SubJeff on 7/8/2020 at 18:22
There are geniuses behind all this, no doubt.
SD on 8/8/2020 at 00:00
Quote Posted by heywood
Over here, in the states hardest hit by the second wave
There is no second wave in the USA. The first wave of the virus is simply spreading into populations that haven't been hit yet.
A second wave would be if a region that completed its first wave (eg New York) suddenly started seeing soaring cases. I don't think that will happen, but I've been wrong before (once when I was 9 years old, I think).
heywood on 8/8/2020 at 00:22
Quote Posted by SD
There is no second wave in the USA. The first wave of the virus is simply spreading into populations that haven't been hit yet.
A second wave would be if a region that completed its first wave (eg New York) suddenly started seeing soaring cases. I don't think that will happen, but I've been wrong before (once when I was 9 years old, I think).
You continue to prove that you know nothing and can't be bothered to check your claims. There are many states whose curve of daily new cases reached a first peak (typically in April), died down, and then rose again: Illinois, Lousiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and the USVI. Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire look to be up next.
SD on 8/8/2020 at 00:32
Quote Posted by heywood
You continue to prove that you know nothing and can't be bothered to check your claims. There are many states whose curve of daily new cases reached a first peak (typically in April), died down, and then rose again: Illinois, Lousiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and the USVI. Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire look to be up next.
I think it's you that is proving a lack of elementary knowledge in this arena. Those aren't second waves, they're delayed first waves. Which is why you won't find a single reputable source that says the US is currently experiencing a second wave.
(
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-cases-usa)
(
https://theconversation.com/the-us-isnt-in-a-second-wave-of-coronavirus-the-first-wave-never-ended-141032)
(
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/12/coronavirus-spread-isnt-the-feared-second-waveits-still-the-first.html)
Quote:
* The rise in coronavirus cases seen in about half a dozen states across the U.S. isn’t the feared “second wave” — it’s still the first, scientists and infectious disease specialists say.
* To be defined as a second wave the virus would need to retreat and reappear, or a new variant would have to emerge, said Columbia University’s Ian Lipkin. “The recent increase in cases does not reflect either.”
* States such as Arizona and Texas “never really got rid of the first wave,” former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said.
heywood on 8/8/2020 at 12:42
OK, so you didn't look at any numbers, did you? The quote you posted was talking about states (e.g. Texas and Arizona) that are still seeing their first wave. But all of the states I mentioned saw early peaks, then suppressed the virus for a while, and now they're approaching a second peak.
Here's Texas, still in a delayed first wave:
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/covid/Texas.pngHere's Arizona, still in a delayed first wave:
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/covid/Arizona.pngHere's Louisiana, second wave:
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/covid/Lousiana.pngHere's Hawaii, second wave:
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/covid/Hawaii.pngHere's Montana, second wave:
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/covid/Montana.pngFinally, here's Illinois. This is an example where the virus wasn't fully suppressed at the tail end of the first wave before the second wave started. But by dictionary definition, that's two waves. Many states look like this:
Inline Image:
http://www.redmc.net/covid/Illinois.pngSubJeff on 8/8/2020 at 22:13
Quote Posted by SD
I've been wrong before (once when I was 9 years old, I think).
Oh very drole SD.
And yet here we are, still awaiting your explanation of this.
Quote Posted by SD
I think it's dangerous to assume that cardiovascular injury is a result of infection rather than a risk factor for it.
If you would be so kind Mr "Haven't been wrong since I was 9"...
Nicker on 9/8/2020 at 02:17
It seems it could be both a risk factor and a result. Especially since being infected once does not confer immunity.
SubJeff on 9/8/2020 at 14:04
Quote Posted by Nicker
It seems it could be both a risk factor and a result.
So having a cardiac event increases your risk of infection?
Pray tell how?
Nicker on 9/8/2020 at 20:30
SJ: I was confusing risk of infection with risk from infection.
