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

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:30:51 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@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.


Cheers,
James Arthur

So the body waits until all the viruses are gone before it starts to
make any IgG?

Why would it do that? And how?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

3% is 30,000 PPM.

That's a very random breakdown.
" Germany has a nice clean bell curve of infections"
What part of a curve of infections is nice? The zero parts are a flat line, representing...zero.

"It's way down on the tail"
which is the defining characteristic of a 'tail', I presume?

"the total death count is about 70ppm"

Whoa, 'total' will be a measure of the disease if/when it's over, but 'down' doesn't mean 'out'
and even now, folk who tested positive last week may be having a final life experience.

There's no reason to believe Germany has zero active infections, and every reason to
believe that their lockdown is still necessary. If a second wave (or third) introduces new
cases, the death count can easily get to 3%; the threat hasn't abated, because
there isn't enough immunity in the population (and like elsewhere, no
satisfactory therapy or vaccine).

30,000/70 = 428. You suggest that the second wave will be over 400x as
deadly as the first one, which is mostly over.

That would be 2.5 million Germans dead, compared to 5600 so far. We'll
remember to check that number later.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 10:25:21 AM UTC-4, 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:

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.

No, whatever effect there is of prior immunity is already factored into the R0 number since it is a MEASUREMENT, not a number calculated from some first principles. Essentially everything has already been factored into that number as of the time it was measured.

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.

You don't seem to be grasping the nature of the discussion. If you want to exclude 80%, why? Are you saying they are already immune? The R0 would then apply still, but as you say to that reduced population and the disease would spread very quickly.

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?

False positives can be from factors not related to the test. If some other disease results in antibodies close enough to the ones detected by the test it can give false positives to every test but not infer immunity.

Which antibodies do the tests detect? Or more accurately, what are the antigens used for the test?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

3% is 30,000 PPM.

That's a very random breakdown.
" Germany has a nice clean bell curve of infections"
What part of a curve of infections is nice? The zero parts are a flat line, representing...zero.

"It's way down on the tail"
which is the defining characteristic of a 'tail', I presume?

"the total death count is about 70ppm"

Whoa, 'total' will be a measure of the disease if/when it's over, but 'down' doesn't mean 'out'
and even now, folk who tested positive last week may be having a final life experience.

There's no reason to believe Germany has zero active infections, and every reason to
believe that their lockdown is still necessary. If a second wave (or third) introduces new
cases, the death count can easily get to 3%; the threat hasn't abated, because
there isn't enough immunity in the population (and like elsewhere, no
satisfactory therapy or vaccine).

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:23:16 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

3% is 30,000 PPM.

That's a very random breakdown.
" Germany has a nice clean bell curve of infections"
What part of a curve of infections is nice? The zero parts are a flat line, representing...zero.

"It's way down on the tail"
which is the defining characteristic of a 'tail', I presume?

"the total death count is about 70ppm"

Whoa, 'total' will be a measure of the disease if/when it's over, but 'down' doesn't mean 'out'
and even now, folk who tested positive last week may be having a final life experience.

There's no reason to believe Germany has zero active infections, and every reason to
believe that their lockdown is still necessary. If a second wave (or third) introduces new
cases, the death count can easily get to 3%; the threat hasn't abated, because
there isn't enough immunity in the population (and like elsewhere, no
satisfactory therapy or vaccine).


30,000/70 = 428. You suggest that the second wave will be over 400x as
deadly as the first one, which is mostly over.

OMG!!! Larkin has taken such a break from reality to think that his detection of the very slight lowering of the global new daily infection rate (which is not even true) means the COVID-19 pandemic is "mostly over"!!!

At this point, can anyone deny the guy is completely detached from reality?

Why does anyone try to discuss this disease with him when he is not in possession of any factual information?

That would be 2.5 million Germans dead, compared to 5600 so far. We'll
remember to check that number later.

What numbers do YOU predict?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 12:42:06 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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:

<snip>

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.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

It doesn't. A bell curve is symmetrical.

> It's way down on the tail, and the total death count is about 70 PPM of the population.

The new case per day rate is down about a factor of three from the peak, and not declining all that fast. Active cases are down to about half what they were at the peak.

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

The new case per day number is down by a factor of ten from the peak, which is better. Deaths are a lagging indicator, so they will end up with fewer than Germany

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

The new case per day numbers in the US are declining remarkably slowly. Lots more people are going to die - there's a lot of the US left to infect, they don't really seem to have worked out how to stop people getting infected, and a vocal minority seems not to want to bother.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 11:23:16 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

3% is 30,000 PPM.

That's a very random breakdown.
" Germany has a nice clean bell curve of infections"
What part of a curve of infections is nice? The zero parts are a flat line, representing...zero.

"It's way down on the tail"
which is the defining characteristic of a 'tail', I presume?

"the total death count is about 70ppm"

Whoa, 'total' will be a measure of the disease if/when it's over

30,000/70 = 428. You suggest that the second wave will be over 400x as
deadly as the first one, which is mostly over.

Wave? I'm not seeing it.
Not having a wave equation on the table, nor any multiplicity of cyclic
changes, that's a dry hole. Abandon that thought.

The number of known cases divided into the deaths is NOT the "death rate",
because over a quarter of the known cases haven't run their course.
Fatality only comes the end of the course of the disease. Complicated
cases might take 8 to 12 days, so cases-to-date from ten days ago is
the number to use, about 125,000; 5375 fatalities,
so I'm making that 4.3%?

The 'fatality rate' for the disease is NOT computed against total population,
only against CASES.

Given that some cases are undiagnosed, but hopefully few fatal ones, 3% is
not out of the ballpark at all.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-04-24, Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

so well done

--
Jasen.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-24 22:35, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 11:23:16 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:42:06 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

3% is 30,000 PPM.

That's a very random breakdown.
" Germany has a nice clean bell curve of infections"
What part of a curve of infections is nice? The zero parts are a flat line, representing...zero.

"It's way down on the tail"
which is the defining characteristic of a 'tail', I presume?

"the total death count is about 70ppm"

Whoa, 'total' will be a measure of the disease if/when it's over

30,000/70 = 428. You suggest that the second wave will be over 400x as
deadly as the first one, which is mostly over.

Wave? I'm not seeing it.
Not having a wave equation on the table, nor any multiplicity of cyclic
changes, that's a dry hole. Abandon that thought.

You might find yourself on firmer ground if you read up a bit on earlier
major pandemics, of which the best-documented is the 1918 Spanish 'flu.
It came in two or three waves, depending on location.

The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely
reasonable seasonable 'flu vaccine.

Other historical pandemics were also observed to come and go--even
smallpox and plague.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/04/20 00:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:

The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely reasonable
seasonable 'flu vaccine.

A vaccine is effective against one strain of flu.

In general the strains are /not/ cyclical.

People make their best guess and produce a vaccine
effective against the strain(s) they estimate will
be dominant next year.

That's why, occasionally, the vaccines are not
very effective.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-25 20:00, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:26:42 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-24 22:35, whit3rd wrote:

Wave? I'm not seeing it.
Not having a wave equation on the table, nor any multiplicity of cyclic
changes, that's a dry hole. Abandon that thought.

You might find yourself on firmer ground if you read up a bit on earlier
major pandemics, of which the best-documented is the 1918 Spanish 'flu.
It came in two or three waves, depending on location.

Yeah, but the phase of the moon obviously moved the tides, and the
Perseid meteor showers were related to the house of the zodiac...
portents in the sky gave rise to a lot of astrological nonsense.
To avoid talking nonsense, I'll wait for some observation or model.
I don't consider 'wave' possibilities to be testable right now.

If you really intend to stop talking nonsense, we'd all be further
ahead. Bully!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-25 19:41, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/04/20 00:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely
reasonable seasonable 'flu vaccine.

A vaccine is effective against one strain of flu.

In general the strains are /not/ cyclical.

People make their best guess and produce a vaccine
effective against the strain(s) they estimate will
be dominant next year.

That's why, occasionally, the vaccines are not
very effective.

Not so. The seasonal 'flu vaccine is based on the previous year's
waves, which are expected to recur.

It would be sort of hard to predict any other way.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:26:42 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-24 22:35, whit3rd wrote:

Wave? I'm not seeing it.
Not having a wave equation on the table, nor any multiplicity of cyclic
changes, that's a dry hole. Abandon that thought.

You might find yourself on firmer ground if you read up a bit on earlier
major pandemics, of which the best-documented is the 1918 Spanish 'flu.
It came in two or three waves, depending on location.

Yeah, but the phase of the moon obviously moved the tides, and the
Perseid meteor showers were related to the house of the zodiac...
portents in the sky gave rise to a lot of astrological nonsense.
To avoid talking nonsense, I'll wait for some observation or model.
I don't consider 'wave' possibilities to be testable right now.

 

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:bV3pG.229726$nY2.156078@fx06.am4:

On 26/04/20 00:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely
reasonable seasonable 'flu vaccine.

A vaccine is effective against one strain of flu.

In general the strains are /not/ cyclical.

People make their best guess and produce a vaccine
effective against the strain(s) they estimate will
be dominant next year.

That's why, occasionally, the vaccines are not
very effective.

So now we will need a rhino-cocktail and folks will still die every
year.

 

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 20:20:34 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-25 19:41, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/04/20 00:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely
reasonable seasonable 'flu vaccine.

A vaccine is effective against one strain of flu.

In general the strains are /not/ cyclical.

People make their best guess and produce a vaccine
effective against the strain(s) they estimate will
be dominant next year.

That's why, occasionally, the vaccines are not
very effective.

Not so. The seasonal 'flu vaccine is based on the previous year's
waves, which are expected to recur.

It would be sort of hard to predict any other way.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

An influenza typically has eight separate RNA strands, and viruses can
swap them around with other viruses; corona has a single strand. And
influenza RNA mutates faster than corona. Flu is genetically
slipperier than corona.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Ricky C]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 7:42:05 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/04/20 00:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely reasonable
seasonable 'flu vaccine.

A vaccine is effective against one strain of flu.

Not strictly true. The flu often has multiple strains active at one time and the vaccine is often effective against more than one.


> In general the strains are /not/ cyclical.

They do mutate, but it's always the same flu which we can continue to produce vaccines against mitigating much of the harm.

People make their best guess and produce a vaccine
effective against the strain(s) they estimate will
be dominant next year.

Not "next year". Flu vaccines take around 6 months to become available. Since the disease takes time to propagate it is a bit of a foot race to get the vaccine out there in anticipation of a strain becoming dominant.

That's why, occasionally, the vaccines are not
very effective.

You don't have the details right, but you do show the correct conclusion.

Interestingly enough, the vaccine does not need to be completely effective to do the job. Even at 50% effectiveness it reduces the number of infections so as to spread much less rapidly. Get the R0 value below 1 and it dies out.

Too bad people seem to ignore the need for isolation and let this virus continue to propagate. Even in places where the numbers are starting to drop off, they aren't dropping off very fast.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:20:45 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-25 19:41, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/04/20 00:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The cyclic nature of influenza is the reason we can have vaguely
reasonable seasonable 'flu vaccine.

A vaccine is effective against one strain of flu.

In general the strains are /not/ cyclical.

People make their best guess and produce a vaccine
effective against the strain(s) they estimate will
be dominant next year.

That's why, occasionally, the vaccines are not
very effective.

Not so. The seasonal 'flu vaccine is based on the previous year's
waves, which are expected to recur.

Flat out not correct. It takes around 6 months to develop each flu vaccine. It is based on the best data on hand a that time.


> It would be sort of hard to predict any other way.

Here is a graph of weekly flu deaths over several years in New York State.

https://ibb.co/R99KRVZ

I'm not seeing much of a "wave". The death rate is around 250-300 a week pretty much across the board with one year showing a significant, but still much less than 100% surge in January.

Do you have something that shows the "waves" you are talking about?

I also found info saying the number of flu deaths are grossly overestimated. I'll trying to vet that now.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 8:22:06 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-04-25 20:00, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:26:42 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-24 22:35, whit3rd wrote:

Wave? I'm not seeing it.
Not having a wave equation on the table, nor any multiplicity of cyclic
changes, that's a dry hole. Abandon that thought.

You might find yourself on firmer ground if you read up a bit on earlier
major pandemics, of which the best-documented is the 1918 Spanish 'flu.
It came in two or three waves, depending on location.

Yeah, but the phase of the moon obviously moved the tides, and the
Perseid meteor showers were related to the house of the zodiac...
portents in the sky gave rise to a lot of astrological nonsense.
To avoid talking nonsense, I'll wait for some observation or model.
I don't consider 'wave' possibilities to be testable right now.


If you really intend to stop talking nonsense, we'd all be further
ahead. Bully!

For an otherwise intelligent person, you really do talk a lot of nonsense yourself. This posting is a prime example.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Martin Brown]

On 26/04/2020 01:00, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:26:42 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-04-24 22:35, whit3rd wrote:

Wave? I'm not seeing it.
Not having a wave equation on the table, nor any multiplicity of cyclic
changes, that's a dry hole. Abandon that thought.

You might find yourself on firmer ground if you read up a bit on earlier
major pandemics, of which the best-documented is the 1918 Spanish 'flu.
It came in two or three waves, depending on location.

The Spanish flu of 1918 was also artificially selected for the strongest
most virulent strains by sending those too ill to fight back from the
front on over crowded troop trains. Those with the mildest form stayed
in the trenches and suffered but the nastiest strain was spread widely.

Yeah, but the phase of the moon obviously moved the tides, and the
Perseid meteor showers were related to the house of the zodiac...
portents in the sky gave rise to a lot of astrological nonsense.
To avoid talking nonsense, I'll wait for some observation or model.
I don't consider 'wave' possibilities to be testable right now.

For the flu it is rather well known to be seasonal with the infectivity
tailing off in the summer months when the sun is stronger.

Covid-19 will be cyclical in that the moment you let up on the isolation
and self distancing measures to go back to work it will take off again.

That is what the original Fergusson paper from Imperial College showed
in their model. Relax the constraints get exponential growth again when
it becomes too much to bear lockdown again and then rinse and repeat.

The difference is that whereas with flu the change in R0 is driven by
the seasonal altitude of the sun but for Covid-19 it is driven by a
policy of stopping people coming into direct contact with each other.
aka social distancing

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 13:57:27 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

That is what the original Fergusson paper from Imperial College showed
in their model. Relax the constraints get exponential growth again when
it becomes too much to bear lockdown again and then rinse and repeat.

Sounds like a really seriously BAD idea. Healthcare workers will be doing
all the hours God sends for an absurdly long duration. What we are going
through may be a war in a manner of speaking, but medics are not soldiers
and cannot realistically be expected to perform at such levels
indefinitely.