[Kalen Braley]

A few days ago, the US wasn't even in the top 10 globally for number of cases, now we're 3rd highest.

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we're just now actually testing people.

One thing I'm curious about: is there a test to see if you once had it, and have recovered?

True,

But on the other hand we're now confirming, that it has in fact spread like crazy in the US.  And the numbers are still very under reported because people who aren't in a risk category STILL struggle to get tested.

P.S.  Given the current priorities I would hope they aren't wasting resources on testing like that.  Best just to stay in place as difficult as that may be for some

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But on the other hand we're now confirming, that it has in fact spread like crazy in the US.  And the numbers are still very under reported because people who aren't in a risk category STILL struggle to get tested.

True. And NYC and NY in general are testing like crazy.

Also, I've heard that of the people who get tested, only 3-7% return a positive. That's surprising to me. It means that people are being tested because they maybe have one symptom or something. I appreciate the caution, but at the same time, some of those tests maybe could go to people who are more likely to actually have it.

P.S.  Given the current priorities I would hope they aren't wasting resources on testing like that.  Best just to stay in place as difficult as that may be for some

I'm not saying it's the same test, but if there was "a" test to see if you had it and recovered, and we couldn't get it again (as is the case with most such viruses in people with a relatively normal immune system), those people couldn't really be vectors for infection anymore. I'm mostly just curious about the science here, not the current situation specifically.

[Kalen Braley]

NYC has probably recently tapped into a lot more supplies/resources.

Here in Utah, my wife has a couple of friends who have the 3 major symptoms, flu, dry cough, tiredness and are still unable to get tested.  The guidance they get when they call to come in?  Quarantine and ride it out! 


We also have a friend who is an ER doc in the Park City area, which has a large retiree population and she's calling around to scrounge up masks.  They have 13 beds with vents...total....in the only hospital in the area.  On a side note she also says the Local govt officials went thru holy hell when they closed the ski resorts, with threats and all!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Here in Utah, my wife has a couple of friends who have the 3 major symptoms, flu, dry cough, tiredness and are still unable to get tested.  The guidance they get when they call to come in?  Quarantine and ride it out!

So, and again this is mostly about the science and not about social policy or anything like that… if they DO have COVID-19 and recover, they could ostensibly move about somewhat "freely." But if they don't actually have it, they should still very much isolate and socially distance themselves.

It's unfortunate they can't be tested, because then at least they'd know.

[Grant Saunders]

Saw this on Twitter today


Pretty much the most accurate statement ever 

PACE TURF "The day you see a golf course without ball marks is the day you can trust golfers to follow rules regarding social distancing."

[jeffwarne]

But on the other hand we're now confirming, that it has in fact spread like crazy in the US.  And the numbers are still very under reported because people who aren't in a risk category STILL struggle to get tested.

True. And NYC and NY in general are testing like crazy.

Also, I've heard that of the people who get tested, only 3-7% return a positive. That's surprising to me. It means that people are being tested because they maybe have one symptom or something. I appreciate the caution, but at the same time, some of those tests maybe could go to people who are more likely to actually have it.

P.S.  Given the current priorities I would hope they aren't wasting resources on testing like that.  Best just to stay in place as difficult as that may be for some

I'm not saying it's the same test, but if there was "a" test to see if you had it and recovered, and we couldn't get it again (as is the case with most such viruses in people with a relatively normal immune system), those people couldn't really be vectors for infection anymore. I'm mostly just curious about the science here, not the current situation specifically.

The data for comparison is wildy all over the place on this.
and websites update differently but..
NJ as of yesterday had like 2300 people tested and 1900 positive, which tells me by the time they're being tested, they're already very sick-and nobody else can get a test.
Then NY with about 60000 tests and 15000 positive(not todays data as I don't have their tests today yet-)
Yet down south in Florida, SC, North Carolina I see a lot of tests and a much lower % of positives(example North Carolina 255 positive out of 6500 tests)
 telling me it's easier to get tested down in those states.(or more people have flu etc.)
Then I see Seattle who has been in it for a month with only 1700 cases out of 27000 tested which suprises me given how long it has been in the community-maybe some had it and recovered?
1700 seems  low # compared to the widl spread elsewhere.


Ironically, now that tests are becoming more available, lack of masks and gloves are causing some to tap the brakes on testing again as it uses other scarce resources.

[astavrides]

But on the other hand we're now confirming, that it has in fact spread like crazy in the US.  And the numbers are still very under reported because people who aren't in a risk category STILL struggle to get tested.

True. And NYC and NY in general are testing like crazy.

Also, I've heard that of the people who get tested, only 3-7% return a positive. That's surprising to me. It means that people are being tested because they maybe have one symptom or something. I appreciate the caution, but at the same time, some of those tests maybe could go to people who are more likely to actually have it.

P.S.  Given the current priorities I would hope they aren't wasting resources on testing like that.  Best just to stay in place as difficult as that may be for some

I'm not saying it's the same test, but if there was "a" test to see if you had it and recovered, and we couldn't get it again (as is the case with most such viruses in people with a relatively normal immune system), those people couldn't really be vectors for infection anymore. I'm mostly just curious about the science here, not the current situation specifically.

The data for comparison is wildy all over the place on this.
and websites update differently but..
NJ as of yesterday had like 2300 people tested and 1900 positive, which tells me by the time they're being tested, they're already very sick-and nobody else can get a test.
Then NY with about 60000 tests and 15000 positive(not todays data as I don't have their tests today yet-)
Yet down south in Florida, SC, North Carolina I see a lot of tests and a much lower % of positives(example North Carolina 255 positive out of 6500 tests)
 telling me it's easier to get tested down in those states.(or more people have flu etc.)
Then I see Seattle who has been in it for a month with only 1700 cases out of 27000 tested which suprises me given how long it has been in the community-maybe some had it and recovered?
1700 seems  low # compared to the widl spread elsewhere.


Ironically, now that tests are becoming more available, lack of masks and gloves are causing some to tap the brakes on testing again as it uses other scarce resources.

Here in New Mexico, the situation is very different than in NJ. 65 positive tests, 5321 negatives. Only 1.2% positive rate. Hard to understand. As one of the 2 or 3 poorest states in the country, you wouldn't think they would be testing people willy-nilly.

[John Kavanaugh]

AST,


You are a smart guy. Consider the history of New Mexico and lung disease.

[David_Tepper]

A review of what is happening across the country:

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2020/3/22/roundup-stories-on-golf-courses-and-covd-19

[Tommy Williamsen]

The short story is; if people are smart and cautious golf can be a great and safe distraction during this crisis.

[MCirba]

How long can the virus live on your golf ball??

[Pete_Pittock]

Pennsylvania golf courses are petitioning their Governor to re-open the courses


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/golf-groups-ask-gov-wolf-to-reopen-pennsylvania-s-courses-that-were-shut-down-due-to-pandemic/ar-BB11ypvP?ocid=msedgdhp

[Kalen Braley]

How long can the virus live on your golf ball??

Mike:

"A new analysis found that the virus can remain viable in the air for up to 3 hours, on copper for up to 4 hours, on cardboard up to 24 hours and on plastic and stainless steel up to 72 hours."

https://www.livescience.com/how-long-coronavirus-last-surfaces.html

[Phil Carlucci]

New York State parks -- Bethpage, Montauk Downs, Sunken Meadow -- were to remain open with safety precautions despite the state's business shutdown (which started last night), then it was announced prior to shutdown that they would close after all.

Now today the state announced they are opening again starting tomorrow with limited tee times and heightened restrictions.

[MCirba]

How long can the virus live on your golf ball??

Mike:

"A new analysis found that the virus can remain viable in the air for up to 3 hours, on copper for up to 4 hours, on cardboard up to 24 hours and on plastic and stainless steel up to 72 hours."

https://www.livescience.com/how-long-coronavirus-last-surfaces.html

Kalen,
That's my point.   All of these ideas for keeping the ball more reachable inside the hole seem to be missing the point that the ball is in contact with the flagstick and cup liner, no?

[Kalen Braley]

How long can the virus live on your golf ball??

Mike:

"A new analysis found that the virus can remain viable in the air for up to 3 hours, on copper for up to 4 hours, on cardboard up to 24 hours and on plastic and stainless steel up to 72 hours."

https://www.livescience.com/how-long-coronavirus-last-surfaces.html

Kalen,
That's my point.   All of these ideas for keeping the ball more reachable inside the hole seem to be missing the point that the ball is in contact with the flagstick and cup liner, no?

I would certainly agree there Mike.

Seems like nearly anything short of isolation has some level of risk.  My neighbor is having groceries delivered today as he doesn't want to go to the store.  And he's got gloves and wipes to clean everything down before bringing em into the house.  We stocked up a bit 1-2 weeks ago, and should last another 4 weeks or so.  But at that point, if it hasn't settled down a bit we'll need to figure something out.


P.S. My wife has lots of contacts in the industry as she's worked in healthcare related fields for the last 25 years, and according to various people she's spoken to we certainly haven't seen the worst yet and it could drag out for several months.  Another friend of ours is a DR and is considering retirement on the spot, they are being placed in a perilous environment day after long day with inadequate supplies..

[MCirba]

Kalen,
I'm afraid you're correct on all counts.   I just don't want people to think that just because someone came up with a clever way to keep the ball suspended that the ball can't be a carrier, as well.

We also have enough for a few weeks, anything longer will take some additional risk here, as well.
Stay safe, my friend.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Kalen,
I'm afraid you're correct on all counts.   I just don't want people to think that just because someone came up with a clever way to keep the ball suspended that the ball can't be a carrier, as well.

We also have enough for a few weeks, anything longer will take some additional risk here, as well.
Stay safe, my friend.

The odds are incredibly small, and you could always disinfect your golf ball, or avoid touching your face, or a combination of a lot of things. That's why I thought the raised cup was the better system - your ball never went into anything. It just bounced off the raised cup.

And at some point, just generally speaking, we're going to have to choose economic health over this stuff. 50% of people can't remain out of work for months at a time. Not saying we're anywhere near there, but man… something like 70% of people have <$2000 in savings. That won't last long if they're getting 12 hours a week at the McDonald's or 0 hours because their retail store is closed.

[Jon Wiggett]

Well that is the UK in total lockdown now so I guess all the courses will be closed too. On the plus side it will be a greenkeeper's heaven with no golfers getting in the way.


Jon

[Lou_Duran]

Well that is the UK in total lockdown now so I guess all the courses will be closed too. On the plus side it will be a greenkeeper's heaven with no golfers getting in the way.


Jon

I hope that your reserves are plentiful, but I am sure you will persevere.


My bet is that if the politics can be worked out, we will be returning slowly in a few weeks toward normal.  I am not as sanguine that it will be in the form of a V, though I can hope.

[Thomas Dai]

Following the PM's statement here's a statement issued by the English Golf Union this evening. I presume the other Golf Unions will have issued the same or something similarly worded.
Stay safe.

atb

[John Kavanaugh]

Bandon Dunes is suspending operations.

[Mark Pearce]

And at some point, just generally speaking, we're going to have to choose economic health over this stuff. 50% of people can't remain out of work for months at a time.

It really isn't that simple.  "This stuff" is all that is preventing a situation being reached which is worse than Spain and Italy currently have.  When hundreds of thousands of people are dying (millions in a country as big as the US) you can't just "choose economic health" because it can't be achieved.  Nowhere is economically viable with that going on, because nothing looking like normal life can be lived.  Whilst most of the major Western governments have instituted lock downs, we read that one is hoping (based on God knows what science) to limit restrictions to 15 days.

[Thomas Dai]

Here are the UK Govt 23rd March restrictions -
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874732/230320_-_Revised_guidance_note_-_finalVF.pdf

atb


Later edit - have a look at the section entitled "Outdoor leisure" in relation to the decisions by the EGU/SGU/WGU etc and courses closing.

[MCirba]

And at some point, just generally speaking, we're going to have to choose economic health over this stuff. 50% of people can't remain out of work for months at a time.

It really isn't that simple.  "This stuff" is all that is preventing a situation being reached which is worse than Spain and Italy currently have.  When hundreds of thousands of people are dying (millions in a country as big as the US) you can't just "choose economic health" because it can't be achieved.  Nowhere is economically viable with that going on, because nothing looking like normal life can be lived.  Whilst most of the major Western governments have instituted lock downs, we read that one is hoping (based on God knows what science) to limit restrictions to 15 days.

Mark,


There is no science that would inform such a decision.  Only quackery and denial of science.


#freefauci

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()