Pretty obvious, at this point, what needs to happen:

1) Mandate Universal Mask Wearing
2) Send the Kids back to school
3) Keep the Vulnerable on a tight, tight Lockdown
4) Send everyone $660/month, even those who might be here on an illegal basis
5) Legalize Recreational Marijuana

Pretty obvious, at this point, what needs to happen:

1) Mandate Universal Mask Wearing
2) Send the Kids back to school
3) Keep the Vulnerable on a tight, tight Lockdown
4) Send everyone $660/month, even those who might be here on an illegal basis
5) Legalize Recreational Marijuana Sounds like a Helluva Deal.:calvin2:

Pretty obvious, at this point, what needs to happen:

1) Mandate Universal Mask Wearing
2) Send the Kids back to school
3) Keep the Vulnerable on a tight, tight Lockdown
4) Send everyone $660/month, even those who might be here on an illegal basis
5) Legalize Recreational Marijuana

Make it $5k/month and you'll have my vote!

This is what I am talking about in only talking numerator numbers. What is the ratio of kids who get COVID to hospitalized and die?. It is lower than the flu. Yes kids will get it in school, but the risk right now according to ratios is lower than the flu for children. That remains the question. Are we going to shutdown school every year from November to April during flu season?

Even with the lower risk of children having ill effects from the virus, what about the teachers? It's a similar trickle effect as we should be worrying about with hospitals and healthcare workers. If a teacher tests positive, that's two weeks they're away from school (conservatively, if they don't suffer from symptoms). So you bring in subs, but what happens when they start getting sick, or there aren't enough available? Or how about teachers or kids with family members with health concerns having to take that home with them?

Do you start closing schools only if they have positive tests? I feel like that'd be more inconvenient as parents won't have any notice in those situations.

I guess I am on the tight tight lockdown. No grocery delivery available so, I guess I'll have to garden and hunt.

Pretty obvious, at this point, what needs to happen:

1) Mandate Universal Mask Wearing
2) Send the Kids back to school
3) Keep the Vulnerable on a tight, tight Lockdown
4) Send everyone $660/month, even those who might be here on an illegal basis
5) Legalize Recreational Marijuana

Are you being serious????

The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/)

Even with the lower risk of children having ill effects from the virus, what about the teachers? It's a similar trickle effect as we should be worrying about with hospitals and healthcare workers. If a teacher tests positive, that's two weeks they're away from school (conservatively, if they don't suffer from symptoms). So you bring in subs, but what happens when they start getting sick, or there aren't enough available? Or how about teachers or kids with family members with health concerns having to take that home with them?

Do you start closing schools only if they have positive tests? I feel like that'd be more inconvenient as parents won't have any notice in those situations.

Also, do you plan to give every teacher that needs to quarantine for 2 weeks sick leave? With an already underfunded public school system in Oklahoma, exposing countless teachers, paying sick leave, paying subs, etc. seems impractical... not to mention the countless children who could get exposed and bring that back to their families.

Here's where we start to see the strain in healthcare triage. My system is now at 22, was 15 just yesterday. The problem is the ERs when they go on ambulance divert. If a hospital is out of ICU beds (including overflow ICU) they will hold the person in the ER (not ICU care to be sure but best option given choice). This diverts ambulances from that ER because the bay is now occupied and so they push on to the next hospital not on ER divert. You can see how this can snowball. Also, staffing needs are driving some of the outpatient areas to close so those clinical personnel can staff the units.
It's like a disaster drill run by David Lynch.

So how am I supposed to handle it? I am sorry about your family member, and I hope they recover very quickly!

But am I supposed to live in terror of this? I am careful, and advocate for others to be careful, as well. I just don't think that manipulation and fear-mongering are the best ways to do that. But I will pick a new topic to BS about, since my opinion goes against the masses on this board.

Nobody said to live in fear. Grow up. Quit pretending this is the flu.. Quit recycling red herrings to be argumentative and dismissive. Why minimize something that is now second only to the Spanish Flu in American deaths?

