RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

There is an underlying American policy issue here that could stand some discussion - the amount of medical treatment given to Septuagenarians, Octogenarians, and Nonagenarians. The health profession that we are attempting to protect is most vulnerable when they are treating the very old. The cost/benefit to society is very high when you lose a healthcare or emergency responder for several really old people.

The laws, payments systems, and training all encourage heroic and expensive treatments for those in their last 10% of life.

Personally I think society should spend more on the very young. That's the better economic choice.

---

I don't think that's very fair to those people considering that they have paid into the system their entire life

---

Paying into a system should cause you to get how big a benefit? Resources are not finite. I agree it's not "fair" but life is not fair. Does it make sense to spend so much on those that will not contribute back to society? From an economic standpoint a lot of resources are wasted on the very old.

---

Does it make sense to spend so much on a segment of the population that has not contributed yet instead of the segment of the population that worked for that money to be there?

To answer your question...yes, you should get the benefit when you are the one that created the benefit to start with

---

There is no guarantee that the person reaping the benefit of that care late in life have paid in or contributed. Lots of people are free loaders and some treatments are more resource intensive than an average worker makes in their life.
You can also argue that spending more on the young instead of the old would be an investment that paid off in economic returns over an entire life rather than concentrated on an older person in their last year of life

---

I sure am glad you ain't in charge of things for my grandma's sake.

---

curious to see if this posters mind set will change when they reach a certain age in life

---

Lol, both of you get off your high horse.

The context of the discussion was whether the allocation of finite resources is shifted too far toward the elderly and at the expense of the young. Over half of the healthcare money spent over the course of an average person's life is spent after they are a senior citizen. That spending concentrates further in the last year of life. Modern medicine is really good at getting a few extra months out of elderly patients with a low quality of life. The money spent on end of life hero measures would do better for society allocated to something like universal pre-K. That is an investment that pays societal dividends over decades.

Given my parents taught me to think this way and have made me aware of their end of life orders since I was a teenager, I doubt my mindset will change as I get older. Our family was taught to value is quality of life, and not to focus on prolonging quantity unnecessarily when the end inevitably approaches.

---

Just to clarify. Are you saying that my 83 year old grandma, who worked her entire life and paid into the system her entire life, doesn't deserve the same care or amount of care as someone who is 30 and hasn't?

---

Let's say both an 83 year old and a 30 year old need the same ventilator right now. Yes the 30 year old should get the ventilator over the 83 year old with all else equal. Introduce an 10 year old into the same room and that 10 year old should get the ventilator over the 30 year old. if the 83 year old has a significant pre-exisitng condition that makes recovery less likely, that further skews the assessment in favor of the younger. I would apply the same logic to my 89 year old grandma, who I love dearly, and who would agree with me.

Wayland said:

---

4/17/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
5859
NC Deaths**
152
Currently Hospitalized
429 (87% hospital reporting)
Completed Tests
72981

4/18/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
6140
NC Deaths**
164
Currently Hospitalized
388 (88% hospital reporting)
Completed Tests
76211

4/19/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
6493
NC Deaths**
172
Currently Hospitalized
465
Completed Tests
78772

66 Deaths are now Congregate (+7 since yesterday)
18 Deaths can't be confirmed Con/Not

That means 7 of the 8 deaths added to the total since yesterday are congregate deaths

59 Congregate Facilities now have an outbreak. (+4)

WRAL is at 188 (+2) and NandO is at 185. Again, the lag, I am guess is coming in trying to confirm death location. Don't know why the lag since WRAL was in the 180s on Friday.

85% of the deaths are 65+. That number keeps creeping up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/20/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 11:00am)

NC Cases*
6764
NC Deaths**
179
Currently Hospitalized
373
Completed Tests
79484

73 Deaths are now Congregate (+7 since yesterday)
20 Deaths can't be confirmed Con/Not (+2)

NC Deaths went up by 7 but Congregate/unconfirmed went up by 9.

