Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 25, 2018
3,420
1,021
243
49
Boulder, CO
Just got back from a weekend in South Dakota. Hold the jokes, please!

While the hot governor never officially shut things down, it was interesting to see similar measures to what I've seen here in Colorado. We were around Mt. Rushmore & Custer State Park, & there were some restaurants open, with limited capacity due to distancing. Others were completely shuttered. Same with stores. Facemasks are not mandated, so I did see a real difference there
 

Well

still making mistakes
A/V Subscriber
Dec 17, 2009
737
289
1,613
The Golden Corral in Enid closed for good. I don’t recall from the news article if it was just that location or all of them.
Never thought about the whole chain closing down. Haven't been back since the crap started.
Ran a search and their website has locations that are open. Have to call tomorrow and find about this one in MWC.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,969
4,272
743
50
I don't know, I mean I see it all the time white liberals that constantly are racist because they don't believe blacks are capable of thinking for themselves. Just look at their wonderful candidate called Joe Biden. He's the perfect example of it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
IMO you are wrong frequently, and I mean that in the nicest terms possible.
Wait, I'm wrong about all the liberals I see that are racist? Or I'm wrong that Biden is racist?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
75,207
52,451
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Yeah but the .002 on the new report that just came out is. That is so yesterdays chart.
That wasn't a "report". It was guidance for scientists writing models. It laid out a broad range of scenarios and underlying assumptions. It was "here's guidelines for how to model this from this point forward" and not "here's what's happened".* If you want to know what has actually happened, go to worldometer, which is the data I posted. The proportion of people our age, 50-59, who have died from COVID-19 is not 1:500 but 1.3:100.

*Absolutely no researcher ever has to use the CDC guidelines for modeling. That's exactly what they are, guidelines. Researchers are free to write their own models with their own assumptions.
 

Boomer.....

Territorial Marshal
Feb 15, 2007
6,779
6,018
1,743
OKC
Never thought about the whole chain closing down. Haven't been back since the crap started.
Ran a search and their website has locations that are open. Have to call tomorrow and find about this one in MWC.
Spoke too soon.

GOLDEN CORRAL SHUTS ALL COMPANY UNITS, FURLOUGHS 2,290

Golden Corral said it has closed all 35 company-operated restaurants and furloughed 2,290 employees because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The franchisor said that “some” of the buffet chain’s 454 franchised stores remain in operation, offering takeout and delivery.

https://www.restaurantbusinessonlin...corral-shuts-all-company-units-furloughs-2290
 
Jul 10, 2009
260
183
1,593
58
Stillwater, OK
A question that I've been pondering--we've seen test kits that were not accurate with false negatives, etc. because they were rushed to market and not fully validated. And people are reacting like that's what you expect when you rush to product a product, but anything is better than nothing. But what about vaccines? I am NOT an anti-vaccer at all, but I have concerns about rushing a vaccine to market that hasn't been fully tested. Am I the only one thinking about whether I want to be first in line for this thing or wait for a while?
 
Last edited:

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,273
11,096
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
That wasn't a "report". It was guidance for scientists writing models. It laid out a broad range of scenarios and underlying assumptions. It was "here's guidelines for how to model this from this point forward" and not "here's what's happened".* If you want to know what has actually happened, go to worldometer, which is the data I posted. The proportion of people our age, 50-59, who have died from COVID-19 is not 1:500 but 1.3:100.

*Absolutely no researcher ever has to use the CDC guidelines for modeling. That's exactly what they are, guidelines. Researchers are free to write their own models with their own assumptions.
And you are right back to producing numbers that are pulled out of someone's ass. Garbage in = Garbage out. When one of the necessary numbers in the equation you are using is known to be much higher than the number used it's a trash statistic. The CDC with it's report is trying to factor in the unknown part of that number and my guess is they are being very conservative doing it. The real number is most likely below the .002 in the CDC's best guess scenario.

They are pretty sure on the low end there are at least 10x undiagnosed cases out there. So if they adjusted your number to the best guessed reality you would need to move the decimal one place to the left.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
75,207
52,451
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
That wasn't a "report". It was guidance for scientists writing models. It laid out a broad range of scenarios and underlying assumptions. It was "here's guidelines for how to model this from this point forward" and not "here's what's happened".* If you want to know what has actually happened, go to worldometer, which is the data I posted. The proportion of people our age, 50-59, who have died from COVID-19 is not 1:500 but 1.3:100.

*Absolutely no researcher ever has to use the CDC guidelines for modeling. That's exactly what they are, guidelines. Researchers are free to write their own models with their own assumptions.
And you are right back to producing numbers that are pulled out of someone's ass. Garbage in = Garbage out. When one of the necessary numbers in the equation you are using is known to be much higher than the number used it's a trash statistic. The CDC with it's report is trying to factor in the unknown part of that number and my guess is they are being very conservative doing it. The real number is most likely below the .002 in the CDC's best guess scenario.

They are pretty sure on the low end there are at least 10x undiagnosed cases out there. So if they adjusted your number to the best guessed reality you would need to move the decimal one place to the left.
So, if you like the number in the CDC guidelines, it's golden, but if you don't like the number from worldometer it's GIGO. Got it.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,405
1,983
1,743
Oklahoma City
A question that I've been pondering--we've seen test kits that were not accurate with false negatives, etc. because they were rushed to market and not fully validated. And people are reacting like that's what you expect when you rush to product a product, but anything is better than nothing. But what about vaccines? I am NOT an anti-vaccer at all, but I have concerns about rushing a vaccine to market that hasn't been fully tested. Am I the only one thinking about whether I want to be first in line for this thing or wait for a while?
There is a massive International private and governmental undertaking to make a save vaccine as soon as possible. Until now this has never been done. Hopefully now we will finally wake up and make the effort to make this and other vaccines easily available to us all.