new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 234 of 283
Where we last had ON TOPIC FACT-BASED posts, starting here:
This is just to point out that it's not just the m$m that lies ... it's anybody with a single-minded agenda that can't have it exposed to the light of facts:
Quote:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/danish-study-suggests-masks-do-
little-stop-covid-iowa-gov-insists-there-evidence-both
Danish Study Suggests Masks Do Little To Stop COVID As Iowa Gov Insists There Is "Evidence On Both Sides"
What the study https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 ACTUALLY found was - masks did little to protect the WEARER, at a time and place where infection rates were extremely low and many stringent public measures were already in place.
But people knew that 2 months in. Masks MOSTLY protect everyone else.
So why print this extremely misleading article now?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just tracking major turning points:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-20/one-in-5-u-s-hospit
als-face-staffing-crises-within-a-week
One in Five U.S. Hospitals Face Staffing Crises Within a Week
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But the most salient information is this: it shows that 'age' is not a comorbidity. If age was a comorbidity, the percent of people dying from COVID-19+age(and only age) would go up as years go up. And that would drop the relative percent of people dying with other comorbidities down.
But that's not what the data shows.
The data seems to show that comorbidities go up as age goes up. And people are dying from COVID-19+comorbidities regardless of age.
ETA: What makes this so noteworthy is that it's the first time I've seen data where age is cleanly separated from comorbidities. Finding the data where they were separated out was fruitless until now. The subsequent calculations based on the data to estimate the effects of age v comorbidities is easy enough.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now for some NYTimes doublespeak. What I did was put all the contradictory statements together up top, with the complete article below:
† Yes, the coronavirus can be spread over cocktails and dinners. But these get-togethers do not account for the huge rise in cases seen now, the data show.
† Household get-togethers undoubtedly do contribute to community transmission of the virus.
† But are dinners and backyard barbecues really the engine driving the current surge of infections?
† The available data do not support that contention, scientists say.
† political leaders and public health officials have said ... that unmasked people are sitting too closely in kitchens and living rooms
† But many epidemiologists are far less certain, saying there is little evidence to suggest that household gatherings were the source of the majority of infections since the summer.
† Indeed, it has become much harder to pinpoint any source of any outbreak, now that the virus is so widespread and Americans may be exposed in so many ways.
† long-term care facilities, food processing plants, prisons, health care settings, and restaurants and bars are still the leading sources of spread, the data suggest
† It is nearly impossible to compare the relative contribution of social gatherings
† These gatherings, especially if held indoors, certainly can drive infections.
† In Louisiana, social events account for just 1.7 percent of the 3,300 cases for which the state has clear exposure information.
† I can get together with nine of my best friends and sit around a table at a restaurant. So why can’t I do that in my house?
† the data are not clear
† “There’s more of these social gathering clusters, there’s more workplace clusters, there’s more church clusters, there’s more youth sports clusters — more everything.”
† In this sort of conflagration, it’s impossible to estimate how much social gatherings contribute to community transmission.
† “More and more, our exposures are due to community spread and are not traceable to a single event,”
† In most places, the virus is too widespread to claim with any confidence where someone became infected.
† “Many individuals are reporting more than one exposure.”
† In Minnesota ... there were about 202,000 coronavirus infections. Nearly 12,000 were attributed to restaurants, bars and sports sites, and about 17,000 to congregate care settings.
† Yet more than 115,000 of the cases could not be traced back to a known setting.
† “Household gatherings would be much safer if officials put stricter limits on commercial and nonresidential activities."
Small Social Gatherings Aren’t Driving the Virus Surge (So Far)
Yes, the coronavirus can be spread over cocktails and dinners. But these get-togethers do not account for the huge rise in cases seen now, the data show. While household gatherings may contribute to community transmission, they are not the engine driving the recent spread of the virus.
By Apoorva Mandavilli
Nov. 23, 2020, 1:23 p.m. ET
As states struggle to contain the resurgent coronavirus, many officials are laying the blame on an unexpected source: people gathering with family and friends.
Household get-togethers undoubtedly do contribute to community transmission of the virus. Canada’s recent Thanksgiving certainly added to its rising cases; such an increase may happen here, too, as the United States embarks on a holiday season like no other. That’s why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday warned so strongly against gathering with others outside the household during Thanksgiving.