61 Congregate Facilities now have an outbreak. (+2)

WRAL is at 196 (+2) and NandO is at 199. Again, the lag, I am guess is coming in trying to confirm death location. Don't know why the lag since WRAL was in the 180s on Friday. Maybe counties are reporting deaths that aren't lab confirmed?

Deaths under 50 down to 4%

Still don't know why the crazy lag on DHHS. They are now 13-16 deaths behind yesterdays media counts.

---

4/21/2020 Morning DHHS update (as of 10:35am)

NC Cases*
6951
NC Deaths**
213
Currently Hospitalized
427
Completed Tests
83331

96 Deaths are now Congregate (+23 since yesterday)
26 Deaths can't be confirmed Con/Not (+6)
+34 Deaths since yesterday. +29 Not GenPop

91 Deaths assumed General Population
122 Congregate and Unknown Origin.

65 Congregate Facilities now have an outbreak. (+4)

WRAL is at 221 (+2) and NandO is at 233

MASSIVE Congregate Spike

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

lumberpack5 said:

---

There is an underlying American policy issue here that could stand some discussion - the amount of medical treatment given to Septuagenarians, Octogenarians, and Nonagenarians. The health profession that we are attempting to protect is most vulnerable when they are treating the very old. The cost/benefit to society is very high when you lose a healthcare or emergency responder for several really old people.

The laws, payments systems, and training all encourage heroic and expensive treatments for those in their last 10% of life.

Personally I think society should spend more on the very young. That's the better economic choice.

---

I don't think that's very fair to those people considering that they have paid into the system their entire life

---

Paying into a system should cause you to get how big a benefit? Resources are not finite. I agree it's not "fair" but life is not fair. Does it make sense to spend so much on those that will not contribute back to society? From an economic standpoint a lot of resources are wasted on the very old.

---

Does it make sense to spend so much on a segment of the population that has not contributed yet instead of the segment of the population that worked for that money to be there?

To answer your question...yes, you should get the benefit when you are the one that created the benefit to start with

---

There is no guarantee that the person reaping the benefit of that care late in life have paid in or contributed. Lots of people are free loaders and some treatments are more resource intensive than an average worker makes in their life.
You can also argue that spending more on the young instead of the old would be an investment that paid off in economic returns over an entire life rather than concentrated on an older person in their last year of life

---

I sure am glad you ain't in charge of things for my grandma's sake.

---

curious to see if this posters mind set will change when they reach a certain age in life

---

Lol, both of you get off your high horse.

The context of the discussion was whether the allocation of finite resources is shifted too far toward the elderly and at the expense of the young. Over half of the healthcare money spent over the course of an average person's life is spent after they are a senior citizen. That spending concentrates further in the last year of life. Modern medicine is really good at getting a few extra months out of elderly patients with a low quality of life. The money spent on end of life hero measures would do better for society allocated to something like universal pre-K. That is an investment that pays societal dividends over decades.

Given my parents taught me to think this way and have made me aware of their end of life orders since I was a teenager, I doubt my mindset will change as I get older. Our family was taught to value is quality of life, and not to focus on prolonging quantity unnecessarily when the end inevitably approaches.

---

Just to clarify. Are you saying that my 83 year old grandma, who worked her entire life and paid into the system her entire life, doesn't deserve the same care or amount of care as someone who is 30 and hasn't?

---

Let's say both an 83 year old and a 30 year old need the same ventilator right now. Yes the 30 year old should get the ventilator over the 83 year old with all else equal. Introduce an 10 year old into the same room and that 10 year old should get the ventilator over the 30 year old. if the 83 year old has a significant pre-exisitng condition that makes recovery less likely, that further skews the assessment in favor of the younger. I would apply the same logic to my 89 year old grandma, who I love dearly, and who would agree with me.

---

We agree to disagree but if you call that "being on my high horse", then so be it.

