Do you think that Disney world will reclose its gates due to the rising number of COVID cases in Florida and around the country?

[threvester]

What should be done is what California is doing.

California Coronavirus Update: New Case Average Up 295 Percent In Past Month, Now Regularly Near All-Time Highs
sure...seems like they are doing a wonderful job

 

[Parker in NYC]

Mods have warned in other threads that doing the laughing emoji repeatedly on the same poster could get ya a temp ban. Just a heads up.

Can we make this retroactive?

 

[Jrb1979]

California Coronavirus Update: New Case Average Up 295 Percent In Past Month, Now Regularly Near All-Time Highs
sure...seems like they are doing a wonderful job

They have closed things again and theme parks aren't opening.

 

[Miss Bella]

He’s only laughing, because we still don’t have the reaction emoji.

Yeah I figured that out about these boards a long time ago.

 

[havoc315]

In response to this keep in mind 25% of Covid deaths never had a Covid test. Just assumed. Truth is we will never know the actual amount of people who have/had it or died from it.

Most causes of death are "assumed" by your logic. That's how medical diagnosis works -- A physician looks at all of the factors, looks at the evidence, and reaches the best possible conclusion.
I can't go into details, but I am working with a client now: He suspected his patient had a condition, we will call it X.... but the tests were all negative. Still, based on clinical findings, he continued to suspect condition X and offered surgery. Performed surgery and sure enough -- in the surgery, discovered the patient had X. Very few diagnoses have a black and white diagnosis based on a single test.

We will never know the EXACT number of people who died from Covid. But using actual science, statistics, etc... we will be able to get a pretty darn good estimate.

 

[legwand77]

I do find it interesting to see how far off the million dollar models paid for cited by governments are off a bit. According to the official MN state model revised in mid May, MN expected deaths to total to be 29,000 with full lockdown stay at home in place until 6/1, and 49000 if no lockdown. MN cumulative total today is 1573

https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/MNmodel_PPT%205.21.20%201019AM_tcm1148-434753.pdf

 

[kong1802]

I do find it interesting to see how far off the million dollar models paid for cited by governments are off a bit. According to the official MN state model revised in mid May, MN expected deaths to total to be 29,000 with full lockdown stay at home in place until 6/1, and 49000 if no lockdown. MN cumulative total today is 1573

https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/MNmodel_PPT%205.21.20%201019AM_tcm1148-434753.pdf

Why does the graph you attached look like it was done in crayon?

The graphs below are from that PDF....not sure why I was intrigued enough to look. I though certainly no one could have made a graph that bad as the one you posted...

As you can see they are scenario based. Where are the scenarios in the one you posted?

 

[Polkadotdress]

are they doing anything???

Nah. Apparently despite that article listing FL as one of the states that should “roll back” and consider reclosing some things, we will NOT be closing gyms because having a healthy lifestyle makes you less at risk to suffer adversely from the virus.
*Feeling like I’m living a real-life Hunger Games down here.

 

[oceanbreeze77]

Nah. Apparently despite that article listing FL as one of the states that should “roll back” and consider reckoning some things, we will NOT be closing gyms because having a healthy lifestyle makes you less at risk to suffer adversely from the virus.
*Feeling like I’m living a real-life Hunger Games down here.

may the odds be ever in your favor

 

[legwand77]

Why does the graph you attached look like it was done in crayon?

The graphs below are from that PDF....not sure why I was intrigued enough to look. I though certainly no one could have made a graph that bad as the one you posted...

As you can see they are scenario based. Where are the scenarios in the one you posted?

pick one they are all a bit high to say the least

 

[kong1802]

pick one they are all a bit high to say the least

View attachment 484346

So, please correct if wrong, but scenario 8 shows 988 -1494 deaths by end of May........

And you are saying they are at 1500+ as of today. A far far far cry from your post below stating 27000 deaths predicted and the accompanying weird graph, wouldn't you say?

Also, the stay at home until 6/1 number seems to be a similar range, if not the exact same. So your borrowed analysis is way way way off.

I don't blame you as you were just basically retweeting without giving credit....

But I would strongly suggest digging in a bit before just retweeting.

Or at least give credit so you don't take all the heat.....

