FVBrewerFan

Yes, Goodell won't be hosting a late night talk show any time soon. Awkward. I stopped watching most of it when they changed to the 8 day format or whatever it is now. Sat/Sun was great, always used that as a reason to get out of yard work.

Just got done with Better Call Saul. Hot take, I think it's better than Breaking Bad. Now started Ozark, not a top 5 or 10 show for me but really good.

Areas that finally do ramp up testing significantly will see many more cases, but I doubt that spike will lead to significant increases in hospitalizations - which is the critical element that needs to be tracked. More testing on more of the population will simply lead to the realization coronavirus has spread to many more people than presently assumed and not seeing the spike in hospitalizations will help reinforce it isn't as deadly as even currently presumed. As for tracking states that reopen versus states that don't...I honestly don't think we will see a significant difference between the two, because of how widespread the virus already is. Even the states that are reopening are going to restrict large public gatherings and set limits on capacity for people in restaurants, bars, stores, etc. That plus elderly/vulnerable people need to continue isolating/protecting themselves regardless of what state they live in. Maybe I'm too naive, but I give people the benefit of the doubt where they aren't all going to pile on top of each other in states that largely reopen just because they can. It wouldn't surprise me to see states with orders currently extended into late May turn them into swiss cheese before they expire by continuing to allow more types of businesses/activities to resume operating - which should be the case if data continues to show no difference between sheltering and opening states. That will prove to be the temporary "new normal" everywhere starting a few weeks from now, and we'll just see how things progress into the summer. Yea, the hospitalization trend line should really be the determining factor in getting through the phases. When you read through what is involved in Phase 1, either nationally or in WI, there's little reason why the vast majority of the country can't be in Phase 1 by 5/1. If this happens tomorrow or 9/1 there's going to be hot spots that need to be knocked down. Wisconsin should go right to Phase 2 by 5/15 if hospitalization stays steady. Case numbers, test numbers, etc. are just a bad way to benchmark the risk.

Is anyone aware of site that tracks Wisconsin's metrics daily? The only number easy to find every day is number of deaths. DHS website doesn't seem to publish a lot of the relevant data, at least I haven't been able to find. It would be very helpful to be able to easily see these metrics every day in one place: Number of new hospitalizations Current number of hospitalizations New and cumulative cases New and cumulative deaths New and cumulative tests Percentage of positive tests All of the above should also be graphed so you can see the trend day to day. Just seems like they must be tracking these things, and it should be easy to publish?

Shepherd if I had to pick one from that list. Let's face it though, a big part of it is which one does Rodgers like.

I'm not sure what good figuring out who has had it and who hasn't is. It only makes a difference if surviving it gives you future immunity but everything I've read is that it's not looking like that's going to be the case. Because their plasma may be able to be used to treat other patients. In fact, if they can nail that down it is arguably the best treatment short of a vaccine.

You are exactly right. And that's not even hidden, it's by design. That worked when baby boomers were all in their peak earning years supporting the previous generation. Now the math doesn't work, and it's exploding the debt. Al Gore was right, there should have been a lock box. It truly is a Ponzi scheme, but it likely will never be changed. Old people vote. Regarding pension vs 401k, one very important point is being missed. Taxes. You can have a Roth 401k and pay no taxes on it later in life when you need it. Pension income is taxed, of course. Beyond that though, having direct control is the most important thing- and that's why I far prefer 401k to SS or pension where someone else has the account.

Thanks. I honestly though this was fairly common knowledge, but I was challenged pretty heavily for suggesting it.

Cool, I'll tell my neighbor that is going to decide any day now if he's going to close his restaurant and file bankruptcy that he can fly a kite. My dad has missed 6 appointments so far with his primary care physician, specialists, and lab work. But I'll let him know he can go chip golf balls. These flippant "can't go to Wild Wings" comments are so condescending and miss the point by a country mile.

Apparently planning for a pandemic is quite rare. That's a failure on the part of health care providers. We're not talking about having an extra 10,00 cat scan units on hand, gloves and face shields are pretty inexpensive- especially when bought in bulk at the right time. So maybe for profit, decentralized healthcare isn't well suited for pandemics? That would be true if most other countries had plenty of PPE on hand, which isn't the case, of course. Just ask the UK as a quick example.

Apparently planning for a pandemic is quite rare. That's a failure on the part of health care providers. We're not talking about having an extra 10,00 cat scan units on hand, gloves and face shields are pretty inexpensive- especially when bought in bulk at the right time.

That's exactly what I said. That is wasn't a law, mandate, etc. it was GUIDANCE from CDC. This is important, because the story keeps changing in a whole variety of areas related to Covid-19. As you've shown, the reason hospitals are half full and people are being laid off is due to making room for an onslaught of Covid-19 patients- not because of lack of testing.

Thank you, you proved my point. I was just going to post something similar from CDC website. So, testing was never mentioned as the reason.

