Claim That Covid-19 Came From Lab In China Completely Unfoun

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:45:28 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:22:28 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/04/2020 05:15, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually. Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide. I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The data are already pretty clear. This pandemic roughly compresses your
annual risk of dying into a week spent with the infection. The effect of
Covid-19 on individuals almost exactly mirrors their annual risk of
dying as a function of age and of other health risk factors. See:

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-covid-represent-4539118e1196

The only feature that isn't reflected in the Covid-19 stats are the
higher number of young men who die early in car crashes.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

It will burn out eventually but only after it has infected enough people
to be halted by herd immunity. That will kill something like 3% of the
global population (even more if health systems collapse and less if we
can find even one effective treatment that isn't pure snake oil & hype).

Most of europe has peaked. Some countries are down to almost zero new
cases, despite having lots of tests available now. The natural
progression in a compact community or a small country seems to be a
gaussian-looking blip about a month FWHM. But it varies wildly. The
peak is very sharp on, say, a ship. It has a long tail in some places.

It hasn't killed anything like 3% in any situation.

Look at the numbers and curves for the places where it started
earliest:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html


I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

If you are over 70 and/or have serious health conditions the risk is
like Russian roulette with one live round in a 6 chambered gun.

There are 50 million Americans over 65. The US has so far 47K deaths
assigned to C19. That is nothing like a ratio of 6.





Being male counts against you so its more like 4 chambers for old men
and 8 chambers for old women (but the average is still about 6).

That's absurd.


If you are an individual of unspecified age it is a 30 chambered gun and
if you are fit and healthy under 40 something like a 500 chambered gun.

You have to ask yourself "are you feeling lucky punk?"

OK, you get the group award for inventing crazy numbers.

Wait, sorry, I may have been hasty in giving you the award. The
prediction of 36 million US deaths is still a contender.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 10:45:36 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:22:28 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/04/2020 05:15, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people..

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually. Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide. I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The data are already pretty clear. This pandemic roughly compresses your
annual risk of dying into a week spent with the infection. The effect of
Covid-19 on individuals almost exactly mirrors their annual risk of
dying as a function of age and of other health risk factors. See:

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-covid-represent-4539118e1196

The only feature that isn't reflected in the Covid-19 stats are the
higher number of young men who die early in car crashes.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

It will burn out eventually but only after it has infected enough people
to be halted by herd immunity. That will kill something like 3% of the
global population (even more if health systems collapse and less if we
can find even one effective treatment that isn't pure snake oil & hype).

Most of europe has peaked. Some countries are down to almost zero new
cases, despite having lots of tests available now. The natural
progression in a compact community or a small country seems to be a
gaussian-looking blip about a month FWHM.

How would you know the natural progression when everyone is taking actions to limit the spread of this disease???

But it varies wildly. The
peak is very sharp on, say, a ship. It has a long tail in some places.

Sure, it will vary hugely dependent on the measures taken to limit the spread and how effectively the measures are implemented. Gathering in crowds to complain about not having your regular hair styling is likely to extend the tail quite a bit.


> It hasn't killed anything like 3% in any situation.

3% of what? It has killed almost 200,000 in the world and is killing around 7,000 each day with no reduction in sight.

Look at the numbers and curves for the places where it started
earliest:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Wasn't this disease in a lot of countries at around the same time??? Which ones are you cherry picking to say are early? I guess all the countries that have bell curve new infection rates, no? Not many to choose from.

I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

If you are over 70 and/or have serious health conditions the risk is
like Russian roulette with one live round in a 6 chambered gun.

There are 50 million Americans over 65. The US has so far 47K deaths
assigned to C19. That is nothing like a ratio of 6.

Would you play daily Russian Roulette with 1 bullet in 1,000 chambers where very day they take away a few chambers?

....snip...

Anecdata that I do have from my friends and family contacts who have had
coronavirus symptoms are so far:

3 Home - recovered
1 Hospitalised - active
1 Hospitalised - recovered (lung function seriously compromised)

The latter was a skier and was middle aged fit and active. It will be
six months before it is clear whether she will regain fitness again.

Only the hospitalised ones count in the Covid-19 statistics - you don't
get tested for it in the UK unless you are admitted to hospital.

That does affect the statistics.

Severely, but not importantly. We don't need to know the exactly ratio of infections to deaths to know the number of deaths with this disease is going to be an unacceptably high number. It's already as high as an annual flu season and it is barely into it's second quarter literally with no end in sight.

You have to be either very ignorant of how to look at data or willfully biased to not see this is a disease to be taken seriously and responded to seriously.