For the record: 546 are now hospitalized in Oklahoma, the most since the Pandemic began.

I have yet to see/find any data on whether or wearing or not wearing a mask prevented or did not prevent a COVID positive test. I don’t mean wear a mask because x person says so. I mean data what shows x many people got COViD because they didn’t wear a mark or x many people got COVID that wore a mask.

The reason you have yet to find that data is because such a premise is impossible to examine empirically. How would you know for sure that masking was the reason people did or didn't get COVID? You can't put a bunch of people in a room, some of whom have COVID, and give some folks masks and others not. That'd be an impossibly unethical test to run. What we do know is that the disease transmits via respiratory droplets (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/) and that masks decrease the emission of droplets (http://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf) therefore decreasing the odds of transmission. This is backed by numerous peer reviewed studies. Stop ignoring a mountain of evidence because of a ridiculous research premise.

993. We are in trouble folks.

993 (!!!) new cases today.

4 additional deaths.

993. We are in trouble folks.

i was oh so close when I said we would be over 1,000 cases. Oh and we are in massive trouble mask at this point won't fix this problem it's too widespread at this point

Also what is scary is the July 4th weekend numbers probably haven't even hit yet. 1,250 cases by next Tuesday?

Wonder if now our elected officials will enact mandatory masks in public or do some roll backs? As someone else said earlier, will it take 1000 cases a day or 2000 or ? I cannot see in classroom schooling this fall working out.

Wonder if now our elected officials will enact mandatory masks in public or do some roll backs? As someone else said earlier, will it take 1000 cases a day or 2000 or ? I cannot see in classroom schooling this fall working out.

James Cooper replied to my email asking OKC to make masks mandatory and said he supports an ordinance asking residents to wear masks in public. Asking, not making - important difference. And they're not even gonna do anything on Thu when they meet, just talk. Insane.

I cannot see in classroom schooling this fall working out.

We had a daycare for years, and we had to police parents just giving their kids Tylenol to hide a fever so they could drop them off and go to work. It happened a lot. There is no way that doesn't happen with schools this fall. Sniffles? Slight Fever? Give them Tylenol and send them to school!

993 (!!!) new cases today.

4 additional deaths.

This is shaping up to be a perfect storm with the rise in unemployment claims in Oklahoma and the lack of repeat stimulus $. It won't take much for people to not be able to afford their insulin or blood pressure meds and they will start rationing their meds. When it gets to the breaking point and they need critical care for a possible stroke or diabetic ketoacidosis, ERs will be full.

Also, now is not the time to learn to drive an ATV or get up on that old wooden ladder to clean the debris out of the gutters...

Part of the problem is that there are so many people out there who see these skyrocketing numbers and are unphased by it because the death rate is relatively low. I just saw a meme on Instagram that was giving Florida a hard time for its rising count and these were the top comments:

"Yeah and like 40 deaths so, big YAWN".
"Yet the death rate has dropped..."
"So what, we play outside when there is a hurricane, we ain't afraid of no virus"
"And 99% of them lived"

There's still a disconnect in people not understanding a lot of the long-term health effects that many people in that 99% experience.

This was a post I saw circulating around:

How can a disease with 1% mortality shut down the USA --- Frank Vieux (self.China_Flu)

>There are two problems with this question.
It neglects the law of large numbers; and
It assumes that one of two things happen: you die or you’re 100% fine.
The US has a population of 328,200,000. If one percent of the population dies, that’s 3,282,000 people dead.
Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what. That more than doubles the number of annual deaths all at once.
The second bit is people keep talking about deaths. Deaths, deaths, deaths. Only one percent die! Just one percent! One is a small number! No big deal, right?
What about the people who survive?
For every one person who dies:
-19 more require hospitalization.
-18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.
-10 will have permanent lung damage.
-3 will have strokes.
-2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination.
-2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function.
So now all of a sudden, that “but it’s only 1% fatal!” becomes:
-3,282,000 people dead.
-62,358,000 hospitalized.
-59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage.
-32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage.
-9,846,000 people with strokes.
-6,564,000 people with muscle weakness.
-6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.
That's the thing that the folks who keep going on about “only 1% dead, what’s the big deal?” don’t get.
The choice is not “ruin the economy to save 1%.” If we reopen the economy, it will be destroyed anyway. The US economy cannot survive everyone getting COVID-19.