I touched on it earlier in the thread, but there sometimes exists a disconnect between human compassion and what makes sense scientifically/logically. Most people in an assisted living facility that die from this disease probably more accurately died of old age, with the disease being one of several contributing factors. If it is your loved one, that doesn't make it any less traumatic, and it is a part of the human condition that makes it natural that you would want to do anything possible to extend their life. On the other hand, it's been my experience that the elderly sometimes have a different perspective. My 95 year old grandmother, who still lives at home and is sharp as a tack, she is my rock, who I love more than words, has her DNR pinned to the wall next to her chair at her kitchen table. Every time I talk to her, she tells me that she doesn't know what she's still here and that she's ready to go to heaven. She's even told the family not to worry about infecting her, because if she goes it was her time. The family is of course not comfortable with that, and she's currently being cared for by essential workers and a couple of family members only. It's just a very difficult thing to think about and discuss, but there are multiple perspectives to consider in the discussion.

Numbers for Congregate and Non-congregate as it relates to cases do not add up. When I look at new daily cases, I get the following:

Daily New Cases = 187 (6951-6764) <== Should be both Congregate and Non-Congregate cases
Congregate New Daily Cases = 229 (1869-1640)

So the Congregate New Daily Cases would have to be additive to the Daily New Cases. If I subtract Congregate New Daily Cases from Daily New Cases, I find Non-congregate New Daily Cases would be -42.

For deaths, the numbers are not reported this way and it appears total deaths include both Non-congregate and Congregate deaths. Based on this, 96 of the 213 deaths are from Congregate facilities, so 117 deaths are Non-congregate deaths (an increase of 11 from yesterday to today). At this rate, Congregate deaths will likely become the leading source of deaths in NC by the end of the week.

I suspect the death reports for non-congregate are increasing more as a result of reporting delay than an actual 11 new non-congregate deaths, since yesterday they reported 0 new non-congregate deaths.

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Numbers for Congregate and Non-congregate as it relates to cases do not add up. When I look at new daily cases, I get the following:

Daily New Cases = 187 (6951-6764) <== Should be both Congregate and Non-Congregate cases
Congregate New Daily Cases = 229 (1869-1640)

So the Congregate New Daily Cases would have to be additive to the Daily New Cases. If I subtract Congregate New Daily Cases from Daily New Cases, I find Non-congregate New Daily Cases would be -42.

For deaths, the numbers are not reported this way and it appears total deaths include both Non-congregate and Congregate deaths. Based on this, 96 of the 213 deaths are from Congregate facilities, so 117 deaths are Non-congregate deaths (an increase of 11 from yesterday to today). At this rate, Congregate deaths will likely become the leading source of deaths in NC by the end of the week.

I suspect the death reports for non-congregate are increasing more as a result of reporting delay than an actual 11 new non-congregate deaths, since yesterday they reported 0 new non-congregate deaths.

---

The unknown source deaths also increased by 6.
"Setting type data are missing for 2,160 laboratory-confirmed cases and 26 deaths. "

Unknown settings should be acknowledged as well as congregate. They are listed under the congregate statistics.

Likely reporting lag in there since they weren't chasing down congregate initially.

Wayland said:

---

Daviewolf83 said:

---

Numbers for Congregate and Non-congregate as it relates to cases do not add up. When I look at new daily cases, I get the following:

Daily New Cases = 187 (6951-6764) <== Should be both Congregate and Non-Congregate cases
Congregate New Daily Cases = 229 (1869-1640)

So the Congregate New Daily Cases would have to be additive to the Daily New Cases. If I subtract Congregate New Daily Cases from Daily New Cases, I find Non-congregate New Daily Cases would be -42.

For deaths, the numbers are not reported this way and it appears total deaths include both Non-congregate and Congregate deaths. Based on this, 96 of the 213 deaths are from Congregate facilities, so 117 deaths are Non-congregate deaths (an increase of 11 from yesterday to today). At this rate, Congregate deaths will likely become the leading source of deaths in NC by the end of the week.

I suspect the death reports for non-congregate are increasing more as a result of reporting delay than an actual 11 new non-congregate deaths, since yesterday they reported 0 new non-congregate deaths.

---

The unknown source deaths also increased by 6.
"Setting type data are missing for 2,160 laboratory-confirmed cases and 26 deaths. "

Unknown settings should be acknowledged as well as congregate. They are listed under the congregate statistics.

Likely reporting lag in there since they weren't chasing down congregate initially.

---

I agree is it likely due to a data lag in reporting Congregate deaths, but I have sent an email to Tyler Dukes of WRAL, asking him if he could follow-up and ask about this in the briefing today.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

When the government is counting COVID19 deaths for anyone who may have possibly been exposed to it or had it, i am unable to believe any numbers or information they release. For me, the beginning of last week was when I threw my hands up. They decided it was ok to count someone who died with or without COVID19 but possibly by COVID19 as a death. That was the end of it for me. I hope the protest continue and people just say screw you to their government. This entire virus has been a cluster from the beginning and here were are, 3 months in and the majority of government officials still have their heads stuck in their asses.

---

I am moving into this mindset as well. I believe there are governors and other politicians out there who are overreaching on their power right now and also manipulating numbers to affect these decisions. It's scary. People should be able to protest. It's a bad disease. It's killed 40,000+ in a couple months. But it's also put around 25 million people out of work in 3 weeks which is MUCH MORE catastrophic in my mind. You got a guy getting arrested by himself in a park. Being arrested on a beach not near anyone. Being outside is safer in a lot of ways when you're not in a big crowd. You have state leaders using drones or encouraging snitching on people. These are crazy things. Damn right people are going to protest

Wayland said:

---

Practice good hygiene, try to protect susceptible populations, and carry forward. I feel there is a massive vacuum in leadership and failing by the U.S to provide testing and so it has made it hard to make any kind of informed decision other than to shut it all down. And so that is where we are, shutting it all down. Likely a gross overreaction but no one knows what the true numbers are. Until testing is in place, the shut down is just to prevent mass hysteria.

---

What I said over 5 weeks ago when schools closed.

Social distancing to some degree falls into that.

It took 5 weeks to put together a testing task force.

There has been a piss poor job protecting congregate facilities (remember the people dying now, likely caught this in early April).

And my position is still mostly they same.

(EDIT: Today's NC Briefing is at 2pm https://www.ncdps.gov/storm-update )

Wayland said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Practice good hygiene, try to protect susceptible populations, and carry forward. I feel there is a massive vacuum in leadership and failing by the U.S to provide testing and so it has made it hard to make any kind of informed decision other than to shut it all down. And so that is where we are, shutting it all down. Likely a gross overreaction but no one knows what the true numbers are. Until testing is in place, the shut down is just to prevent mass hysteria.

---

What I said over 5 weeks ago when schools closed.

Social distancing to some degree falls into that.

It took 5 weeks to put together a testing task force.

There has been a piss poor job protecting congregate facilities (remember the people dying now, likely caught this in early April).

And my position is still mostly they same.

(EDIT: Today's NC Briefing is at 2pm https://www.ncdps.gov/storm-update )

---

The bold really bothers me --- even if you, as a state, want to argue you though the Feds were going to take care of much of the supplies, etc you still needed a strategy to implement in partnership with the source and/or what your expectations were before you could open back up.
Seems like a day 1, or at least day 10 or so, type of acknowledgement to start planning for.

I do wonder, IF the local/state media had been as ruthless and driven as the national media is at ripping apart every portion of the governors / mayors / leaders' pressers.....would we actually be further along?

If the CLT media were just pounding the mayor and other local leaders about using a model that was easily manipulated and counter to the one being used by most others, and questioning loudly on every network about why we were talking hospitals still over testing, congregate protection, or even how and what numbers to report....would the leaders have changed course sooner?

Announcement coming "probably" this week from governor regarding schools and the stay at home expiring at the end of this month.

Rumors in Durham that Mayor is extending through May.

Wayland said:

---

Announcement coming "probably" this week from governor regarding schools and the stay at home expiring at the end of this month.

---

I read your sentence first thinking it said that it was expiring at the end of the month. Assume you mean there is an announcement coming this week regarding the stay at home order and its status.

I assume it will be extended through at least 5/15, more likely 5/31. I also expect the announcement to include officially closing schools through end of school year.

I don't see the benefit of having schools start back up for only three weeks.

statefan91 said:

---

Wayland said:

---

Announcement coming "probably" this week from governor regarding schools and the stay at home expiring at the end of this month.

---

I read your sentence first thinking it said that it was expiring at the end of the month. Assume you mean there is an announcement coming this week regarding the stay at home order and its status.

I assume it will be extended through at least 5/15, more likely 5/31. I also expect the announcement to include officially closing schools through end of school year.

---

No just further non-committal junk out of the governor. Knowing how they source their information and that they think hypothetical graphs are 'data', I expect an extension and school cancellation.

Schools should just stay out rest of the school year at this point. They're already out until 5/15, at least. Going back for 2 weeks makes little sense to me.

packgrad said:

---

Schools should just stay out rest of the school year at this point. They're already out until 5/15, at least. Going back for 2 weeks makes little sense to me.

---

I kind of agree. Whatever with schools at this point, the level of effort to shift everything back to in person again, will be a lot.

But I think camps and other youth activity restrictions should be relaxed.

I have started seeing local restaurants asking people's feelings about opening back up with some restrictions as far as number of people in the restaurant and whatnot at the end of the month on social media. The responses are very positive to it. We have also had at least one store go out of business and been vocal about it. I am guessing that the governor isn't gonna get much of a choice about when the state (or at least my part of it) opens back up if there isn't some positive movement a whole lot sooner instead of later

I'd love for there to be a scenario where kids can get back in school, even if it's for a few weeks but it's tough to imagine the plan. Some sort of structure if they are confident that it can be done safely would be fantastic before summer.
Your right on camps, they have to find a way to get the public ones open. Private camps are so expensive.

Wayland said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Schools should just stay out rest of the school year at this point. They're already out until 5/15, at least. Going back for 2 weeks makes little sense to me.

---

I kind of agree. Whatever with schools at this point, the level of effort to shift everything back to in person again, will be a lot.

But I think camps and other youth activity restrictions should be relaxed.

---

Agreed.

cowboypack02 said:

---

I have started seeing local restaurants asking people's feelings about opening back up with some restrictions as far as number of people in the restaurant and whatnot at the end of the month on social media. The responses are very positive to it. We have also had at least one store go out of business and been vocal about it. I am guessing that the governor isn't gonna get much of a choice about when the state (or at least my part of it) opens back up if there isn't some positive movement a whole lot sooner instead of later

---

I wish restaurants in Durham would start putting that out there. My gym owner has. He's being very vocal on social media. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep paying for the gym if the state still decides we can't assume our own risk and work out. Edit... WILL BE 2 months without being able to go.

Here are few thoughts based on news today:

1. Reports are coming out that at least 30 mutations of the Cornavirus have been found. If true, it could definitely complicate the development of a vaccine. Dr. Birx was asked about this yesterday during the daily briefing yesterday. The question was with regards to the possibility that the US has experienced different strains. She said it was possible and they were planning to examine data from California, New Mexico, New York, and New Jersey. There is some thought that the version that hit the western part of the US came from China and was less virulent and the one that hit NY and the east coast came from Europe and it was more deadly - such as what has been seen in Spain and Italy.