I honestly assumed this was common knowledge, but this is pretty succinct summary from Politifact: "Canceled elective procedures and admissions are freeing up bed space to prepare for (the) surge," Dr. James Lawler, an infectious diseases expert and internal medicine professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, told PolitiFact. "In regions where hospitalization rates from COVID are still relatively low, this is resulting in more empty beds — which is good. The surge is coming to them as well." (Now, that last sentence isn't coming true, thankfully) I did get his point. Hospitals are half empty and people are getting laid off, furloughed, etc. due to lack of testing. But that's not the reason.

I said this before, but the biggest issue is that they can't test everyone like they need to test. Are the hospitals blaming the 'stay at home' order for this? I don't doubt that. But the reason we have to continue this thing is that the hospital systems don't have the testing capacity that they need. I know this because my wife has to hear this - and deal with it - every single day. Everyday, the big question is about how many people can they test. If they can test more, they can start doing more. And the biggest reason they can't test is that they don't have the supplies to do it. Again, I hear this from my wife everyday. All the hospitals and clinics are prepared for an influx of patients with regard to testing, and the immediate professionals who must treat them. But the capacity to test - after those necessities - is limited. Healthcare professionals are being furloughed because it is not safe for them to do their job. Increase the capacity for testing - for the workers and the patients - and that will change. History has shown that in situations like this, hospitals and clinics are one of the most dangerous places to be. Frankly, you would be insane to send your mother or child or whomever to a hospital without knowing all the professionals involved in your loved ones care was free of COVID. Remember, COVID does not have to display any symptoms. Thus a nurse or doctor - if not tested - could have the virus - and go on to treat dozens of people (many who are sick or vulnerable) in a single day. That's exactly how you get outbreaks. I would also like to add that there are nurses and doctors and other healthcare people who refuse to work without testing. It's a crazy situation. We know a doctor who is working. His wife has undergone chemo a couple of times in the last year - making her extremely vulnerable to COVID. He goes home at night and talks to her between a plastic sheet. He has a room in the basement blocked off from the rest of the house, where he has his computer and TV and bed. He can't risk bringing anything home. COVID would kill his wife. No matter what, I wish everyone well. I'm sorry your wife believes this, but it just isn't true. The reason hospitals and clinics are half empty is because routine appts and elective procedures have been put on hold. It has nothing to do with PPE. This was not part of Evers stay at home order, it was guidance by the CDC and various federal agencies. The goal was to create space, beds, and medical staff for the onslaught of corona virus patients that never came. Also, while I'm at it, I'm sick of hearing medical providers whine about lack of PPE. Why didn't they have a supply on hand for a pandemic, or any other type of emergency?

Agreed--overall the models have been pretty good. All models have a ton of assumptions built into them, the key is figuring out which assumptions matter and which don't. At the end of the day, exponential growth is exponential growth no matter what coefficients you throw in there, and with very limited information the models correctly predicted the rapid spread of infections. The tricker part was to model deaths and hospitalizations because the percentage of cases leading to hospitalization/death is an important parameter and nobody really knew what that was given the lack of data. At the end of the day you would rather prepare for an overestimation. And things were certainly helped by people being good about social distancing which should be celebrated. At some point I hope as a society we can congratulate ourselves for successfully fending off the worst case scenario. The local and state responses have been great, especially given the complete lack of organization at the federal level and the general lack of a plan for what to do. To me it's quite scary how poor the national response was,if the states hadn't acted to get this under control it could have gotten pretty ugly quickly. The governors are just following the advice of infectious disease experts which is really all they can do. You're now the 2nd moderator today with not so subtle political jabs. Not poster...moderator. Funny thing is, the governors have generally praised the federal government for their response and organization.

You are welcome, and please take care at this time. I hear about this stuff from my wife everyday. It has been brutally hard - and immensely frustrating for them. They have a million people telling them how to do stuff or saying they're doing this or that wrong - when they are hamstrung by the lack of testing capability. To be honest - that (the lack of testing) is the #1 issue right now with the pandemic. This is, unlike the seasonal flu or SARS or MERS or whatever, a virus that can be transmitted by people who don't show any symptoms. That's huge. For all these other viruses, if a person shows signs of being sick (cough, fever, etc.), you can quickly isolate them and limit the threat they pose. But not with COVID-19. That's why we need testing so badly. Healthcare systems desperately want to start doing all the 'normal' stuff they do -- surgeries, checkups, etc. But they have to be very careful. As I said in my previous post, healthcare locations are usually the #1 place where sicknesses like the flu get passed around. More testing is the only way to prevent that. Sorry, but I think you're answering a different question than what was asked. Testing had/has nothing to do with why hospitals and clinics aren't handling anything non-critical. They were asked by CDC, FEMA, and others to save capacity for the crush of Covid-19 patients. That was the reason, and now that's it's clear there will be no crush we'll see the medical facilites get back to normal. There will be massive testing available everywhere very soon. In many places it already exists, not all governers are equally effective. The goal posts keep moving though. I was told early and often here flattening the curve was the reason for shutting down. Fine, it's flattened. In fact in WI it always was flat. Then we heard nit enoufh beds....not enough ventilators...none oh which was ever true. Now its testing...wait for a vaccine...wait until every person can get tested every day. None of that was the original reason for staying at home.

Hopefully new thread will be called "covved 19 WHOAA SOLVDD"

I hadn't thought of that. That's money that could be tossed back into the economy quite easily I would imagine. What would be even better? Let people control at least half of the 12.4% paid in under SS. Then there would be no need for pensions or 401k.

Nothing will work perfectly, I mean it's not perfectly now. But some version of this definitely makes sense. It would never work in WI though. Most zip codes could go right to tier 3 or whatever they call it, all other would be in 1 or 2 already. Except the north side of Milwaukee, and that's why this could never work in WI at least. No way would they open up the state, but keep the north side of Milwaukee shut down.

They're not considering chemo treatment a necessary procedure? If not, I question whether that hospital is correctly interpreting the guidelines for cancelling 'elective procedures'. And aren't the ICU/emergency room beds reserved for COVID patients right now, rather than ALL beds? Or is it a small-town hospital with limited resources? Yes, it is necessary. It is NOT necessary, apparently, for her to be hospitalized. She was during her other rounds, but not this time.

Yes and no. In 43 pages here it's barely brought up at all. Same with media coverage. 95% of the debate has boiled down to saving lives vs harm to the economy. Even at a national level, you don't hear the CDC, Fauci, etc. hardly ever bring up the risk to people by being shut down for this long. Have you ever seen a projection on number of deaths- short term and longer term due to the shutdown? So I cancelled two more appointments with specialist for my father this morning. I have a sister who should be in the hospital right now for chemo treatment. Her oncologist flat out told her she should be hospitalized. But the beds are being reserved for corona virus patients, which may or may not ever come. So she goes back and forth between home and the hospital almost every day. Talk about exposure. But this isn't about me. Just examples, how in one family there are two cases of people in a more precarious position due to the lock down. Imagine how many hundreds of thousands of people there must be in similar situations. It's not a stretch to believe people have and will die as a result of stay at home. So yea, I agree people are aware, but it needs to be a major consideration in all these decisions and not an afterthought.

All those examples you mentioned are at a higher risk during the lockdown because they can't see their doctor. Who am I to decide? Obviously I can't make that decision, seems like you're intentionally being obtuse. You also keep citing "experts." There are many experts beyond Dr. Fauci and Redfield, but they don't get the press those two do. Some believe herd immunization is the answer, some believe treatment already exists that is highly effective but not being endorsed, some project deaths as a results of the shutdown will surpass the number of deaths due to C-19. And on and on. These are not fringe nuts, they are well respected- just aren't in front of the camera every day. Oh, and it's a cheap shot to say me or anyone else are complaining because we can't get our $6 latte. Really cheap shot.

Yet I don't think there's nearly enough discussion about people suffering and dying BECAUSE there's a shutdown. Partly because it's very difficult if not impossible to quantify, but it is significant. My father is 88, with several health issues making him a prime candidate to die should he ever get C-19. Scary stuff. Here's the thing though. All of is medical appointments have been cancelled for March, and now April. So what if he does have an issue with his heart, lungs, etc. that's not being identified and treated? That will kill him too. Now, take that example and multiply it by hundreds of thousands of people in a similar situation. Death is the result, we'll never know how many. Now, add domestic violence, child abuse (where schools used to be essentially a first responder,) suicide, depression, substance abuse, etc. The economic impact is always discussed, which needs to be, but the unintended consequences of shutting down causes a whole lot of misery and death beyond economic. I was told by the experts, and by many of you early on in this topic the goal was to flatten the curve. We've done that. Now the goal has changed. Wait until there's more testing, wait until there's better treatments, even wait until there's a vaccine (which may never happen.) May 1 needs to be the day. That gives everyone 3 weeks to plan. Get as many tests out by then as possible, set standards for meds- which very likely will change with advancements in med as time goes on. Continue to lock down NYC metro and possibly other hot spots if necessary. Continue to quarantine the elderly. Otherwise, back to it. Back to work, open the restaurants and stores. It's not perfect. No solution or time ever will be. But we can't keep extending the time for 300MM+ people to suffer and die to try to protect the 40,000. Sorry to say those 40,000 deaths are going to happen no matter what is done.

There is still way more unknown than what is known about this virus. Origin and timing included. There's a lot of varying evidence and expert opinions on all of it. For example, experts from Stanford and Yale recently showed flaws in the models from the beginning. More recently Stanford research is showing CV19 MAY have been in CA since late last fall, and herd immunity may have kept it in check. Could also be the case that initially it wasn't as contagious and/or deadly. Final random thought. As other countries have started to ease or eliminate restrictions we will have a lot to watch and learn from.