Yes, we tend to think in binary terms, "Life or Death" but there is a reason case conferences are called Morbidity And Mortality. They are equally important.

This was a post I saw circulating around:

How can a disease with 1% mortality shut down the USA --- Frank Vieux (self.China_Flu)

>There are two problems with this question.
It neglects the law of large numbers; and
It assumes that one of two things happen: you die or you’re 100% fine.
The US has a population of 328,200,000. If one percent of the population dies, that’s 3,282,000 people dead.
Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what. That more than doubles the number of annual deaths all at once.
The second bit is people keep talking about deaths. Deaths, deaths, deaths. Only one percent die! Just one percent! One is a small number! No big deal, right?
What about the people who survive?
For every one person who dies:
-19 more require hospitalization.
-18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.
-10 will have permanent lung damage.
-3 will have strokes.
-2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination.
-2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function.
So now all of a sudden, that “but it’s only 1% fatal!” becomes:
-3,282,000 people dead.
-62,358,000 hospitalized.
-59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage.
-32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage.
-9,846,000 people with strokes.
-6,564,000 people with muscle weakness.
-6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.
That's the thing that the folks who keep going on about “only 1% dead, what’s the big deal?” don’t get.
The choice is not “ruin the economy to save 1%.” If we reopen the economy, it will be destroyed anyway. The US economy cannot survive everyone getting COVID-19.

Fantastic post, it needs to be circulated literally everywhere in the US!

^^ So I'm a little sympathetic to some of the thinking. For months, we were hammered on "flattening the curve". At the time, this wasn't about less total cases, or even less deaths. It was about preventing the spread from happening so quickly that it overloaded the health system.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-flatten-the-curve.html


A flatter curve, on the other hand, assumes the same number of people ultimately get infected, but over a longer period of time. A slower infection rate means a less stressed health care system, fewer hospital visits on any given day and fewer sick people being turned away.

https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/flattening-curve-for-covid-19-what-does-it-mean-and-how-can-you-help


The tall, skinny curve is bad – it means that a lot of people will get sick at once, in a short period of time because we don’t take enough steps to prevent the virus from spreading from person to person.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-what-does-flattening-the-curve-mean-and-why-it-matters.html


In contrast to a steep rise of coronavirus infections, a more gradual uptick of cases will see the same number of people get infected, but without overburdening the health-care system at any one time.

So for a lot of people, the goal was to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded, and to make sure folks didn't die from lack of ventilators and such. And, the fact of the matter is, are there any reports of people dying from lack of ventilators, or hospitals turning around patients? So for a lot of folks it's "mission accomplished". Even with the increasing in numbers, the hospitals aren't yet overloaded (but are quickly on their way). I don't think it will be real for a lot of folks until reports of hospitals running out of beds or other equipment start happening.

It's also to helpful to understand that for some of these folks it seems like the goalposts are being moved. And they're sort of right. But the response is that we accomplished the first part (flattening the curve and preventing hospitals from getting overloaded) and we're now working on the NEXT phase, which is to reduce the cases and spread and try to get the country open (and prevent more surges), and that takes extra steps like masks.

It also doesn't help that many of the early models were off so much, so it's one more hurdle to overcome in convincing people.

This whole thing is a like a slow-moving train where we can see it coming in the distance yet we keep telling ourselves it will take another course and refuse to step off the tracks.

^^ So I'm a little sympathetic to some of the thinking. For months, we were hammered on "flattening the curve". At the time, this wasn't about less total cases, or even less deaths. It was about preventing the spread from happening so quickly that it overloaded the health system.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-flatten-the-curve.html



https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/flattening-curve-for-covid-19-what-does-it-mean-and-how-can-you-help



https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-what-does-flattening-the-curve-mean-and-why-it-matters.html



So for a lot of people, the goal was to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded, and to make sure folks didn't die from lack of ventilators and such. And, the fact of the matter is, are there any reports of people dying from lack of ventilators, or hospitals turning around patients? So for a lot of folks it's "mission accomplished". Even with the increasing in numbers, the hospitals aren't yet overloaded (but are quickly on their way). I don't think it will be real for a lot of folks until reports of hospitals running out of beds or other equipment start happening.

It's also to helpful to understand that for some of these folks it seems like the goalposts are being moved. And they're sort of right. But the response is that we accomplished the first part (flattening the curve and preventing hospitals from getting overloaded) and we're now working on the NEXT phase, which is to reduce the cases and spread and try to get the country open (and prevent more surges), and that takes extra steps like masks.

Flattening the curve wasn't just about saving the healthcare system from overinundation (though that's was the reason for the immediate urgency). It was also to give us time to create a robust test/trace/isolate infrastructure so that when we did come out of lockdown we could keep the thing under a modicum of control. Instead, administration leaders frittered away the time and encouraged early opening without the infrastructure in place, leading to the disaster we see unfolding now. I agree the point was never to get to zero, but nor was it just to work for a month and then get back to normal. The fact that we're seeing hospitals going over capacity, a return of PPE shortage, a 7+ day turnaround time on tests and little to no tracing/isolating is all a testament to the dithering and lack of a coordinated response by national leadership.

^^ So I'm a little sympathetic to some of the thinking. For months, we were hammered on "flattening the curve". At the time, this wasn't about less total cases, or even less deaths. It was about preventing the spread from happening so quickly that it overloaded the health system.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-flatten-the-curve.html



https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/flattening-curve-for-covid-19-what-does-it-mean-and-how-can-you-help



https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-what-does-flattening-the-curve-mean-and-why-it-matters.html



So for a lot of people, the goal was to prevent the hospitals from being overloaded, and to make sure folks didn't die from lack of ventilators and such. And, the fact of the matter is, are there any reports of people dying from lack of ventilators, or hospitals turning around patients? So for a lot of folks it's "mission accomplished". Even with the increasing in numbers, the hospitals aren't yet overloaded (but are quickly on their way). I don't think it will be real for a lot of folks until reports of hospitals running out of beds or other equipment start happening.

It's also to helpful to understand that for some of these folks it seems like the goalposts are being moved. And they're sort of right. But the response is that we accomplished the first part (flattening the curve and preventing hospitals from getting overloaded) and we're now working on the NEXT phase, which is to reduce the cases and spread and try to get the country open (and prevent more surges), and that takes extra steps like masks.

It also doesn't help that many of the early models were off so much, so it's one more hurdle to overcome in convincing people.

To me, it seems like those with more critical thinking skills accept "goalposts are being moved" and things are changing, and are changing their attitudes to it, knowing that we're in this for the long run, and it's a multi-part huge problem, with a lot of those parts still moving and some that are still unknown. And then there are those (as mentioned above) that just can't/won't think beyond "it's just about deaths, and they're going down" and not realizing that part of science is that it's not always right the first time, hence hypotheses and testing, scientific method, etc.. One more symptom of education in this country not being prioritized and biting us in the a**.

... lack of a coordinated response by national leadership.

And state and city "leadership", they share some of the blame too.

Flattening the curve wasn't just about saving the healthcare system from overinundation (though that's was the reason for the immediate urgency). It was also to give us time to create a robust test/trace/isolate infrastructure so that when we did come out of lockdown we could keep the thing under a modicum of control. Instead, administration leaders frittered away the time and encouraged early opening without the infrastructure in place, leading to the disaster we see unfolding now. I agree the point was never to get to zero, but nor was it just to work for a month and then get back to normal. The fact that we're seeing hospitals going over capacity, a return of PPE shortage, a 7+ day turnaround time on tests and little to no tracing/isolating is all a testament to the dithering and lack of a coordinated response by national leadership.

You and I may know or believe it was about more, but I'm just saying that's how it was sold to many people. Most people aren't coming to sites like this, or digging into more information. They're getting news updates and short articles and memes. So for lots of folks, until they start hearing about hospitals being full or such the high case numbers aren't going to panic them.

James Cooper replied to my email asking OKC to make masks mandatory and said he supports an ordinance asking residents to wear masks in public. Asking, not making - important difference. And they're not even gonna do anything on Thu when they meet, just talk. Insane.

I think you will be surprised. James will speak for himself. Don’t worry about him. He will support a mandatory mask policy. The ones to worry about are Stonecipher, Stone, McAtee and Greenwell.

Also don’t forget Mayor Holt. He has the authority to take actuon without the council. He could take action today.

I think you will be surprised. James will speak for himself. Don’t worry about him. He will support a mandatory mask policy. The ones to worry about are Stonecipher, Stone, McAtee and Greenwell.

Also don’t forget Mayor Holt. He has the authority to take actuon without the council. He could take action today.

Yeah, I realize James is one of the good ones (that's why I voted for him :)), but his choice of wording isn't quite right, now's not the time to "ask". And yes, those other four are, well, ...... Haven't forgotten about Holt's turnaround to a complete lack of leadership, either.

It's too late for the Mask helping at this point. Think I'm quitting my job and staying at home at this point. The state will be bankrupted in a Month. Sad day.

993. We are in trouble folks.

I know health experts say they're not 100% effective, but It's enough to make me wonder if masks work to an effective extent. If not, could it be the virus can be contagious through the eyes? If so, the health experts may tell everybody to start wearing goggles or face shields in public. We'll get a better idea how well masks work when OSU and OU will require mask wear this fall. OSU will give quick tests on campus for students and workers will help.

One Stillwater person on social media claimed he got the virus even though he wore a mask.`

I know health experts say they're not 100% effective, but It's enough to make me wonder if masks work to an effective extent. If not, could it be the virus can be contagious through the eyes? If so, the health experts may tell everybody to start wearing goggles or face shields in public.

One Stillwater person on social media claimed he got the virus even though he wore a mask.`

Face shields may be better, or at least as effective. I have some and have been wearing them. They are more comfortable.

https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-2020/shields-compared-to-masks.html

Email sent to my councilman this morning asking him to have the courage to pass a mask ordinance.

I know health experts say they're not 100 effective, but It's enough to make me wonder if masks work to an effective extent. If not, could it be the virus can be contagious through the eyes? If so, the health experts may tell everybody to start wearing goggles or face shields in public.

On Stillwater person on social media claimed he got the virus even though he wore a mask.`

It was never meant to be a panacea, but rather significantly lower the transmission rate. They don't work by preventing the inhalation of particles but rather the exhalation of particles. If you decrease the amount of virus exhaled, that lowers the overall amount of virus in the air and makes it less likely that your eyes absorb anything.

Yes. The virus can be passed through the eyes. We have known this for a while. If you don’t wear glasses, thrown on some goggles or shades.

Flattening the curve wasn't just about saving the healthcare system from overinundation (though that's was the reason for the immediate urgency). It was also to give us time to create a robust test/trace/isolate infrastructure so that when we did come out of lockdown we could keep the thing under a modicum of control. Instead, administration leaders frittered away the time and encouraged early opening without the infrastructure in place, leading to the disaster we see unfolding now. I agree the point was never to get to zero, but nor was it just to work for a month and then get back to normal. The fact that we're seeing hospitals going over capacity, a return of PPE shortage, a 7+ day turnaround time on tests and little to no tracing/isolating is all a testament to the dithering and lack of a coordinated response by national leadership.

I agree with this completely but I also think Jerry's right in that I don't think the multi-purpose of flattening the curve was effectively communicated. We did get those numbers and flattened the curve but only temporarily. And we always knew numbers would go up at least some when we reopened and we would have to find a new normal. But so many states reopened as though the coronavirus was some big hurricane that had to blow over and then we opened up our collective doors and it was gone. It's still very much around and we did a pisspoor job of planning ahead.

Bottom line is that's it out of control and people still just don't care. My friend just messenger me that works at a the Braums I used to work at. She is scared to death. She said once again today the lobby was completely full during lunch. Over half have no mask when ordering food at the counter. Why can't people just be smart. Eat in your car, Find a shade tree, take it back to work. Doesn't even have to be wearing a mask just little things like this would help.

Do grocery pick up instead of going into the store if you only need $30 worth of items. Eat your food outside or in your car. If you have to go to a store maybe go when it's less busy and not as many people. Try to limit contact in general with people.

Does anyone know of any data with the details of where within OK county most of the outbreaks are (like by zip code)? I'm just curious. I live in far NW OKC/Deer Creek area and I don't know anyone with the disease. I work with a bunch of people and only a few of them "know of" a person or two that have it, none of which have been hospitalized.

Not trying to discount the risk, just wondering if there are "hot spots" in certain areas (downtown, Peseo, etc) where one would be advised to be extra cautious.

Does anyone know of any data with the details of where within OK county most of the outbreaks are (like by zip code)? I'm just curious. I live in far NW OKC/Deer Creek area and I don't know anyone with the disease. I work with a bunch of people and only a few of them "know of" a person or two that have it, none of which have been hospitalized.

Not trying to discount the risk, just wondering if there are "hot spots" in certain areas (downtown, Peseo, etc) where one would be advised to be extra cautious.

At the bottom of the coronavirus site you can click by ZIP code. https://looker-dashboards.ok.gov/embed/dashboards/80

At the bottom of the coronavirus site you can click by ZIP code. https://looker-dashboards.ok.gov/embed/dashboards/80
Thanks!

According to that data Edmond has 193 active cases and okc 1038. ugh and this is with the guess that people are recovered after 14 days if not in a hospital or dead.

How deadly is COVID-19? A biostatistician explores the question (https://theconversation.com/how-deadly-is-covid-19-a-biostatistician-explores-the-question-142253)

Does anyone know of any data with the details of where within OK county most of the outbreaks are (like by zip code)? I'm just curious. I live in far NW OKC/Deer Creek area and I don't know anyone with the disease. I work with a bunch of people and only a few of them "know of" a person or two that have it, none of which have been hospitalized.

Not trying to discount the risk, just wondering if there are "hot spots" in certain areas (downtown, Peseo, etc) where one would be advised to be extra cautious.

At one point, I had only known a handful of people. In the last week, suddenly about a dozen people in my orbit have announced they have it, including someone in my family.

Not to be ominous about it, but if you don't know anyone yet, you will very soon.

Also, now is not the time to learn to drive an ATV or get up on that old wooden ladder to clean the debris out of the gutters...

Thanks for your excellent posts.


STAY SAFE WEAR MASKS

If I see the governor in person, can I legally spit in his face? Asking for a friend.

Ya. That's all I've got today.

Yesterday, I whipped up a fancy spreadsheet of all the data outside of the executive order report. I can make some graphs or whatever. But... I just can't even today.

Repost, but read this analysis in case you missed it.
(Spoiler alert. We're doomed)
https://twitter.com/koko_vivian/status/1282480454663172096?s=19

At one point, I had only known a handful of people. In the last week, suddenly about a dozen people in my orbit have announced they have it, including someone in my family.

Not to be ominous about it, but if you don't know anyone yet, you will very soon.

I'm of the opinion that, with the virus as transmissible as it seems to be, sooner or later we will all be exposed to it. It just becomes a question of when. All we can do is try to delay the inevitable until either treatment methods become good enough to make exposure less risky, or a preventative vaccine is created.

I'm of the opinion that, with the virus as transmissible as it seems to be, sooner or later we will all be exposed to it. It just becomes a question of when. All we can do is try to delay the inevitable until either treatment methods become good enough to make exposure less risky, or a preventative vaccine is created.

