SARS II: Respiratory Boogaloo

Stupid boy, you don't put coke lines on the carpeted floor.

If I go to Red Lobster (disclaimer - their caesar salad is actually pretty good) and someone says "three hour wait," I'm gonna be like "Right. Chili's it is, then!"

Red Lobster or Chili's.

This is the Kobayashi Maru test, isn't it?

"I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to go to Applebee's."

I've never been to Chili's either.

If I am spending that much money on a plate I am going to a real restaurant. If it is crustacean the local good sushi place has got me covered in so many ways.

Their southwest chicken eggrolls are pretty tasty!

Chili's was just the first chain I thought of that's kinda-sorta like Red Lobster. It's okay, but it's not like OMG I WILL NEVER EAT ANYWHERE ELSE!!

I went to Ruby Tuesday's once.

Same with TGI Fridays.

Fridays, at least the one by me, had a really good salad bar. But that location went out of business. Not COVID related, that location just wasn't doing the numbers to stay open. In my immediate area I still have Chilis, Outback, Dennys, Ruby Tuesday, Applebees, IHOP, and Famous Dave's.

When we were trying to decide on a place to eat after a concert 20-something years ago, a group of friends and I came up with TGIAppleBenniChiligans to describe those chain restaurants where the food is all basically the same.

I was going to use Spock dying in the chamber, but I couldn't find a good pic without a caption in a quick search, then I figured Kirk eating the apple would make a good play off of the name of Applebee's so I went with that.

Hmmmmm.... nearly three weeks since GA began opening up and not so much as a blip in the seven day average of new cases or new deaths (data is from the Johns Hopkins database, graphing from 91-divoc.com).

And it better be all you can eat crab legs night.

Seriously though, Red Lobster's not that bad (and those cheddar biscuits are pretty damn good), but a seafood place that doesn't serve hush puppies is an affront to the Lord Our God and unforgivable IMHO.

Obviously run by Yankees.

Assuming we all stay locked down in countries where we are, and the surveillance state continues apace where that’s the primary dampener. It gets so much worse if we don’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/reopen-america-coronavirus-lockdown.html

How to Reopen America Safely

thoughts?

their salad bar is great! Of course coronapalooza means no more self serve buffet salad bars.

The chicken littles might make trump look right. Not that something like acquired immunity might have been happening because we never really stamped out all the infection vectors. I don't know who would have predicted that, but they are probably patiently waiting to beat a whole bunch of people over the head with how they were correct, right @Asyncritus and friends?

okay throw me a bone here! What am I missing? Places with no social distance have 35 times the amount of COVID cases, but places with social distancing reduce COVID cases by 9 percent. Not a math wizard but that doesn't sound right to me. Any thoughts?

Why doesn't it sound right? Places that had social distancing decreased cases by 9 percent. Places that didn't have social distancing increased cases by 3500 percent. What are you not getting?

Here's what I'm not getting:
On Monday CITY A has 100,000 residents with 100 cases weekly CITY B also has 100,000 residents with 100 cases weekly.
CITY A decides to start social distancing. It drops their rate by 9 percent meaning 91 cases weekly. Sounds reasonable!
CITY B decides to abstain from social distancing. It raises their rate by 3,500 percent meaning 360 cases weekly. Doesn't sound reasonable.

In other words are there any locations where there is that exaggerated a variation in rates of contracting covid? Are there locations where the rates of covid cases are four times greater than a location of similar size? Over several months with a 3,500 percent rate increase a town would be bubonic plague level of death, would it not? Yet this isn't happening yet AFAIK.

Sounds plausible to me. The more people that catch it, the faster it spreads exponentially.

I don't know. My question is, where did they find a sample of a population that didn't implement social distancing? I thought everybody was doing that.

I think social distancing is supposed to be the order of the day just about everywhere, but how well it's being practiced is wildly variable. In Boise, I think most people are making an effort to do it. Of course, Boise's population density makes it a lot easier than it would be somewhere like New York City, Detroit, Seattle. Add to that what I call the "asshole" variable: the amount of people who simply aren't gonna let the gubmint or no pointy headed experts tell them what do you and you've got a situation that's hard to make sense out of from a statistical standpoint.

Yes, but if you follow to the source you realize those numbers are projections that do not account for the exponential factor ever stopping. In accordance with that logic and extension you could say cases would be google or infinity times more. When you do not take into account that eventually you run into an end where the whole community has been infected for the most part and therefor cases stop going up and 35 times might be more than the people in an area to begin with, then your equation is chicken little bullshit.

You are welcome @oldfella1962 because this is the flaw the smart people are using to fuck with the numbers. The very study itself

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/f...ontent=courtemanche&utm_source=mediaadvisory&

Shows this, and the NBC writers used creative fearmongering writing to distort the realities of applying an exponential curve to a finite populace.

probably some place way out in the boondocks that so few cases that they don't feel the need to. But then that would negate their claim that not practicing distancing causes vastly inflated case rates. Interesting that one county out of 110 or so counties in Georgia had zero COVID cases as of a week ago. It's not unique among the counties surrounding it - I don't know what the deal is there.

"Yes, but if you follow to the source you realize those numbers are projections that do not account for the exponential factor ever stopping. In accordance with that logic and extension you could say cases would be google or infinity times more. When you do not take into account that eventually you run into an end where the whole community has been infected for the most part and therefor cases stop going up and 35 times might be more than the people in an area to begin with, then your equation is chicken little bullshit. " - Tererun

That's kind of what my math-impaired brain was instinctively heading toward - the amount of people getting COVID would be greater than the actual total population. Maybe it's kind of a "compound interest" 401K investment thing or something. My grasp of percentages that I can actual visualize is milk. Small percentages matter! Skim milk has zero percent fat and tastes like pure shit. Two percent milk has two percent fat and tastes just fine.
Another interesting percentage fact: if a racehorse gains one tenth of one percent of it's weight it will slow it down enough to lose the race by about two lengths (15 feet or so) all other race conditions being equal.