I will agree this type of information is not discussed factually on major media outlets - that often includes Fox. But it is not really different for the U.S. than other countries - so what is her point? Virus spread in any group leaks into the highest risk age group........hence the desire to keep it under some level of control. Is there a bit too much hype on total number of positive tests - sure. Should be focused more on positivity rates, hospitalizations, etc. since those actually are what matter. But putting up 6 million positives test is too much fun...I guess.
You're political here
Any word if they will attempt to pump in crowd noise for the Husker home games? Not sure what I think about that. On one hand, it's lame as hell to pretend people are present, but I guess if the team wants it, it should be up to them. It might create a new job position in all Big10 athletic departments. "Fake Noise MC" will be all the rage.....
Hospitalizations due to covid-like symptoms is now down to 1.5% of all ER visits. The strain we have now isn't terribly virulent.
Here is all the CDC data - most of the trends are good at a national level and this confirms your trend on ER visits (lower than normal baseline - but I think that is in part because if people can avoid going to the doctor or hospital they do). Certainly justifies the decisions made by the B1G and Pac-12.
Ya, even if data shows that people are not getting very sick when Covid-19 positive, the rates of positivity are the metrics that the Big10 has put in place. So, like it or not, extensive community spread without a high rate of hospitalizations will keep the Huskers from playing football.....
Atlas is a radiologist - not an immunologist.....I don't consider him an expert on the spread of COVID. That said - it probably is worth looking at the research he mentions. He also never stated what he thought the level of immunity actually is - just that the CDC statement of 9% was wrong. Which it very well could be if you combine T-cell and antibody results - but we don't actually have the real test data to know (I don't think the samples are large enough to call them viable for projecting immunity for the entire nation).
The papers he is referring to suggest that about 50% of people have cross immunity from other coronaviruses. That stands to reason when you look at states like New York and Florida, where once 20% of the population has tested positive herd immunity kicks in and numbers flatten out. It would be consistent with the projection of 65-70% for herd immunity.
20% infected + 50% that already have cross immunity from other coronaviruses is.
There is a video in the story that covers this
No it is not, and the article says as much, the cases went down because people did what they needed to do, and didnt ack like snowflakes about putting a mask on in public