But are dinners and backyard barbecues really the engine driving the current surge of infections? The available data do not support that contention, scientists say. Still, the idea has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom, leading to significant restrictions in many states.
In dozens of statements over the past weeks, political leaders and public health officials have said that while previous waves of infection could be link
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/17/how-covid19-has-been-curtailed-in-
cherokee-nation/
‘They’ve been following the science’: How the Covid-19 pandemic has been curtailed in Cherokee Nation
While the United States flounders in its response to the coronavirus, another nation — one within our own borders — is faring much better.
With a mask mandate in place since spring, free drive-through testing, hospitals well-stocked with PPE, and a small army of public health officers fully supported by their chief, the Cherokee Nation has been able to curtail its Covid-19 case and death rates even as those numbers surge in surrounding Oklahoma, where the White House coronavirus task force says spread is unyielding.
Elsewhere in the U.S., tribal areas have been hit hard by the virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that American Indian and Alaskan Native populations have case rates 3.5 times higher than that of white individuals. The Navajo Nation, where Covid testing, PPE, and sometimes even running water are in short supply, has seen nearly 13,000 cases and 602 deaths among its roughly 170,000 citizens. The Cherokee Nation, with about 140,000 citizens on its reservation in northeastern Oklahoma, has reported just over 4,000 cases and 33 deaths.
“It’s dire, but what in the world would it look like if we weren’t doing this work?’” said Lisa Pivec, senior director of public health for Cherokee Nation Health Services. Pivec leads a team that jumped into action in late February, holding coronavirus task force meetings twice a day, instituting procedures to screen thousands of employees, stockpiling PPE, protecting elders, ensuring food security, and educating residents in both English and Cherokee language. With no guidance on contact tracing available from the CDC early in the pandemic, Pivec researched the World Health Organization’s Ebola response to set up tracing protocols; after the first case appeared on the reservation March 24, she made many of the contact tracing calls herself.
She said the Cherokee Nation has seen no cases of workplace transmission; Sequoyah High School, with rapid testing and masks, reopened for in-person learning this fall; and elective medical and dental procedures have been widely restored.
The tribe’s Covid response meets the approval of global health leaders. “It’s very impressive. It’s a reminder of how much leadership matters and how even under difficult circumstances, with limited resources, you can make a huge difference,” said Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. “It fits with what I’ve seen in the world. You see countries like Vietnam. They’re not a wealthy country, but they’ve been following the science and doing a great job.”
If the U.S. had acted as the Cherokee Nation did, “we would be doing so much better,” Jha added, “with tens of thousands of fewer deaths, and probably a much more robust economy.”
The Cherokee Nation mounted an earlier and more aggressive response than neighboring states that have waited months — and are still waiting — for a national response. Pivec and other Cherokee leaders remain incredulous at the continued lack of federal leadership. “It’s as if Russia had invaded the U.S. and the federal government said, ‘Every county should fend for itself,’” Pivec said..
Lisa Pivec
A citizen of the Cherokee Nation, Pivec has stewarded the tribe’s public health program for nearly 30 years; in 2016, she helped the tribe become the first to be accredited by the Public Health Accreditation Board. She said she’s inspired by none other than Wilma Mankiller, an activist who became the nation’s first female principal chief in 1985.
“She inspired me to stand up and say we can determine our own destiny. We can determine how we run our government, and we can determine how we respond to the coronavirus,” Pivec said.
Pivec gives much credit to Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., who leads the vast, 14-county reservation larger than Connecticut, in the rolling foothills of the Ozarks — land Cherokee citize
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you for wading through the mostly bullshit and doublespeak that was the NYT article. I myself wouldn't have the patience to sift thru all of that. What I noticed is that they seem to think that if they can't link a case to a social gathering EXCLUSIVELY they discount social gatherings completely. That doesn't make sense. If you see a big jump of cases after Thanksgiving I suppose that will be their answer right away, but it will be too late. FWIW, I feel very safe outdoors. I put up my surgical mask when someone approaches, and chat at a safe distance with my neighbors. I mostly count on sun, wind, and distance, and so far it seems to be working.
I did notice this, however
Quote:As someone who has recently had a spate of doctors visits, and who will be having more in the near future, I wonder what this means. I DO wear my N95 when at the doctor's office.
Most states don’t collect or report detailed information about the exposure that led to a new infection. But in states where a breakdown is available, long-term care facilities, food processing plants, prisons, health care settings, and restaurants and bars are still the leading sources of spread, the data suggest.
But just OOC, what about the dentist? It's not like you can mask up and have them look in your mouth!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#WEARAMASK
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When it comes to health care settings, I think they mean infections of personnel.
Anyway, to comment a bit about the NYTimes article and the whole topic of spread ...
Do you remember the joke about the guy looking for his lost car keys at night under a streetlight? And someone asks him where he lost them and he says I think I lost them outside my home. And they person asks then why are you looking here? And the guy says it's because it's where the light is!
That's kind of like COVID-19 testing and discovery v actual spread. Early on there already was community spread at some level that was completely unnoticed and unaccounted at the time. And the only people they were testing were people who'd been in China, or were 'close contacts' of people who'd been in China. Not testing anywhere else meant of course they didn't find anything anywhere else. And so they assumed it didn't exist anywhere else.
(BTW very early on I said that the medical system at large would detect a viral outbreak in the community because of increased numbers of people ill and dying from pneumonia. I credited it with being far more alert than it really is. Only in retrospect did it notice, when people looked back and said - oh look here! Here are the early numbers we missed!)
When there were superspreader events that finally brought community COVID-19 to notice, it changed the medical community's understanding of where it was. After a short hesitation of a month of so claiming it was only a few isolated outbreaks and people in general were at low risk, they finally admitted there was general community spread. But then they were stuck on superspreading as the one and only paradigm. And at the time, that was probably the most prominent mode of spread, because, at the time, it hadn't entered the community at large in large numbers.
(The paper showing that COVID-19 should die out without superspreaders because it follows the 20/80 rule and 80% of people don't spread COVID-19 or only spread it to one other person was flawed, imo. It didn't take into account the 'lifestyles' of the population. An examination of that might have showed that the Hong Kong residents they studied had a Swedish mostly-self-isolating lifestyle.)
(I also had tried to game-out how COVID-19 might spread in rural communities, and figured that small towns would be vulnerable because everybody knows and interacts with everybody else; and that the only people spared would be remote farms where nobody goes into town.)
Anyway, time, and an unhindered exponential growth later - and what there is is COVID-19 well-seeded throughout communities. Wyoming for example currently has a 77.2% positive testing rate. Mississippi has an 86% positive testing rate.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/tracker/map/percent-positive
At THIS point, it's pretty obvious (to me) that the MAIN mode of spread under these conditions is small-gathering/ general public. Yanno, there just aren't enough superspreader events in Wyoming and Mississippi to account for all their cases.
The time to have managed this was before it went viral, so to speak. (As I also noted very early on) small numbers aren't reassuring. They just mean you're at the beginning of an exponential curve. The idiots in the states that didn't require masks back then when they would have done the most good, are finding out that sometimes, it pays to look down the road and be proactive, instead of driving pedal to the metal looking in the rearview and being reactive.
Well, whatever. It COULD have been far far better than this. It really didn't have to be this way.
Now all anyone can do is cross their fingers and hope that the potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 - like heart and kidney failure, strokes and dementia, asthma and COPD and respiratory failure - don't materialize.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kiki, thank you for posting that article. 
I am so glad to see the Cherokee doing so well in the bad time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/27/opinions/scientifically-illiterate-
scotus-covid-decision-sachs/index.html
Supreme Court's scientifically illiterate decision will cost lives
It will. As does anti-masking, and other belief-based attitudes. Religions, literal and figurative, are based in denying reality.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
previous predictions
Quote:
The previous ensemble forecast, published November 5, projected up to 266,000 coronavirus deaths by November 28.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicts there will be 260,000 to 282,000 coronavirus deaths by December 5, according to a forecast published Thursday.
Another widely-used Covid-19 model is predicting 438,941 deaths by March 1. That model is run by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
But if states relax restrictions and mask mandates, deaths could hit a staggering 587,000 by March 1, the IHME said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/27/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.
html
nearly another 60,000 people could lose their lives over the next three weeks, according to an ensemble forecast published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week
It sure would have been nice of them to post a link and actual numbers and dates.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME