Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I doubt many have had it twice, but many more have had it than testing or illness has confirmed. Probably at least 10 times as many.

Mask seem to make no difference in the spread

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/?fbclid=IwAR01t2704_7xfrX08HmccDXzXZeeW0moL4hM0iUG0hafhfXu4KeAFsN-4rQ

From the CDC
Parameter values Table 1
[th]Parameter[/th]
[th]Scenario 1[/th]
[th]Scenario 2[/th]
[th]Scenario 3[/th]
[th]Scenario 4[/th]
[th]Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate[/th]


[th]R₀*[/th]

2.0	4.0	2.5

[th]Infection Fatality Ratio^†[/th]

0-19 years: 0.00002 20-49 years: 0.00007 50-69 years: 0.0025 70+ years: 0.028	0-19 years: 0.0001 20-49 years: 0.0003 50-69 years: 0.010 70+ years: 0.093	0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0.005 70+ years: 0.054

[th]Percent of infections that are asymptomatic^§[/th]

10%	70%	10%	70%	40%

[th]Infectiousness of asymptomatic individuals relative to symptomatic^¶[/th]

25%	100%	25%	100%	75%

[th]Percentage of transmission occurring prior to symptom onset**[/th]

30%

70%

30%

70%

50%

Look at the Fatality Ratio.  Almost no change of dying, if you are under 50.  Not much worse if you are under 70.

CDC article is here  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Chart didn't format well. It is in the article

Mask seem to make no difference in the spread

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/?fbclid=IwAR01t2704_7xfrX08HmccDXzXZeeW0moL4hM0iUG0hafhfXu4KeAFsN-4rQ

There are so many issues with that one that I don't have the time to take it down... 

I'll just start that with a cursory review of merely the abstracts of the four studies they purport to say that masks don't work, they all said masks work--some said that the purpose was reduce of spread [i.e. potentially infecting OTHERS] rather than individual protection, i.e. reducing R0. 

The White House Coronavirus Task Force in its latest report warned Iowa officials that small gatherings in people's homes are "significantly" increasing spread of coronavirus in the state as the weather cools and outdoor activities are more limited.

The report, dated Monday but released by the Iowa Department of Public Health to reporters on Wednesday night, warns that "current transmissions are linked to home gatherings," as the state faces a surge in new cases, deaths and record hospitalizations.

The experts say Iowa in the "red zone" for cases with 101 or more new cases per 100,000 population last week the 10th highest rate in the country. More than 121,000 Iowans have tested positive and 1,691 have died from COVID-19 since the pandemic began, as of data collected Thursday morning.

The document urges Iowa officials to limit large and small gatherings in an effort to stem the spread, which echoes from previous recommendations in recent weeks.


This comes as 605 Iowans are in the hospital with COVID-19, a new record-number that has continued to rise over the last month. Gov. Reynolds has insisted that the health care system has the resources to manage the surge, but Iowa doctors have cautioned that if this trend continues, it could overwhelm hospitals.

The White House experts in their report also notify Iowa leaders that hospitals could be at risk.

"All indicators of community spread are increasing, including percent of nursing homes with positive staff members and residents," the report says. "And community spread is increasing hospital admissions, leading to potential resource constraints."

The state is receiving nearly one million rapid tests from the federal government, and the experts this week said such tests perform best in school settings. Iowa's schools need to have at least 50% of their instruction in person, according to Gov. Kim Reynolds' proclamation.

We have about 10 million known (reported) cases in the US (327 million population).  Let's triple that and round it, and we get that about 1% of the population has been infected over 6 months.  Where you live can differ of course.

But, your odds of encountering a contagious person are quite low, no matter your safety efforts.  And then do you spend enough time in close proximity with them?

We probably "pass" about 100 people a day, by that I include walking on the street or in the park, but we spent time in proximity with none of them, maybe brief seconds, so I figure my exposure risk is very small for ONE DAY.

I think individual risk is quite low with even reasonable precautions.  But, the public health risk multiplies that over millions of people.

I mentioned my kid in Texas contracted it in March, an infected person came to their HQ and shook hands and confabbed etc.  Nobody knew.

You're off by a full order of magnitude. 30 million of 327 million is about 10%, not 1%

You're off by a full order of magnitude. 30 million of 327 million is about 10%, not 1%

Absolutely correct.

I would point out that one of the key tenets though was a discussion of likelihood of being around someone who has the virus and is contagious. 

6 months is ~24 weeks. If you assume a 2 week period of contagion (which is overbroad, but that's the typical quarantine), that means that you can then cut those 24 weeks into roughly 12 2-week periods because people who had it in April aren't a problem to you now...

I.e. if we suggest 10% of the nation has had the virus, that doesn't mean you have a 10% chance of encountering someone with the virus. It means you have a 10% divided by 12 chance of encountering someone who has an active virus right now. Or still under 1%. 

So Cincy was wrong, but right 

So much science and math promoted by non-scientists and non-mathematicians.  Fun.