--

Rick C.

++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 3:31:12 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 22/04/2020 17:48, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually.

I'm sort of with John on this. It will burn out eventually but if we do
not have a vaccine then it will have killed somewhere between 1 and 5%
of the worlds population by the time it does.

Oh, I agree it'll eventually hit everyone and we'll virtually all
wind up recovered and immune, or dead. By 'not burning out' I meant
that even after this rampage, the virus will persist in the population,
infecting newborns (who'll mostly not notice it), as opposed to
disappearing from the face of the earth.

I do not believe it'll kill between 1 and 5% of mankind, because the
case fatality rates that include silent cases don't support that. I
expect it'll be less than 0.5%, maximum, but probably closer to 0.1%,
highly age and health-status skewed.

The uncertainty being largely due to the varying quality of medical care
in the developing world and the risk of overwhelming the medical
capabilities of the developed world (as happened in Italy).

There is a risk that it will mutate just enough year on year to make
itself a nuisance essentially forever (much like seasonal flu). Once you
have opened Pandora's box it is very hard to put the lid back on.

Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide.

I think it is too late for that. We might have been able to lock it down
at an earlier stage when contact tracing was still viable. Unfortunately
it is now present in the general population at far too high a level.

That is how Ebola, MERS and SARS have previously been brought under
control before they became global pandemics.

A key difference is that those are red-flags readily identifiable,
making it feasible to identify and trace the transmissions; a million
asymptomatic Ebola zombies riding the NYC subways would be impossible
to contact-trace.

I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

I don't think it will be very cloaked. It will continue to kill a few
percent of all those it infects unless and until we are able to make an
effective vaccine in sufficient quantity to create herd immunity.

If an asymptomatic person is contagious, then the virus is 'cloaked.'

At the present burn rate it will take around 2 years to work through the
entire population.

Yep.

UK infections are presently reckoned to be a shade
under 2%. They are doing a community testing programme of 20k random
households to find out the true figure and how it evolves right now.

Even then it may still be unstable enough to continue to be a nuisance
long into the future. There is no pressure on it to become milder.

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

It was a bit difficult to follow his account, but the implication
was that it weeks was too soon for him to have possibly developed
the anti-body the test was flagging, suggesting that he'd had the
thing in January, too.

There is an outside chance that one of the drugs under test can
ameliorate the severity of the infection in susceptible individuals.

The only other hope would be a genetic test for susceptibility to the
devastating side effects of the infection. If we knew which 80% can
catch it and live to tell the tale then it might be possible to obtain
herd immunity that way. That was the original UK herd immunity plan. The
Dutch and Swedes are still following a variation on that theme.

One thing that was interesting on the BBC R4 programme tonight was a US
medic saying that the Covid-19 has a curiously damaging effect that in
the unfortunate susceptible patients crashes their blood oxygen levels
very rapidly and in a way that induces hypoxia and impaired judgement.

Yes, that's the 2nd doctor I've heard describe the illness as lack
of oxygenation. The other said it's essentially altitude sickness.

This could go a long way towards explaining why the German testing
regime which identifies more infections early and keeps an eye on them
has a much lower mortality rate. The countries that do a spot blood
oxygenation check and if it looks not too bad say go home, take a
paracetamol and come back if it gets worse are losing some people who
could have been saved by prompt intervention before they go critical.

Or it could be that the German testing regime simply improves their
total fatality rate because the testing regime identifies more mild
cases and includes those in the statistics, where other countries'
stats reflect lesser results for populations who have self-selected
as 'sick and needing help.'

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually. Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide. I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

o America is now at Great Depression job-loss levels.
o Cuomo has just announced that 16.7% of Long Island, 21.2% of NYC, 11.7% of Westchester/Rockland have tested serologically positive for Wu-Ping cough / Communist Red Death antibodies. 13.9%, state-wide.

There's only one thing to do -- BUY (MORE) TOILET PAPER.

(I bought some 6W solar panels for battery-charging
yesterday, instead.)

Cheers,
James Arthur

21 per cent is astounding. The herd immunity level is widely estimated
at 60 or 70 per cent, which is silly. It may be close to that 20%
level.

NYC is about 8 million people. So maybe 1.5 million have been
infected. 15K deaths have been assigned to C19 in NYC.

The ratio is much lower in other places.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 11:09:35 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

It was a bit difficult to follow his account, but the implication
was that it weeks was too soon for him to have possibly developed
the anti-body the test was flagging, suggesting that he'd had the
thing in January, too.

That's illogical; antibodies encounter and destroy virus particles, so both
MUST be present at the same time (or there would be no encounters).

