Covid-19 (not gnr related)

[pilferk]

Weekly jobless report out and its awful. 6.6 million have filed for unemployment. 3.5 million more then expected.

I don't even know why they are listing expectations.  It's stupid.  The fact is: When you actually start to think things through, every move to keep us safe effects thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly.

An example: My wife runs the office of a local (not chain) grocery store.  They are not doing ads right now, because they can't predict what they can get in stock in any given week.  They PUT stuff on sale, as it comes in and they can get sale pricing on it....but they just can't predict...even a week in advance...what that stuff will be.

The ad company they work with is laying off 3/4 of it's staff...because pretty much all the markets they deal with are in the same boat.

The print shop they use for physical ads is laying off half it's staff because they're printing fewer and fewer ads.

The delivery company that delivers supplies to the print shop is laying people off, because they are doing fewer deliveries.

And it goes on and on. 

They should just stop providing specific "expectations" and let the numbers speak for themselves.  They are going to be terrible.  That's what their expectations should say: Terrible.  No number, just that.

[pilferk]

Ive been getting my TP and paper towels on auto ship by the case for years. I can still wipe my ass in April 2020. 

Just a pro top: If you are working from home, WB Mason will deliver to you.   It's all "industry" level stuff, and it's not going to be your favorite brand....but it's TP and paper towels.

If that doesn't work, and you have friends who own...IDK...a restaurant or brewery or whatever who is only doing take out...see if you can get them to order you supplies.  Maybe you can sweeten the pot and get them to do a "TP curbside pickup" with a little extra tip for them on top!

[COMAMOTIVE]

Anyone else see in the stats that blood type A is more susceptible than type O to this?

Not sure how solid that is or if just a direct relationship to the # of A vs O in the world but I've heard this be said by several people on TV thus far.

Similar to how the death rate seems higher in men than women - not certain what else plays into that but all interesting stuff to keep an eye on.

[pilferk]

Anyone else see in the stats that blood type A is more susceptible than type O to this?

Not sure how solid that is or if just a direct relationship to the # of A vs O in the world but I've heard this be said by several people on TV thus far.

Similar to how the death rate seems higher in men than women - not certain what else plays into that but all interesting stuff to keep an eye on.

The data I'm looking at, so far, is not statistically relevant in terms of blood type "advantages".  The problem here, again, is one of sample, though.  We KNOW we aren't testing everyone....and the data I have is only for those admitted to the institution I work for.  So, even having said it's not statistically relevant right now....we might not know the answer to this question for months or years, really.

For us, the rate of admission to our hospital is nearly the same as "O vs A" blood types in the wild.  It SLIGHTLY favors A (even taking into consideration distribution of the two blood types) right now, but not in a statistically significant way.

In terms of men vs women...yes.  BUT, interesting fact: That's true with the flu, as well. Males typically have a higher rate of comorbidities than females do, and that is especially true of respiratory and cardio-pulmonary comorbidites. That means anything that attacks the respiratory system is going to hit men harder, generally. Someone will eventually write a good paper on this, in relation to COVID-19, but the popular opinion right now is that's likely why (or at least partially why) we're seeing a 65/35 split on mortalities favoring men.

Infection rates seem about equal, along population distributions.  There are some cultural and societal factors that skew things a bit more toward men, but we've not seen a DRASTIC difference in terms of admission rates so far.

All that being said, we have a LONG way to go and a LOT more data will come in before we're done.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Anyone else see in the stats that blood type A is more susceptible than type O to this?

Not sure how solid that is or if just a direct relationship to the # of A vs O in the world but I've heard this be said by several people on TV thus far.

Similar to how the death rate seems higher in men than women - not certain what else plays into that but all interesting stuff to keep an eye on.

I saw that reported a couple of weeks ago, there really is so much we still dont know about this thing.

Would be nice if the country that it came from & experienced it all first would be better about sharing their info and be more forthcoming about what they know about the virus to the world to help humanity out. But the communist Chinese govt sees this as more an advantage to them as they are on the other side of the curve.

[COMAMOTIVE]

All good points

Was just sharing something that I have heard from multiple sources on tv - sometimes when there's smoke, there's fire

Pilferk - it is also known that O is more common, especially in USA, than A - so if you're seeing even a slight increase in A wherever you are - that does possibly say something as well.

As for the death rate - I think it's just that men abuse their bodies more - with the booze and smoking and drugs - making them more of a target for an evil virus looking to attack - but that is 100% just my opinion - which medically speaking is about as useful as a shit flavored loli-pop.

[pilferk]

Pilferk - it is also known that O is more common, especially in USA, than A - so if you're seeing even a slight increase in A wherever you are - that does possibly say something as well.

"(even taking into consideration distribution of the two blood types)".

So, per that distribution, we are seeing a very slight, could be an anomoly, not statistically significant higher number of A cases.

I'm going to use gross numbers here.  We get more granular with the analysis, but I can't really share that level of detail, easily, in this forum.

Assume the following distribution of blood types among the US population.  They're not exact (and not exactly what we use for our analytics) but they are close enough to make my point:

Type O (-/+): 50%
Type A (-/+) 33%
Type B (-/+) 12%
Type AB (-/+) 5%

We are seeing, in our admissions, a very SLIGHTLY higher number than the 33% of patients you would expect to come in with Type A blood types. And an equal "reduction" spread across the other blood types in proportion to their distributions.  Because O is the most common blood type...yes, that type is "repressed" more than the other two, but it's pretty proportionate.  And when you run it all through the statistical modeling, given our current n, it's not statistically significant.  You would think, if the A vs O thing were true, we'd see something more compelling.  We aren't...at least so far. Not in infection rates, not in acuity, and not in mortaility. At least not yet.

But we also know our n is not fully informed, because we are really only testing those that we pretty much know might be sick, and only basing the n on patients admitted to the institution.  It could be A's are more sucseptible to infection, but don't require hospitalization in increased numbers, and we're just not seeing more.  Or it could be something else, entirely.  I can only talk about the data WE are collecting.

When we FINALLY get all the data put together from across the world (and we will), maybe it will show something more.  Nobody really has that, yet.  Clinicians are working on caring for patients, and we're using our analytics to fuel that process.  At some point, some epidemiologist, with an ID specialty, is going to do that, somewhere, and we'll have more informed data.  

[COMAMOTIVE]

Pilferk - it is also known that O is more common, especially in USA, than A - so if you're seeing even a slight increase in A wherever you are - that does possibly say something as well.

"(even taking into consideration distribution of the two blood types)".

So, per that distribution, we are seeing a very slight, could be an anomoly, not statistically significant higher number of A cases.

I'm going to use gross numbers here.  We get more granular with the analysis, but I can't really share that level of detail, easily, in this forum.

Assume the following distribution of blood types among the US population.  They're not exact (and not exactly what we use for our analytics) but they are close enough to make my point:

Type O (-/+): 50%
Type A (-/+) 33%
Type B (-/+) 12%
Type AB (-/+) 5%

We are seeing, in our admissions, a very SLIGHTLY higher number than the 33% of patients you would expect to come in with Type A blood types. And an equal "reduction" spread across the other blood types in proportion to their distributions.  Because O is the most common blood type...yes, that type is "repressed" more than the other two, but it's pretty proportionate.  And when you run it all through the statistical modeling, given our current n, it's not statistically significant.  You would think, if the A vs O thing were true, we'd see something more compelling.  We aren't...at least so far. Not in infection rates, not in acuity, and not in mortaility. At least not yet.

But we also know our n is not fully informed, because we are really only testing those that we pretty much know might be sick, and only basing the n on patients admitted to the institution.  It could be A's are more sucseptible to infection, but don't require hospitalization in increased numbers, and we're just not seeing more.  Or it could be something else, entirely.  I can only talk about the data WE are collecting.

When we FINALLY get all the data put together from across the world (and we will), maybe it will show something more.  Nobody really has that, yet.  Clinicians are working on caring for patients, and we're using our analytics to fuel that process.  At some point, some epidemiologist, with an ID specialty, is going to do that, somewhere, and we'll have more informed data.  

Fair enough sir - thank you

[cineater]

My whole state is going into lock down starting Monday.  I don't mind being stuck at home.  When I was working I wanted to be here.    It amazes me how many times I think about running to the store though for all those little things I wanted to do at home.  Apparently everybody is ordering through Amazon.  Those trucks are on my street all day long.

[tim_m]

My whole state is going into lock down starting Monday.  I don't mind being stuck at home.  When I was working I wanted to be here.    It amazes me how many times I think about running to the store though for all those little things I wanted to do at home.  Apparently everybody is ordering through Amazon.  Those trucks are on my street all day long.

Yeah getting what you need from Amazon fresh is best impossible. They are out of essential things, and ever if they weren't fiddling getting a delivery time available.

[cineater]

Tigers in NY have it? 

[COMAMOTIVE]

Tigers in NY have it? 

Yep

How about this order: Hey Chuck, go swab that tiger 

[tim_m]

I wonder how they test them without getting mauled.

[cineater]

I wonder how they test them without getting mauled.

Put them to sleep.  Question is how did they get it?  Did someone touch their food?

[cineater]

They just said on the news those stimulus checks we are getting gets subtracted from next year's tax return.  Is that right?

[tim_m]

They just said on the news those stimulus checks we are getting gets subtracted from next year's tax return.  Is that right?

It depends on your income bracket. Under 75k a year no.

[tim_m]

They just said on the news those stimulus checks we are getting gets subtracted from next year's tax return.  Is that right?

I want to know that as well. I've got 3 cats and 2 dogs. I have enough worrying about me and my family getting it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Granted the info is sketchy either way & dont know of anything to back this up, but Ive heard that it can be transmitted to cats but not back to humans ( unless you eat them)

[tim_m]

Granted the info is sketchy either way & dont know of anything to back this up, but Ive heard that it can be transmitted to cats but not back to humans ( unless you eat them)

Yeah let's not do that.  

[COMAMOTIVE]

Granted the info is sketchy either way & dont know of anything to back this up, but Ive heard that it can be transmitted to cats but not back to humans ( unless you eat them)

Yeah let's not do that.  

C'mon now - if you don't think you've eaten a little cat in your take out food now and then - you should just accept it and roll with it - add a little soy sauce and hot mustard - it's all good  baby