I do find it interesting to see how far off the million dollar models paid for cited by governments are off a bit. According to the official MN state model revised in mid May, MN expected deaths to total to be 29,000 with full lockdown stay at home in place until 6/1, and 49000 if no lockdown. MN cumulative total today is 1573

https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/MNmodel_PPT%205.21.20%201019AM_tcm1148-434753.pdf

 

[legwand77]

So, please correct if wrong, but scenario 8 shows 988 -1494 deaths by end of May........

And you are saying they are at 1500+ as of today. A far far far cry from your post below stating 27000 deaths predicted and the accompanying weird graph, wouldn't you say?

Also, the stay at home until 6/1 number seems to be a similar range, if not the exact same. So your borrowed analysis is way way way off.

I don't blame you as you were just basically retweeting without giving credit....

But I would strongly suggest digging in a bit before just retweeting.

Or at least give credit so you don't take all the heat.....

??

Snark not needed, and you might look again, with stay at home till 6/1 the number of deaths predicted is 28231 for the year. Also note the stay at home order was lifted 5/13. They are at 1500 today, with the last month daily deaths averaging in the single digits.

scenario 5-6

every scenario has greater that 22,000 deaths for the year, up to unmitigated has 57000.

Now if you think at a minimum 20,000+ will die in MN in less than six months then you would be correct.

 

[kong1802]

??

Snark not needed, and you might look again, with stay at home till 6/1 the number of deaths predicted is 28231 for the year. Also note the stay at home order was lifted 5/13. They are at 1500 today, with the last month daily deaths averaging in the single digits.

scenario 5-6

every scenario has greater that 22,000 deaths for the year, up to unmitigated has 57000

So you are comparing YTD deaths with what they are predicting for the entire year?

Their YTD numbers fall in line with where they are today.

Your borrowed analysis misses the mark and is misrepresenting the data.

Plus there are scenarios that have a range of 14k for a 1 year mark.

Taking a snapshot of 4 months ytd and comparing it to a 1 year total without looking at all the scenarios is not the correct interpretation of what they have presented.

 

[schuelma]

So you are comparing YTD deaths with what they are predicting for the entire year?

Their YTD numbers fall in line with where they are today.

Your borrowed analysis misses the mark and is misrepresenting the data.

And is also like completely irrelevant to the current discussion...weird

 

[legwand77]

So you are comparing YTD deaths with what they are predicting for the entire year?

Their YTD numbers fall in line with where they are today.

Your borrowed analysis misses the mark and is misrepresenting the data.

missed my edit

Now if you think at a minimum 20,000+ will die in MN in less than six months then you would be correct.

 

[kong1802]

missed my edit

Now if you think at a minimum 20,000+ will die in MN in less than six months then you would be correct.

You missed mine as well......

ETA: was also pointing out that you were sharing a tweet without giving the credit to the tweet. No snark intended...

 

[legwand77]

You missed mine as well......

ETA: was also pointing out that you were sharing a tweet without giving the credit to the tweet. No snark intended...

Since you are having fun nitpicking, you are wrong again, the graph had the twitter handle on it, smh

So do you think that MN will see 20,000-30,000 deaths YTD?

 

[Communicora]

missed my edit

Now if you think at a minimum 20,000+ will die in MN in less than six months then you would be correct.

They are referring to 12 months not a calendar year. Day 0 in the model appears to be March 22.

I obviously hope the model is wildly incorrect. It sadly hasn't been so far in terms of deaths.

Does Florida have a model? It would be more relevant to this thread.

 

[kong1802]

Since you are having fun nitpicking, you are wrong again, the graph had the twitter handle on it, smh

So do you think that MN will see 20,000-30,000 deaths YTD?

The graph did...

But it seems like you were presenting the analysis of it as your own....

Hopefully I’m mistaken

 

[kong1802]

They are referring to 12 months not a calendar year. Day 0 in the model appears to be March 22.

I obviously hope the model is wildly incorrect. It sadly hasn't been so far in terms of deaths.

Does Florida have a model? It would be more relevant to this thread.

Plus the range starts at 14k. So would need 12.5 k more not 20-30k...

And hopefully it is wrong.