I did read a thread last night where some virologists suggested that even if there are mutations, not all mutations significantly affect how virulent the virus will be. This is an RNA virus and not all portions of the RNA have a virulent effect. So, in summary, I would offer caution in reacting to the news that the virus is experiencing significant mutation.

We also need to recognize that developing vaccines is complicated and it in some cases can take 10 to 15 YEARS to develop a vaccine. The other thing I would point out is that this is a Coronavirus, just like one of the virus' that causes the common cold (others are rhinovirus, RSV, and parainfluenza). The Coronavirus variety accounts for approximately 20% of the cases of the common cold each year and tend to be the type of cold we get in the winter and early spring. There are four version of the Coronavirus that cause the common cold (out of approximately 30 in total. The primary reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold is due to the fact that there are so many variations of the Coronavirus' that developing a vaccine for one will not work on the others and when it mutates, a new version of the vaccine may be required.

2. I saw today that Governor Cuomo is planning to reopen NY in regions. This makes sense, since many areas of NY were not impacted as much as the NYC metro area. I would expect NC to do something very similar. There are many areas of the state with very low known case counts and low death rates. It is quite possible and I would suggest prudent, to move to Phase 1 and 2 for some areas of the state, while keeping others in lockdown (Mecklenburg County as an exampe) or only moving to Phase 1 after case counts drop further.

I still believe we have to view the Congregate and Non-congregate populations differently. You can decided to move to Phase 1 at the end of the month for the entire state (assuming trends continue to be favorable) and keep Congregate facilities and hospitals under more severe lock-down constraints. I think the governor and his staff will have a difficult time if they try to apply one set of policies for the entire state.

3. I do not have any issue with people protesting the stay-at-home orders, but I am troubled by the fact that the protesters are not practicing social distancing practices. I can fully understand people's frustration and it has not been helped by some of the arbitrary and capricious policies implemented in some states. Those policies (arresting lone paddle boarders, shutting down fishing in rivers, banning the sale of infant car seats, etc) were of know benefit to public health and only served to make people who are already upset, more upset. Governments have a duty when the institute policies that infringe on people's rights, to not do so in an arbitrary and capricious way. When they do so, they lose the ability to govern.

4. I think most people should expect that when the economy reopens, a few things will remain in place:

• Requirements to wear masks in public and when in business establishments when returning to work
• Requirements on businesses to reduce occupancy
• No gatherings larger than 10 people - I fully expect if we have college sports in the Fall, it will be without fans

I work for a large computer company with one of its headquarters in Beijing. Since the employees returned to work, they have been required to put on a face mask when they enter the building (face mask provided by company - they get one a day). They get their temperature taken when they enter the building and if they have a temperature, they must leave and return home. People do not sit side by side in the office. They reduced seating capacity by 50% and half of the desks (between people) remain unoccupied. There are no more meals eaten in the cafeteria. Employees go to the cafeteria to get their meals and return to their office area and eat at their desk. This is the only time while they are in the office when they are allowed to remove their mask.

I expect many employers in the US to implement most of the steps I just outlined and these will likely stay in effect until a vaccine is found.

I work in a large manufacturing facility (approximately 800 employees) that runs 24/7/365 here in WNC. We have been checking temperatures and asking about symptoms at all our gates for about three weeks now. As of this past Friday, all persons must wear masks while inside the facility. All conference rooms have very specific occupancy numbers, the few people who can work from home have been and social distancing is encouraged as much as possible. It's been an inconvenience, but we really haven't missed a beat. I struggle to see all of these measures staying in place until a vaccine exists, though. The masks are borderline impractical here and social distancing is impossible in a lot of our environments.

If the government, local or otherwise, makes wearing masks a requirement, they are going to need to figure out how to provide masks to everyone. I've been trying to source masks for work, not related to the virus, for a month or more and have been unable to. If they really want people to wear masks that are effective in stopping the spread of the disease, I don't think the homemade masks and handkerchiefs are going to cut it. Unless they just want to make everyone feel better about opening back up, without actually protecting them, in which case, I guess the homemade masks are ok.

We ordered some online. A couple days later our order was canceled as they could not fill the order.

NC should call up MA and ask them how to dashboard.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-april-21-2020/download

They have almost twice as many deaths over 80 as under 80.

22 of their 1961 deaths are under 50.

Am I the only one who gets on social media and feels like I'm taking crazy pills? People are absolutely scared ****less of this virus and have no reasoning other than news headlines.

I spent an embarrassing amount of time yesterday running some numbers based on the top ten hit states. I've said all along that I felt strongly that this virus affects high density urban areas differently. My crude research confirms that. The ten states most affected (NY, NJ, MI, MA, PA, IL, CA, LA, CT and FL) account for about 43% of the USA population, but have 73% of all positive cases and 82% of deaths. Those numbers are insane to me, but if you dive in a little further and look at each state individually you'll see that almost all of the high numbers come from the major metros. NYC and the surrounding commuting counties make up about 5% of the US population, but account for 50% of deaths! 82% of the deaths in Michigan are in three counties that make up Detroit and suburbs. 88% of the Illinois deaths come from four counties around Chicago. If you add Philly, LA, Miami, New Orleans and Boston metros to the above mentioned cities, you can account for about 54% of all cases and 66% of all deaths. Eight cities with about 16% of the countries population has two-thirds of our deaths. Surely someone smarter than me can see this, too. What am I missing? Am I the one that's out of touch?

Everpack said:

---

Am I the only one who gets on social media and feels like I'm taking crazy pills? People are absolutely scared ****less of this virus and have no reasoning other than news headlines.

I spent an embarrassing amount of time yesterday running some numbers based on the top ten hit states. I've said all along that I felt strongly that this virus affects high density urban areas differently. My crude research confirms that. The ten states most affected (NY, NJ, MI, MA, PA, IL, CA, LA, CT and FL) account for about 43% of the USA population, but have 73% of all positive cases and 82% of deaths. Those numbers are insane to me, but if you dive in a little further and look at each state individually you'll see that almost all of the high numbers come from the major metros. NYC and the surrounding commuting counties make up about 5% of the US population, but account for 50% of deaths! 82% of the deaths in Michigan are in three counties that make up Detroit and suburbs. 88% of the Illinois deaths come from four counties around Chicago. If you add Philly, LA, Miami, New Orleans and Boston metros to the above mentioned cities, you can account for about 54% of all cases and 66% of all deaths. Eight cities with about 16% of the countries population has two-thirds of our deaths. Surely someone smarter than me can see this, too. What am I missing? Am I the one that's out of touch?

---

Nope. You are not out of touch. We are dealing with a government, regardless of party affiliation, federal, state or local that are all clueless. Not a dang one knows what they are doing. Some are doing better then others but thats just a case of one being less dumb then the others.

Nope, not the only one. Social media is an exercise in group think. The stupid thing is, I've seen a few in my social media circle being very preachy about people staying home, who themselves aren't really staying home. One had Easter lunch with their extended family (who live in different parts of the state, not like they were quarantining together) and posted pictures.

Found another interesting site.

https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/

Go look at the state's annual flu survey. If the flu isn't a lab positive result, it isn't listed in their report as a flu death.

Wayland said:

---

Go look at the state's annual flu survey. If the flu isn't a lab positive result, it isn't listed in their report as a flu death.

---

I can confirm that. My grandmother passed last month with complications about four weeks after testing positive for the flu. Her cause of death was listed as pneumonia. Influenza was no where to be found on her death certificate.

PackBacker07 said:

---

---

The map they included with the Tweet is for cases per county, not deaths. Also, this shows total cases, since the testing began and not active cases. By my rough calculations, there are approximately 3900 active cases. The rest should either be over the virus or dead.