45catfan

I see what you are saying, but people remember the original estimates of 1 to 2.2 million deaths. Granted it was a projection, but way off base. You have to understand the unintended consequences of badly projected numbers. People understand that original death rate was grossly overestimated and also are seeing that if they are under 60 and healthy, the chances of them dying if caught is infinitely small. Should they still be concerned for their fellow man and take precautions? Sure, but don't expect them to feel they need to shelter in place any longer either.

That's the reason some people are throwing caution to the wind now, they don't see the dire numbers that were originally projected. Was it intentional to help necessitate and enforce the lock down or just bad data? I suppose a little of both. As has been stated numerous times now, the lock down was to slow the initial spread so the health care system wouldn't get overwhelmed. It didn't and outside of certain hot spots (NYC) may never would have even without the lock down. To the average person, the information was about as scary as the coming into contact with an AIDS patient in the early 1980s...people were scared to sit on public toilet seats because they thought they could catch it. Did that mean AIDS wasn't to be taken seriously? No, it definitely needed to be, however the information at the time was not accurate. All this to say, the data and information has to match to give the public the correct idea of what the real impact of the disease is. The information about the most susceptible demographic has been correct along...the elderly and/or those with compromised immune systems. The data, however, was very incorrect...especially the death rate.

"Perfectly healthy 'feeling' people are not getting tested to a large extent." I acknowledge some healthy feeling people are getting tested, but I feel it's very low number overall. If you had to throw a percentage out there, what would it be? My guess is some small number well under 1% of the population and even most of those are mandated by someone else (work related, elective surgeries, etc...).

Still most people getting tested is because they think they need to (possible contraction or symptomatic). Perfectly healthy 'feeling' people are not getting tested to a large extent. I know of two people that got tested recently only because they thought they may have caught it. Both ended up negative, but the point is they were concerned enough to go. I have yet to talk to anyone that has taken a test that has felt fine this entire time.

Especially younger, healthy people. The thought is if they are going to get, might as well get it out of the way and if they don't get it...fantastic! You saw that during spring break for college students when the mortality models were much more grim than they are now.

I agree, it has largely stayed on course. It's verged off the road a few times with political mud slinging and managed to get back on track, but it's been mostly on topic directly relating COVID-19. Trust me, if it had permanently went down that rabbit hole, I would have seen myself out of the thread. You can't have rational discussions with ideologues.

The positive test rates in SC are similar to NC between 9%-10%. As things here are nearly completely opened up, I will be watching the numbers closely over the next couple of weeks. No doubt there will be a spike in positive cases, it's a given, but the domino effect is what I will looking in depth at.

Draft micros are a small fortune at BOA. Like $12 or $13 dollars if I remember correctly. That's the reason you tailgate folks. Catch a buzz and fill up your stomach before you walk to the stadium.

No wonder you guys had a record day two ago with 19,000 tests! Holy cow! Now there is some concern that the next day topped it with only about 14,000 tests.

Complimentary bottles of water only? No exchange of money and only a handful of vendors needed to distribute them.

Not a bad solution, but will stadiums go for that? That's a big chunk of change sitting out there. Mandated by the League or else forego fans altogether, it may work. The owners would eat (pun intended) those profits over losing ticket sales outright.

Yeah, fake news is fake unless it's Fox News. Smh. FYI, he probably won't click a NY Post link either.

That's the reason I refer to look at it in terms of percentages. Saying to people that 9% of the people that tested yesterday was positive in NC will probably cause concern, but then saying nearly 1,300 tested positive in a day is alarming. However, it's the same thing.

The state should be able to handle the case lode IF the overall positive amount doesn't get much higher than 10%. I would venture to say anything over 13% would be trouble at the same testing rate.

They may have to back down the number of elective surgeries if the numbers keeps getting higher to create more room.

These are numbers for NC or Colorado where you live?

Do you have any idea of the testing increase amount (a raw number or percentage)? I'm very curious to figure out the amount of tests being administered now relative to the number of prior positive cases.

It's obvious, not amazing. Only in America can your elected officials politicize a pandemic. Pandemics are serious stuff and to intentionally manipulate the masses one way or the other for political scoring points is sickening. Both sides are guilty, some more so than others. I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah, when they stopped putting COVID-19 patients in nursing homes was a good start. Still, they've come a VERY long way.

As with all deep questions, it requires a complex answer and I obviously don't have all of the insight. First and foremost we need to look at the data, sift through the garbage and politically motivated. There's enough studies being done that the picture is getting clearer now. Then it's a risk/reward scenario reopening the economy. Have guidelines that people should follow. However, lock down didn't stop the virus, but we surely don't want to revisit the early days of the pandemic either. Ultimately I think we keep awareness in the forefront and reopen the economy is the best road for going forward. The virus will either burn itself out or we will get a vaccine. In the meantime, we can't keep the country buttoned up any longer. If it gets out of control again, unfortunately another stint in lock down may be required, but it probably worth the risk than staying in lock down indefinitely. If you are high risk, TAKE PRECAUTION! That has been and still is the main focus. Infection rate and death rates are up for debate, but what data has unanimously shown is elderly people with pre-existing conditions should be the most cautious as the demographic most likely to succumb to the virus if contracting it at approximate 90% of all fatalities.

In SC, the number of cases have gone up, but the daily number of deaths have stayed fairly constant averaging about 6. That being said the mortality rate is slowly coming down. Understand, we have a large sample size here and for the measuring stick being moved in any meaningful way is significant. We are down to 4.0% mortality of positive tests from 4.6% before widespread testing started a few weeks ago. Again, when dealing with a sample this big (13,000 positive tests now) shrinking 0.6% is a big deal.

This is an interesting article that describes why the initial calculations were so dire and why they keep get revised. As I've been saying for a while, the huge 'x' factor are those not tested that have had this virus and still are contracting it. To use an analogy: it's like an iceberg...the tested are all you see above the waterline, the unknown is how large is the unseen portion? No doubt this is worse than a really bad flu season, but it isn't the Spanish flu either. Likely, this will like a more serious Hong Kong flu. Before you poo that idea, remember people weren't required to get tested and how relatively lax the response was to that pandemic. Therefore, the numbers are almost assuredly under-reported for that outbreak. An Interesting Look at COVID-19

The important thing is to see the hospitalization and deaths number over the next 7-10 days. If there's not a sizable spike in either, that means the virus is weakening. Sure nobody wants to get sick, but the mortal fear factor may subside from the levels of just a few weeks ago.

They may have to settle for a medium sized one, but I can assure you for the right amount of money, something will get bumped or rescheduled.

Major metropolitan Republican mayors have gone the way of the snow leopards, not extinct but very rare. Politics have become too predictably divided between liberal urban-ites and conservative suburbia. It's been trending that way for a long time now. If...big IF... the corona virus subsides enough to host a packed convention, will the mayors still turn the convention away? It comes down to votes versus the economy.