Presence of antibodies, then, is a test for remediation of the disease that
gives many false negative results. Don't trust tests outside their proper scope.

 

[George Herold]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:03:05 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually. Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide. I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

o America is now at Great Depression job-loss levels.
o Cuomo has just announced that 16.7% of Long Island, 21.2% of NYC, 11.7% of Westchester/Rockland have tested serologically positive for Wu-Ping cough / Communist Red Death antibodies. 13.9%, state-wide.

That sounds encouraging. Unless there is a 10% false positive rate.
(Or they subtracted off the background rate.)

George H.

There's only one thing to do -- BUY (MORE) TOILET PAPER.

(I bought some 6W solar panels for battery-charging
yesterday, instead.)

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:09:30 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 3:31:12 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 17:48, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually.

I'm sort of with John on this. It will burn out eventually but if we do
not have a vaccine then it will have killed somewhere between 1 and 5%
of the worlds population by the time it does.

Oh, I agree it'll eventually hit everyone and we'll virtually all
wind up recovered and immune, or dead. By 'not burning out' I meant
that even after this rampage, the virus will persist in the population,
infecting newborns (who'll mostly not notice it), as opposed to
disappearing from the face of the earth.

I do not believe it'll kill between 1 and 5% of mankind, because the
case fatality rates that include silent cases don't support that. I
expect it'll be less than 0.5%, maximum, but probably closer to 0.1%,
highly age and health-status skewed.

The uncertainty being largely due to the varying quality of medical care
in the developing world and the risk of overwhelming the medical
capabilities of the developed world (as happened in Italy).

There is a risk that it will mutate just enough year on year to make
itself a nuisance essentially forever (much like seasonal flu). Once you
have opened Pandora's box it is very hard to put the lid back on.

Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide.

I think it is too late for that. We might have been able to lock it down
at an earlier stage when contact tracing was still viable. Unfortunately
it is now present in the general population at far too high a level.

That is how Ebola, MERS and SARS have previously been brought under
control before they became global pandemics.

A key difference is that those are red-flags readily identifiable,
making it feasible to identify and trace the transmissions; a million
asymptomatic Ebola zombies riding the NYC subways would be impossible
to contact-trace.

I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

I don't think it will be very cloaked. It will continue to kill a few
percent of all those it infects unless and until we are able to make an
effective vaccine in sufficient quantity to create herd immunity.

If an asymptomatic person is contagious, then the virus is 'cloaked.'

At the present burn rate it will take around 2 years to work through the
entire population.

Yep.

UK infections are presently reckoned to be a shade
under 2%. They are doing a community testing programme of 20k random
households to find out the true figure and how it evolves right now.


Even then it may still be unstable enough to continue to be a nuisance
long into the future. There is no pressure on it to become milder.

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

That makes sense. The sequence is

Neither

Viruses only

Viruses+antibodies

Antibodies only

then, with bad luck, years later, neither again.


I could imagine the very sensitive PCR test showing positive for a
while after the infection is over. A few de-activated viruses or virus
fragments might be hanging around.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 11:09:35 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

It was a bit difficult to follow his account, but the implication
was that it weeks was too soon for him to have possibly developed
the anti-body the test was flagging, suggesting that he'd had the
thing in January, too.

That's illogical; antibodies encounter and destroy virus particles, so both
MUST be present at the same time (or there would be no encounters).

For your edification:
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-igm-and-igg/

Presence of antibodies, then, is a test for remediation of the disease that
gives many false negative results. Don't trust tests outside their proper scope.

Presence of SARS-CoV2 IgG concurrent with active SARS-CoV2, or even
recently exposure to SARS-CoV2, is unexpected.


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 7:01:21 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:09:30 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 3:31:12 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 17:48, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually.

I'm sort of with John on this. It will burn out eventually but if we do
not have a vaccine then it will have killed somewhere between 1 and 5%
of the worlds population by the time it does.

Oh, I agree it'll eventually hit everyone and we'll virtually all
wind up recovered and immune, or dead. By 'not burning out' I meant
that even after this rampage, the virus will persist in the population,
infecting newborns (who'll mostly not notice it), as opposed to
disappearing from the face of the earth.

I do not believe it'll kill between 1 and 5% of mankind, because the
case fatality rates that include silent cases don't support that. I
expect it'll be less than 0.5%, maximum, but probably closer to 0.1%,
highly age and health-status skewed.

The uncertainty being largely due to the varying quality of medical care
in the developing world and the risk of overwhelming the medical
capabilities of the developed world (as happened in Italy).

There is a risk that it will mutate just enough year on year to make
itself a nuisance essentially forever (much like seasonal flu). Once you
have opened Pandora's box it is very hard to put the lid back on.

Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide.

I think it is too late for that. We might have been able to lock it down
at an earlier stage when contact tracing was still viable. Unfortunately
it is now present in the general population at far too high a level.

That is how Ebola, MERS and SARS have previously been brought under
control before they became global pandemics.

A key difference is that those are red-flags readily identifiable,
making it feasible to identify and trace the transmissions; a million
asymptomatic Ebola zombies riding the NYC subways would be impossible
to contact-trace.

I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

I don't think it will be very cloaked. It will continue to kill a few
percent of all those it infects unless and until we are able to make an
effective vaccine in sufficient quantity to create herd immunity.

If an asymptomatic person is contagious, then the virus is 'cloaked.'

At the present burn rate it will take around 2 years to work through the
entire population.

Yep.

UK infections are presently reckoned to be a shade
under 2%. They are doing a community testing programme of 20k random
households to find out the true figure and how it evolves right now.


Even then it may still be unstable enough to continue to be a nuisance
long into the future. There is no pressure on it to become milder.

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

That makes sense. The sequence is

Neither

Viruses only

Viruses+antibodies

Virus + IgM

> Antibodies only

IgG

My pal had virus + IgG.

then, with bad luck, years later, neither again.


I could imagine the very sensitive PCR test showing positive for a
while after the infection is over. A few de-activated viruses or virus
fragments might be hanging around.

I just rooted out the specs for one of the anti-body tests. Its
detection rate is about 90%, and specificity is about 90%. So,
one anomalous result probably isn't that significant.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 6:59:36 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:03:05 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

o America is now at Great Depression job-loss levels.
o Cuomo has just announced that 16.7% of Long Island, 21.2% of NYC, 11.7% of Westchester/Rockland have tested serologically positive for Wu-Ping cough / Communist Red Death antibodies. 13.9%, state-wide.
That sounds encouraging. Unless there is a 10% false positive rate.
(Or they subtracted off the background rate.)

Wait, jobs are being lost at great depression, exponential levels. But we all know (because Larkin told us so) that exponentials can't continue forever. So we shouldn't panic and fret. The job loss thing may burn itself out and we'll be good.

I think we can agree that this job reduction is just a typical post Christmas season layoff cycle. Being seasonal it will go away when the cold weather returns and some other jobs popup next winter for people to be laid off from again.

But I'm not saying that anything here is for sure.

Are they working on that job loss vaccine yet? I've heard there are some multi-level marketing schemes you could try if you're out of work. They sound good, really good. What have you got to lose? I think you should try them.

--

Rick C.

++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 6:49:18 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 11:09:35 AM UTC-7, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

It was a bit difficult to follow his account, but the implication
was that it weeks was too soon for him to have possibly developed
the anti-body the test was flagging, suggesting that he'd had the
thing in January, too.

That's illogical; antibodies encounter and destroy virus particles, so both
MUST be present at the same time (or there would be no encounters).

For your edification:
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-igm-and-igg/

Presence of antibodies, then, is a test for remediation of the disease that
gives many false negative results. Don't trust tests outside their proper scope.

Presence of SARS-CoV2 IgG concurrent with active SARS-CoV2, or even
recently exposure to SARS-CoV2, is unexpected.

While both of these are involved in responding to SARS-CoV-2, they are found mostly in the blood and lymph fluid. IgA is found in the lining of the lungs and gut, so wouldn't that be most important as the initial line of defense? I don't think the virus would much penetrate to the blood stream until after the lung is well infected.

My point being that while IgM may be made early, it isn't going to do a lot against the disease unless it gets more into the lung. IgG may flag a prior infection, but also won't be a major defense to reinfection in this case.. IgA would be the most important immunoglobulin involved in preventing an infection.

No?

--

Rick C.

+++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[marty]

On 22/4/20 8:20 am, Ricky C wrote:
> If you need to break the 6 foot rule, break it. That doesn't cause infection. It provides a path for it. It's not such a strict rule you can never change it.

4.9 feet here in Oz, after translating from metric 1.5m

 

[Martin Brown]

On 24/04/2020 06:42, marty wrote:

On 22/4/20 8:20 am, Ricky C wrote:
If you need to break the 6 foot rule, break it.  That doesn't cause
infection.  It provides a path for it.  It's not such a strict rule
you can never change it.

