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

Interesting read.

Where COVID-19 has and hasn't spread since states reopened: Analysis - ABC News (go.com)
Where COVID-19 has and hasn't spread since states reopened: Analysis - ABC News (go.com)



The Science...

That graphic in there is just an abomination of the highest order. 

Hit the wine bar last night. First time in I don't know how long that I walked into a business without a mask on. It felt good.

Today is my official "full immunity" day.

More informing and well articulated than the CDC:


https://twitter.com/ReneeAlida/status/1393172768871567363

What I took from it is that all the places that were forced to close (and/or go out of business) were not the cause of major spread.

Yeah, they said that in the first few paragraphs, but the entire rest of the story talked about how limited the tracking was, particularly places like restaurants where you don't have good contact tracing data, etc. Areas where they have much more reliable tracking, such as factories and workplaces (you know who is there and when) caused more tracked outbreaks, but that could easily have been due to better tracking. 

Which isn't to say that your point isn't true, but that this article is mostly fluff filled with numbers that don't actually seem to prove anything. 

I believe most of the spread was in homes. Family gatherings, parties, etc.

The numbers spiked, even in lockdown states. It stands to reason...

I do think there's a lot to that. As I've said I think that was especially true around the holidays.

However I remind everyone that "lockdown states" might have been locked down in name only. Despite what you've probably heard in the media about California, we weren't very locked down.

he didnt even realize he had it so good job vaccine

Exactly.  How many of us get colds or flu each year, and only have mild symptoms or none at all?

All along, I've been wanting to see a stated goal from the CDC, for how we measure ourselves against the virus.  "Complete eradication" isn't possible.  Using "positive cases" is stupid, because never in history have we so thoroughly tested a population for one single illness.

For me, it would be something along the lines of, "Reducing the effects of the novel coronavirus on the population to be no worse than an average flu season, in terms of serious illness, hospitalization, and death."  That's a known risk that the population has found acceptable, and it makes sense at least as some sort of baseline.

FL: