PitchTrimmer

You can have immunity without antibodies. The antibodies themselves will go away after a certain amount of time without the virus present, but the T cells will still retain the memory and can make them again.

Cool, this has already got me thinking and looking up different things. @Homestar - Infection rates is a known number, it looks like it's expressed as the basic reproduction number, R0. CDC has the current best estimate as 2.5. The wikipedia article has it as 2-6, but the sources are from papers in July, whereas the CDC's page was updated in September. For reference the common cold has an R0 of about 2-3 from the wikipedia page, and seasonal strains of influenza are listed as 0.9-2.1. As far as morbidity, the Swedish doctor I linked to before seems to have concluded that it's about on par with the flu. It seems to me that the tremendous effect on the country comes largely from our response to it. This is an area where I should do more research: the main group at risk of dying from COVID is also at risk from rhinoviruses such as the common cold. In a normal cold and flu season, how is this handled to keep elderly patients safe? And while I lack a linked source right now, from talking to people that I know that work in hospitals it is standard ops for the ICU to be around 80-90% capacity because anything else would not be profitable. Now obviously this gets difficult if you need to keep a separate "COVID ICU," but then again that is our response to the virus. @N730 On the topic of reinfection, I have not seen too many things about that, and the CDC at least seems to think it's rare. I'd like to see more data on this (if you have some that'd be awesome), especially numbers. One of the things that I've noticed surrounding this whole thing is we are given a lot of large numbers with very little context. The town I'm in posts new cases daily and deaths daily on facebook. What if the same were to happen with the flu, or the cold, or even car accidents? Reinfection numbers would shed light on whether it's enough to make herd immunity unlikely. @ThreeHoler on long term effects, again most sources say this is rare (but I haven't really seen numbers), and really the virus hasn't been around too long (someone I know had a bad bout of the flu in January and it took her until March-April to regain her lung capacity), so how much can we really know about this. Further, is it worth keeping a lot of people at home and unemployed? I do want to do more research on where the social distancing thing came from, but if you look into how far a sneeze can travel, I wonder how effective that really is. As far as masks, I'll link that Swedish doctor again (in that article he looks into pre-covid studies about decreasing the spread of raspatory infections), but people seem to regard them as a magical forcefield or something which they do not seem to be.

Thread bump. Now that its been around for a few months and we know a lot more about it, I'm curious to hear what people think about the state of the pandemic and the response to it. In particular, I'd like to hear from people who think the opposite that I do. I've done a fair bit of reading, and it seems to me that the response in most places seems out of proportion to the actual threat that the virus provides. Currently, the CDC best estimate for the infection fatality rate (not to be confused with case fatality rate, which is not corrected for asymptomatic people) breaks down like this: 0-19 years: 0.003%; 20-49 years: 0.02%; 50-69 years: 0.5%; 70+ years: 5.4%. The risk for most seems quite low, and of course since asymptomatic people are least likely to go to the doctor these numbers are likely higher than actual. Given this data, is forcing business closures and lockdowns that we see in many places really the best course of action? Lockdowns and business closures are certainly having a bad effect on everyone, but the virus affects a known demographic. Also, when does it end? Getting zero cases is a mathematical impossibility given the accuracy of commonly used tests, and the economy is unlikely to be able to await a vaccine. So why does the herd immunity idea seem to be looked at so poorly? It seems to me having the groups with the >99% survival rate get herd immunity to protect the rest is the only way out, and locking down every time cases spike just seems to be delaying the inevitable. Especially since the graphs for new cases and the graphs for new deaths do not appear to be following each other anymore, indicating the healthier people are getting it and living through it and we are better at treating it. What other people's thoughts on the matter?

You jest but I was surprised to see night landings in the new T-6 syllabus...

Red River BJJ? They are good people.

Not just the approach. Verbalize verify monitor in the 17 was the most annoying shit ever. Basically repeating everything I spun into the autopilot, which became its own whole dick dance between configuration changes and radios from a busy departure. Not to mention when I went to gracc the stan-eval guy made it seem like they wanted pilot monitoring duties to be part of the checkride. As in downgrade-able if you didn't verify and monitor well enough. Not sure if that ever became a thing (I'm no longer in the 17).

Single engine... I wonder if students will have to learn ELPs...

Well . I hope they open it to T-1 guys, but I get why they wouldn't... Sucks though, there was nothing in the world like my T-6 solos, and if I got another chance at my childhood dream... Even if I got there I'd get that I'd be the red headed step child of the squadron but to me it'd be worth it to have a shot again at getting that fighter.

Gotcha thanks. Didn't know it was started by the MAF.

Has anyone heard anything about the MAF to CAF thing lately? It went from an email, then dudes meeting with O-6's a week later, and now crickets.