It doesn't have to be this way. Oklahoma had more cases in the UK, German, and Italy combined.

At one point, I had only known a handful of people. In the last week, suddenly about a dozen people in my orbit have announced they have it, including someone in my family.

Not to be ominous about it, but if you don't know anyone yet, you will very soon.
True. A couple weeks ago I was the only person I knew that has had it. Now it’s up to 8 or 9.

Hospitalizations up again today. Seriously what will it take before we take serious action. Serious as is more then just wearing a mask. Rolling back opening. A line getting into the Hospital. No more hospital beds. Somone Stitt knows gets really sick. All that is coming.

Hospitalizations rose to 561 (+15 increase from yesterday) just one short of the record high of March 31st.

I'm of the opinion that, with the virus as transmissible as it seems to be, sooner or later we will all be exposed to it. It just becomes a question of when. All we can do is try to delay the inevitable until either treatment methods become good enough to make exposure less risky, or a preventative vaccine is created.


I'm of the opinion that, with the virus as transmissible as it seems to be, sooner or later we will all be exposed to it. It just becomes a question of when. All we can do is try to delay the inevitable until either treatment methods become good enough to make exposure less risky, or a preventative vaccine is created.

Yeah, this stance has been disproven by many countries and communities around the world. There are clear steps we can all take to reduce spread. Moreover, considering it's dubious how long immunity lasts, getting it once may not mean much either (note: I tend to believe there is more immunity than the recent study in the news suggested, but it may vary on severity of symptoms). Unfortunately, our next battle after anti-makers will be to (and this is depressing to even type) convince people to take the vaccine. If people don't take it then we won't even be able to move past the pandemic once there's a cure. Our country and leadership has been pathetic and that's why some citizens are saying we can't really do anything when we can.

^^ Dan, you're correct. If it's anything like people getting the annual flu shot (which I do), we could be in trouble. So many people don't, and then the sheer process of rolling out vaccine, look at the difficulty of people getting tested.

^

We already have a bunch of people on this very site saying they won't get the vaccine even before one is completely tested and made widely available.

This is what happens when you have a concerted effort to discredit science and scientists.

^

We already have a bunch of people on this very site saying they won't get the vaccine even before one is completely tested and made widely available.

This is what happens when you have a concerted effort to discredit science and scientists.

I am one of those who won't take it. I am not anti-science. I am anti-rushed vaccine. I am up to date on every vaccine I can be, aside from the flu. I will get the COVID vaccine, just not right after it is made available.

^

We already have a bunch of people on this very site saying they won't get the vaccine even before one is completely tested and made widely available.

This is what happens when you have a concerted effort to discredit science and scientists.

I'm just gonna leave this here for anyone who is interested. It's 5 years old, came out during the measles outbreak, when you may recall people were still refusing to get boosters or MMR titers. The thrust of the article? We aren't fighting over facts, though we like to believe we are. We are fighting over values, and perceived threats to those values.
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/8-myths-about-public-understanding-of-science

I am one of those who won't take it. I am not anti-science. I am anti-rushed vaccine. I am up to date on every vaccine I can be, aside from the flu. I will get the COVID vaccine, just not right after it is made available.

As has been stated over and over and over...

Any vaccine would be thoroughly tested before it is made widely available.

You have no idea how long it will be tested and how safe it will be and you are already saying you won't take it.

As has been stated over and over and over...

Any vaccine would be thoroughly tested before it is made widely available.

You have no idea how long it will be tested and how safe it will be and you are already saying you won't take it.

If they are talking about 1 later this year, how is that normal course of determining the efficacy of a vaccine?? Don't most take years to develop, not months? Normal vaccines take waaaayyyyy longer than the vaccines for this virus are looking like. Combining steps scares me, a bit. Not off of science, but off of 1 vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html

I posted this before but you should check out the national geographic link for a better understanding of the clinical trial process.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=45625&p=1128762#post1128762