawed about it.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:44 amPositive test rate staying remarkably consistent, actually. Yesterday was anomalous in that it was much higher, but today back around that 5-7% area we've been hovering for a month. I don't have a narrative. 99s narrative was that "they" would test less to achieve less overall positives, thereby justifying the mask mandate. It's a flawed theory, and I'm pushing back on it. Go pick a day in the past week. One low positive rate day, one high, most right in the same area. My point is there's no conspiracy in the data, as bad as some want there to be.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:19 amOh fer cute, Goldstone was able to cherry pick one singular day of stats to help it fit his narrative...isn’t that specialGoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:40 am1800 tests yesterday, 224 positives. How's your theory aging so far? Still waiting on that fake decline in cases due to the propping up of that tyrannical face mask mandate...bobcat99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:52 pmLol.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:52 am88 cases in 5000 and change tests today. That's not a drop in testing, at least not yet. I believe testing of asymptomatic people will continue, but only as a part of contact tracing and not general surveillance. The mask mandate is likely to help some in crowded places. Plus, why not do it? The worst that could happen is it isn't effective, not like it'll sicken us, harm us our really adversely affect us at all. If it can help, why wouldn't we want them mandated for a time? Might avoid another shutdown. I maintain that were this state to try to pass a mandatory seat belt law today it couldn't happen. Basic public safety and health is taking a backseat to "individual liberty" when in reality no one's rights or liberties are affected in the least by a mask mandate. Might save some of your fellow members of society, though.ibleedblue wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:39 amThat’s exactly what’s happening. MT doesn’t have the capacity to test asymptotic individuals as that was taking 7-10 days for results, if not longer. Now they are only testing symptomatic individuals moving forward. Our testing in the last few days, because of this, has been cut in half. Funny that the positive cases have also been cut in half. But let the masses tell ya “masks are working”
The tests that are reported today were taken 7-10 days ago most likely. They don't reflect the amount of tests taken today.
Hold my beer while I...onceacat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:56 pmIt depends on all sorts of factors. For the population, as a whole, it’s likely going to settle in at about 1%. Which is about the Same death risk of BASE jumping or getting hooked on meth. If you think, “Hey, only 1% of meth addicts die of an OD, it must be pretty safe”...well, then...ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:49 pmIt hasn’t worked for me and I’ve been banging the drum since March. Ha.arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:29 pmThanks for the vote of confidence....but "we will get through this together"ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:04 pmThis argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
Per usual you are suggesting things that I for one, have never said. This isn’t about whether or not the virus is “safe” or not. It’s about whether or not it’s so dangerous to warrant all the attention and restrictions it’s garnered.onceacat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:56 pmIt depends on all sorts of factors. For the population, as a whole, it’s likely going to settle in at about 1%. Which is about the Same death risk of BASE jumping or getting hooked on meth. If you think, “Hey, only 1% of meth addicts die of an OD, it must be pretty safe”...well, then...ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:49 pmIt hasn’t worked for me and I’ve been banging the drum since March. Ha.arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:29 pmThanks for the vote of confidence....but "we will get through this together"ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:04 pmThis argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
I read the articles you cite, and posted about MSU processing 500 a day to fill some of the gap mentioned in those articles. Despite what they said in those articles, we aren't actually running fewer tests, at least not yet. But i already said that, and you clearly didn't read it as you highlighted my first sentence and responded to it only. Who was the one doing the cherry-picking again?91catAlum wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:19 pmYes we are doing fewer tests.GoldstoneCat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:56 pmBut we're not doing fewer tests. MSU is filling in some of the void that started this conversation. Over 5k on a day this week, most days between 1500-2500, right where we've been. Also, not absolutely true you'll find less cases with less tests. Depends who you're testing (symptomatics, close contacts, etc), hence the reason the positive rate has to matter to this conversation.
Here's some of last week's news.
https://www.ktvq.com/news/coronavirus/u ... as-workingAs a result, the state may cancel some of its surveillance testing, Bullock said.
Great Falls Benefis is done with asymptomatic testing:
https://www.kulr8.com/coronavirus/benef ... c7956.html
Also reducing testing in Helena.
https://www.ktvh.com/news/pureview-canc ... ough-tests
I'm sure there are more if you look.
We should take common sense measures to check the spread of the pandemic. Kids are back in school in Europe & sports are starting up everywhere except the US (we will see how the NBA season goes).ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:50 pmPer usual you are suggesting things that I for one, have never said. This isn’t about whether or not the virus is “safe” or not. It’s about whether or not it’s so dangerous to warrant all the attention and restrictions it’s garnered.onceacat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:56 pmIt depends on all sorts of factors. For the population, as a whole, it’s likely going to settle in at about 1%. Which is about the Same death risk of BASE jumping or getting hooked on meth. If you think, “Hey, only 1% of meth addicts die of an OD, it must be pretty safe”...well, then...ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:49 pmIt hasn’t worked for me and I’ve been banging the drum since March. Ha.arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:29 pmThanks for the vote of confidence....but "we will get through this together"ilovethecats wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:04 pmThis argument isn’t getting you anywhere....arvcat2 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:22 pmPlease cut to the chase. What is the mortality rate if you catch the virus??? Without getting into a link fest, is it it something less than ½ of 1 %? Or from the other angle, the survivability rate is something better than 99.5% if you get it??? If I’m in the ballpark, is sacrificing a year or more of the children’s education, economic growth & prosperity (jobs), social disruption (simply put, a lot of depressed, paranoid, and pissed off people), and lastly, as this is a sports board, the curtailment or cancellation of sports that is essential for the participants and fans to have a release from all the aforementioned stresses worth it? Sorry, not accepting presumably saving 1/2 of 1 % as a rational answer considering what people die from ALL the time.
Using your example, should we close businesses again and keep kids out of school until we cure meth addiction? Not even all other drug addictions that kill thousands every year; just meth. Would that be reasonable and you would support it?
Should we ignore the fact that homelessness, domestic violence, suicides and hunger have all risen? Because that’s sure what it feels like. My hope is that when we’re on the better side of this deadly virus, as a society we start giving other major issues, that result in many deaths, even an ounce of the attention and care it got all these months. Because issues I mentioned, in addition to things like sexual assault, human trafficking, along with the plethora of diseases that kill millions every year, could really use the attention.
Time will tell!