4.9 feet here in Oz, after translating from metric 1.5m

It is a nominal 2m here in the UK. Metric 6' and a bit.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 23/04/2020 18:42, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:45:28 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:22:28 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/04/2020 05:15, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It will burn out eventually but only after it has infected enough people
to be halted by herd immunity. That will kill something like 3% of the
global population (even more if health systems collapse and less if we
can find even one effective treatment that isn't pure snake oil & hype).

Most of europe has peaked. Some countries are down to almost zero new
cases, despite having lots of tests available now. The natural
progression in a compact community or a small country seems to be a
gaussian-looking blip about a month FWHM. But it varies wildly. The
peak is very sharp on, say, a ship. It has a long tail in some places.

It hasn't killed anything like 3% in any situation.

There are a lot of sampling effects but the UK it is presently losing
about 13.5% of those hospitalised with confirmed Covid-19 infection. See:

https://covid19-uk.co.uk

We are only testing those who are ill enough to attend hospital and
presenting with at least one Covid-19 symptom and getting about 33% that
have Covid and 66% with some other infection leading to temperature or
cough. Care homes it is just ripping though like a dose of salts and
they are mostly not included in these figures nor are deaths at home.

We have ballpark numbers that 80% of infections are invisible and that
only 10% develop symptoms that are serious enough to seek medical advice
at a hospital and of those roughly half get admitted. Age and fitness
then plays a very big part in prognosis.

So 138k positive tests in the 10% that seek advice in a hospital means
around 1.4M cases in the entire UK. That is ~2.5% of the UK population.
The uncertainty allows it to be no more than a factor of two higher. It
will take several cycles before we even come close to herd immunity.

We also know that only half of those who are put on mechanical
ventilation survive. So the worst that can happen is a doubling of
fatalities if there are no more ventilators available.

Running out of oxygen supply capacity in the larger hospitals is now the
latest concern since the LOX plants and pipework were not designed to
handle so many users on high dose oxygen simultaneously. Manhandling
high pressure cylinders about is hard work and adds other risks.

If you are over 70 and/or have serious health conditions the risk is
like Russian roulette with one live round in a 6 chambered gun.

There are 50 million Americans over 65. The US has so far 47K deaths
assigned to C19. That is nothing like a ratio of 6.

Being male counts against you so its more like 4 chambers for old men
and 8 chambers for old women (but the average is still about 6).

That's absurd.


If you are an individual of unspecified age it is a 30 chambered gun and
if you are fit and healthy under 40 something like a 500 chambered gun.

You have to ask yourself "are you feeling lucky punk?"

OK, you get the group award for inventing crazy numbers.

Wait, sorry, I may have been hasty in giving you the award. The
prediction of 36 million US deaths is still a contender.

TBH I think that 3% is on the high side for a first world country with a
well run health system with adequate ICU provision and something like
0.5-1% should be possible provided that capacity is not overwhelmed.

But 3% is on the low side for a third world country with an already
overloaded health system struggling to get basic drugs and kit.

Sweden (and to some extent The Netherlands) are still following the
rational approach that I think the UK and USA should have followed. The
Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell responsible for their policy was
on BBC R4 Today this morning and gave a very interesting interview.

His main point was that their approach was both sustainable and
effective at holding the infection down to levels where the health
service can still cope. They are somewhat helped by having a low
population density outside of a few major cities. I have found one of
his pieces online at Nature which sets out his views clearly:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01098-x

They are losing more people than the other Nordic countries but they
still have a mostly functioning economy with comparatively few
restrictions on daily life. They expect to attain some partial level of
herd immunity in the next few months.

Put bluntly he pointed out that with the numerical value that the UK's
NICE uses for the value of a QALY (quality adjusted year of life) for
adopting new drugs you would never have locked down in the first place.

Brazil will be the worlds laboratory to see what happens when you allow
the infection to rage uncontrolled through densely populated cities.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/04/20 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:

We also know that only half of those who are put on mechanical ventilation
survive. So the worst that can happen is a doubling of fatalities if there are
no more ventilators available.

Running out of oxygen supply capacity in the larger hospitals is now the latest
concern since the LOX plants and pipework were not designed to handle so many
users on high dose oxygen simultaneously. Manhandling high pressure cylinders
about is hard work and adds other risks.

Add the fluids for those requiring kidney support, which is running
at 25% of those patients on ventilators.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 23/04/2020 18:51, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually. Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide. I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

o America is now at Great Depression job-loss levels.
o Cuomo has just announced that 16.7% of Long Island, 21.2% of NYC, 11.7% of Westchester/Rockland have tested serologically positive for Wu-Ping cough / Communist Red Death antibodies. 13.9%, state-wide.

That tends to suggest that the serological test is producing a fairly
high proportion of false positives then.

It is very unlikely that the death toll for a given population can be
below the baseline of 0.2% where it kills healthy adults under 30.

There's only one thing to do -- BUY (MORE) TOILET PAPER.

(I bought some 6W solar panels for battery-charging
yesterday, instead.)

Cheers,
James Arthur


21 per cent is astounding. The herd immunity level is widely estimated
at 60 or 70 per cent, which is silly. It may be close to that 20%
level.

It comes from network percolation theory. Basically you have to get the
expected value of disease transmission down to below one. Which for a
transmissibility R0 and vulnerable fraction of the population f means:

<R0*f> < 1

Implies f < 1/RO

We know R0 ~ 2.5 (or at least think we know that)

f < 1/2.5 ~ 40%

The models I have seen so far suggest to me that either the infectivity
period is longer than they assume or the transmissibility higher or
both. Some of the exponential fits to data I have seen in recently
published work are appalling.

I used to do these sorts of fits to compensate the non-ideal behaviour
our bespoke 10^11 ohm resistors on mass specs.

NYC is about 8 million people. So maybe 1.5 million have been
infected. 15K deaths have been assigned to C19 in NYC.

The ratio is much lower in other places.

It suggests that the serological test has serious systematic errors.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 23/04/2020 19:09, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 3:31:12 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 17:48, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually.

I'm sort of with John on this. It will burn out eventually but if we do
not have a vaccine then it will have killed somewhere between 1 and 5%
of the worlds population by the time it does.

Oh, I agree it'll eventually hit everyone and we'll virtually all
wind up recovered and immune, or dead. By 'not burning out' I meant
that even after this rampage, the virus will persist in the population,
infecting newborns (who'll mostly not notice it), as opposed to
disappearing from the face of the earth.

I expect it will be added to the pantheon of childhood viral diseases
that we can't do much about. The one that is causing the most lost
working days for us at the moment is German Measles in children of key
workers. Getting tested for most of them has only just become possible
today! Other childhood diseases with a cough and/or a temperature similarly.

Government are now advertising "testing capacity" as their measure
(which conveniently ignores the swabs, logistics and chemicals to do the
tests). Presently they are at <25% of their testing target for end of
the month.

I do not believe it'll kill between 1 and 5% of mankind, because the
case fatality rates that include silent cases don't support that. I
expect it'll be less than 0.5%, maximum, but probably closer to 0.1%,
highly age and health-status skewed.

We will have to wait and see. I think 3% overall average across the
globe seems quite likely. In the most vulnerable populations of care
homes it is looking like the Chinese numbers are an under estimate.

In a first world country I reckon about 0.5% would be a good outcome if
there is no vaccine and the disease is allowed to run its course. It
could easily be 2 or 3 times higher if the health system overloads.

I don't think it will be very cloaked. It will continue to kill a few
percent of all those it infects unless and until we are able to make an
effective vaccine in sufficient quantity to create herd immunity.

If an asymptomatic person is contagious, then the virus is 'cloaked.'

At the present burn rate it will take around 2 years to work through the
entire population.

Yep.

UK infections are presently reckoned to be a shade
under 2%. They are doing a community testing programme of 20k random
households to find out the true figure and how it evolves right now.

Even then it may still be unstable enough to continue to be a nuisance
long into the future. There is no pressure on it to become milder.

A pal who recovered from Communism's Gift in March told me yesterday
that he'd tested SARS-CoV2-positive, twice, and also that one of
those testings showed he was positive for antibodies _and_ the virus,
too.

That tends to suggest that the antibody test is nowhere near specific
enough and is responding to some other previous coronavirus infection.
15% of common colds are caused by other human coronaviruses.

There is also a possibility that antibodies do not confer full immunity
and that having them does not protect you completely from re-infection.

It was a bit difficult to follow his account, but the implication
was that it weeks was too soon for him to have possibly developed
the anti-body the test was flagging, suggesting that he'd had the
thing in January, too.

Or that like the earlier CDC PCR test for Covid there is something wrong
with the claims being made for the test or in its implementation.

One thing that was interesting on the BBC R4 programme tonight was a US
medic saying that the Covid-19 has a curiously damaging effect that in
the unfortunate susceptible patients crashes their blood oxygen levels
very rapidly and in a way that induces hypoxia and impaired judgement.

Yes, that's the 2nd doctor I've heard describe the illness as lack
of oxygenation. The other said it's essentially altitude sickness.

I have a bit of experience of that at altitude. One group of astronomers
I know ended up in a blazing row over which side of the observatory door
to stow the equipment packing crates at Hawaii. It was only after they
had returned to the observers quarters lower down the mountain that they
realised it didn't matter. ALMA is even more dangerous - you need
supplementary oxygen up there just to be able to function safely.

This could go a long way towards explaining why the German testing
regime which identifies more infections early and keeps an eye on them
has a much lower mortality rate. The countries that do a spot blood
oxygenation check and if it looks not too bad say go home, take a
paracetamol and come back if it gets worse are losing some people who
could have been saved by prompt intervention before they go critical.

Or it could be that the German testing regime simply improves their
total fatality rate because the testing regime identifies more mild
cases and includes those in the statistics, where other countries'
stats reflect lesser results for populations who have self-selected
as 'sick and needing help.'

It may be a bit of both. German extensive population testing means that
their death rate per number of positives will look more favourable than
the UK which only tests on hospital admission (already seriously ill).

But even allowing for that the German mortality rate from Covid-19 is
nearly an order of magnitude lower than any other first world country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world/europe/germany-coronavirus-death-rate.html

They seem to take much better care to check up on infected people at
about the time when the crunch point for lung failure may occur.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:08:21 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/04/2020 19:09, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 3:31:12 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/04/2020 17:48, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually.

I'm sort of with John on this. It will burn out eventually but if we do
not have a vaccine then it will have killed somewhere between 1 and 5%
of the worlds population by the time it does.

Oh, I agree it'll eventually hit everyone and we'll virtually all
wind up recovered and immune, or dead. By 'not burning out' I meant
that even after this rampage, the virus will persist in the population,
infecting newborns (who'll mostly not notice it), as opposed to
disappearing from the face of the earth.

I expect it will be added to the pantheon of childhood viral diseases
that we can't do much about. The one that is causing the most lost
working days for us at the moment is German Measles in children of key
workers. Getting tested for most of them has only just become possible
today! Other childhood diseases with a cough and/or a temperature similarly.

Government are now advertising "testing capacity" as their measure
(which conveniently ignores the swabs, logistics and chemicals to do the
tests). Presently they are at <25% of their testing target for end of
the month.

I do not believe it'll kill between 1 and 5% of mankind, because the
case fatality rates that include silent cases don't support that. I
expect it'll be less than 0.5%, maximum, but probably closer to 0.1%,
highly age and health-status skewed.

We will have to wait and see. I think 3% overall average across the
globe seems quite likely. In the most vulnerable populations of care
homes it is looking like the Chinese numbers are an under estimate.

Germany has a nice clean bell curve of infections. It's way down on
the tail, and the total death count is about 70 PPM of the population.

Austria is even farther down. Deaths are similar, under 70 PPM of the
population.

The case rate in the USA is now about flat, arguably declining, and
the (assigned) death count is about 150 PPM of the population.

Italy is at about half of peak infection rate now, tapering down
slowly, at about 420 PPM dead.

3% is 30,000 PPM.

In a first world country I reckon about 0.5% would be a good outcome if
there is no vaccine and the disease is allowed to run its course. It
could easily be 2 or 3 times higher if the health system overloads.

California is resuming elective surgeries because the hospitals were
emptied in prep for a surge that didn't happen. I wonder how many
people died of heart disease and cancer.

The price of ventilators will go negtive, like the price of oil. C19
test kits, too!



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:07:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/04/2020 18:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

C19 will burn out, and its descendents will hit us in the future. Some
day we may understand this ongoing dance between viruses and people.

Some brush fires 'burn out', COVID-19 isn't going to (or it would have
lapsed while it was still in bats).
We understood the important parts of this infection last year. John Larkin
is in denial.

Working hypothesis <> denial.

John thinks it'll burn out eventually. Rick thinks it'll vanish if we
hide. I'm sure that it won't burn out. I expect it'll persist in the population cloaked, like manifold other pestilences. But I accept
there's a small possibility that I'm wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I haven't said that anything here is for sure. I haven't denied
anything except being afraid. The data is too bad and the hysteria too
intense to decide now what's going on. I have suggested some dynamics
that I think could be true, and given the uncertainty, I think that
none are impossible. Even considering possibilities sets some people
ballistic.

The big influenza pandemics of the past - 1890, 1918, 1957, 1968, and
a zillion smaller flus and rhinos and coronas, all burned out on their
own. If we consider their mutations to have returned and thus
contradict the burnout concept, they took decades to do it.

I think we agree that this is a bad cold with a lot of PR, and
shutting down the world economy has no exit strategy. Colds are
seasonal and go away and some other cold pops up next year. Some years
are worse than others.

o America is now at Great Depression job-loss levels.
o Cuomo has just announced that 16.7% of Long Island, 21.2% of NYC, 11.7% of Westchester/Rockland have tested serologically positive for Wu-Ping cough / Communist Red Death antibodies. 13.9%, state-wide.

That tends to suggest that the serological test is producing a fairly
high proportion of false positives then.

It is very unlikely that the death toll for a given population can be
below the baseline of 0.2% where it kills healthy adults under 30.

There's only one thing to do -- BUY (MORE) TOILET PAPER.

(I bought some 6W solar panels for battery-charging
yesterday, instead.)

Cheers,
James Arthur


21 per cent is astounding. The herd immunity level is widely estimated
at 60 or 70 per cent, which is silly. It may be close to that 20%
level.

It comes from network percolation theory. Basically you have to get the
expected value of disease transmission down to below one. Which for a
transmissibility R0 and vulnerable fraction of the population f means:

R0*f> < 1

Implies f < 1/RO

We know R0 ~ 2.5 (or at least think we know that)

f < 1/2.5 ~ 40%

That assumes that, given a typical exposure, 100% of the population
will catch the infection. There are lots of counter-cases.

What happens if R0 is 8, but only among 20% of the population? On an
infection diagram, just white-out 4 of every 5 dots.

The models I have seen so far suggest to me that either the infectivity
period is longer than they assume or the transmissibility higher or
both. Some of the exponential fits to data I have seen in recently
published work are appalling.

I used to do these sorts of fits to compensate the non-ideal behaviour
our bespoke 10^11 ohm resistors on mass specs.

NYC is about 8 million people. So maybe 1.5 million have been
infected. 15K deaths have been assigned to C19 in NYC.

The ratio is much lower in other places.

It suggests that the serological test has serious systematic errors.

Or that bad old data is being used to discredit new good data. That
makes sense, since the rare and expensive PCR tests were only done on
people who were very sick. The antibody tests are being done on large,
presumably random samples of the population.

There are several antibody tests in use now. Do you think that they
all have huge numbers of false positives?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 12:25:21 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:07:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/04/2020 18:51, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 12:26:04 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 4:13:34 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

o Cuomo has just announced that 16.7% of Long Island, 21.2% of NYC, 11.7% of Westchester/Rockland have tested serologically positive for Covid-9antibodies. 13.9%, state-wide.

That tends to suggest that the serological test is producing a fairly
high proportion of false positives then.

There's another theoretical possibility, which is that Covid-19 had a close relative which was much less lethal, but just as infectious.

It moved out of China a bit before Covid-19 and did the rounds as sort of seasonal flu, but because didn't kill anybody much, nobody paid any attention.

If it were close enough to the Covid-19 virus to provoke similar antibodies, the serological test could be picking up antibodies to it, as well as to Covid-19.

It is very unlikely that the death toll for a given population can be
below the baseline of 0.2% where it kills healthy adults under 30.

<snip>

That assumes that, given a typical exposure, 100% of the population
will catch the infection. There are lots of counter-cases.

None of which John Larkin can be bothered to name. He's probably talking about cruise ships, where not everybody got infected.

What happens if R0 is 8, but only among 20% of the population? On an
infection diagram, just white-out 4 of every 5 dots.

R0 is always an average. We know that some people have managed to infect ten or more people rather than just one.

The models I have seen so far suggest to me that either the infectivity
period is longer than they assume or the transmissibility higher or
both. Some of the exponential fits to data I have seen in recently
published work are appalling.

I used to do these sorts of fits to compensate the non-ideal behaviour
our bespoke 10^11 ohm resistors on mass specs.

NYC is about 8 million people. So maybe 1.5 million have been
infected. 15K deaths have been assigned to C19 in NYC.

The ratio is much lower in other places.

It suggests that the serological test has serious systematic errors.

Or that bad old data is being used to discredit new good data.

The serological test results may be new, but they are known to give lots of false positives and false negatives. It does seem to be alittle premature to put too much faith in them.

That makes sense, since the rare and expensive PCR tests were only done on
people who were very sick. The antibody tests are being done on large,
presumably random samples of the population.

That explanation might work in the US, which made a hash of making the PCR tests available.

It doesn't work in Australia where the tests are much more widely available, and the Australian contact tracing results suggest that the number of people with undetected infections can't be higher than about half the number of detected infections.

There are several antibody tests in use now. Do you think that they
all have huge numbers of false positives?

They may be picking up antibodies to corona virus infections that were caused by
corona viruses other than Covid-19.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney