Coronavirus and the Heart

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.
Then this idea of hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.
The criminal proponents of developing herd immunity by lifting lockdowns and other common sense mitigation measures, are the kind of people who don't recognize disaster until it's right on top of them in the here and now. Forecasting is much too abstract for them.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/coronavirus-heart

“For example, cardiac arrest is not an acceptable cause of death, because everybody dies of cardiac arrest,” Anderson said. “That just means your heart stopped.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/04/25/coronavirus-death-toll-hard-track-1-3-death-certificates-wrong/3020778001/

 

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote in
news:c8be28dd-d0ad-400a-999a-b202e4795626@googlegroups.com:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was
asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have
a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They
could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into
serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more
likely than not that many of the millions people who have been
"exposed" are damaged in some way. Then this idea of
hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with
corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely
does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco
expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021. The criminal proponents of
developing herd immunity by lifting lockdowns and other common
sense mitigation measures, are the kind of people who don't
recognize disaster until it's right on top of them in the here and
now. Forecasting is much too abstract for them.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/coronavirus-heart

“For example, cardiac arrest is not an acceptable cause of
death, because everybody dies of cardiac arrest,” Anderson said.
“That just means your heart stopped.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/04/25/coron
avirus-death-toll-hard-track-1-3-death-certificates-wrong/302077800
1/

This guy hits on that too...

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnQcbAKWkPE>

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic
doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the
kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered
internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness
later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of
the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.

Nice to see you're keeping your typically ebullient, positive mental
outlook on the situation, Fred. @@

 

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.
Then this idea of hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple
peaks. But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go
out and get infected.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Ricky C]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.
Then this idea of hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple
peaks. But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go
out and get infected.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

Compared to what? What do you think will be the outcome if we do nothing? Once you have that, then we can consider approaches that may be better.

So what is your expectation if we do nothing and how did you come to the result?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 26/04/20 17:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic
doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the
kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered
internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness
later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of
the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.

Nice to see you're keeping your typically ebullient, positive mental
outlook on the situation, Fred. @@

I've often wondered if he uses a nym, and his real name is Jeremiah.

--

Jeff

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.
Then this idea of hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.
The criminal proponents of developing herd immunity by lifting lockdowns and other common sense mitigation measures, are the kind of people who don't recognize disaster until it's right on top of them in the here and now. Forecasting is much too abstract for them.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/coronavirus-heart

“For example, cardiac arrest is not an acceptable cause of death, because everybody dies of cardiac arrest,” Anderson said. “That just means your heart stopped.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/04/25/coronavirus-death-toll-hard-track-1-3-death-certificates-wrong/3020778001/

Yep. Perhaps it would help if I explain how a few things about
autopsies. This is mostly about California. Other states will have
different laws and procedures.

When Is an Autopsy Required in California?
<https://ecobear.co/crime-scene-cleaning/autopsy-required-california/>

Notice that an autopsy is required by Calif law if this is any:
Suspicion of infectious or contagious disease

but NOT required if:
14. Suspected contagious disease (constituting a public health
hazard)

This is not the oxymoron that it might seem at first glance. The rule
of thumb is that if someone dies while under the direct care of a
doctor in attendance, no autopsy is required. That's generally the
situation if someone dies in a hospital, but NOT the situation when
someone dies at home. Needless to say, the coroners office does not
enjoy handling highly contagious corpses. They rubber stamp the
paperwork with something mundane like cardiac arrest and expedite
delivery to the nearest available crematorium. Note that it takes
time for the coroners office to do an autopsy and process a proper
death certificate. My guess(tm) is at least a week.

Assigning the COD (cause of death) to be cardiac arrest has a long
history, going back to perhaps the middle ages, when there was a real
danger of being buried alive. This is no longer a problem, being
replaced instead by zombies or the living dead. One of my doctor
friends told me a story from the late 1930's, where as a student, he
worked for the Chicago coroners office. Illinois had enacted a
mandatory autopsy law that left the coroners office with the problems
of how do deal with the fairly large number of people that were dying
from alcohol poisoning and how to pay for the medical staff required
to make a proper determination of the COD especially in the presence
of degenerative diseases often found in older people. So, to save
money, the label "cardiac arrest, cause unspecified" became the
default COD:
<https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/I00-I99/I30-I52/I46-/I46.9>
Notice that using this code is consistent with a medical service
having been performed and is therefore billable. After a few years of
tagging every death in Chicago in this manner, medical researchers
soon discovered that living in Chicago might be unhealthy for those
with cardiovascular problems. This produced a short lived exodus to
warmer climates among seniors.

It would probably be a good idea to be more specific in filling out
the death certificate for those suspected of dying from COVID-19.
However, until the safety issues are properly solved, an effective
treatment is developed, and hopefully a usable vaccine is contrived,
expediency will continue to be the norm in identifying the COD.




--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2020 2:41 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do
anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous
economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?

they cal MA a "socialist state" no fuckin' Wyoming is a socialist state.
15% of the population works for the government. near 35% of state
revenue comes from the feds.

<https://ballotpedia.org/Wyoming_state_budget_and_finances#Federal_aid_to_the_state_budget>

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.

Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?

 

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

> What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

 

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 14:58:18 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2020 2:51 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:28:03 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.


Darn, I thought I had made an original observation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/people-were-leaving-new-york-city-before-the-coronavirus-now-what-11587916800

https://news.trust.org/item/20200426145150-ho68p


Ya, people sometimes leave the city with one of the highest
costs-of-living on the planet, go figure. You don't have to move to
Nebraska to live better on a smaller budget, though.

I wonder why companies keep packing offices and employees into places
where a tiny 1br apartment costs 3K a month, and taxes and hassle are
high. Maybe over-funded startups figure that's where the glitz is.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2020 2:51 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:28:03 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.


Darn, I thought I had made an original observation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/people-were-leaving-new-york-city-before-the-coronavirus-now-what-11587916800

https://news.trust.org/item/20200426145150-ho68p

Ya, people sometimes leave the city with one of the highest
costs-of-living on the planet, go figure. You don't have to move to
Nebraska to live better on a smaller budget, though.

 

[Ricky C]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 2:44:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 4/26/2020 2:41 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do
anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous
economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?


they cal MA a "socialist state" no fuckin' Wyoming is a socialist state.
15% of the population works for the government. near 35% of state
revenue comes from the feds.

https://ballotpedia.org/Wyoming_state_budget_and_finances#Federal_aid_to_the_state_budget

Every state has two senators. Maybe they are swamping the budget for the entire state? Are they counted as federal employees? That could swamp out the employment numbers too! It's not a high population state.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 14:41:16 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?

There are industries in Texas, Florida, Nevada. California is
exporting businesses and skilled people to Texas.

There could be more companies moving to low-tax, low-crime, low-grime
places like North Dakota, or more likely mid-density states like New
Mexico or Arizona. ND is kind of extreme.

You are right, people with low incomes stay where they get benefits.
People with marketable skills follow the jobs. People also make
amazing sacrifices for their kids, when they can.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2020 2:48 PM, Ricky C wrote:

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 2:44:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 4/26/2020 2:41 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do
anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous
economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?


they cal MA a "socialist state" no fuckin' Wyoming is a socialist state.
15% of the population works for the government. near 35% of state
revenue comes from the feds.

https://ballotpedia.org/Wyoming_state_budget_and_finances#Federal_aid_to_the_state_budget

Every state has two senators. Maybe they are swamping the budget for the entire state? Are they counted as federal employees? That could swamp out the employment numbers too! It's not a high population state.

Why move to the Rust Belt when you can move to say Rhode
Island/Providence and get basically all the cost-of-living advantages of
living in Toledo but still within 50 mile driving radius of some of the
best-paying employers in the country

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2020 3:01 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 14:41:16 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?

There are industries in Texas, Florida, Nevada. California is
exporting businesses and skilled people to Texas.

There could be more companies moving to low-tax, low-crime, low-grime
places like North Dakota, or more likely mid-density states like New
Mexico or Arizona. ND is kind of extreme.
You are right, people with low incomes stay where they get benefits.
People with marketable skills follow the jobs. People also make
amazing sacrifices for their kids, when they can.

The trouble with "making it" when you're poor is that you can't absorb
even small amounts of risk very well. It's like playing with short
stacks in poker, you often have to fold on good hands simply because
they're not great hands. This isn't evidence of being averse to change,
learning new skills, or risk, intrinsically, it's evidence of playing
somewhat smart. Players who go big on just-good hands with short stacks
bust out soon far more often than not.

Very few people have absolutely nothing to lose and even when you're
poor already, you can almost always find a way to end up in an even
worse position than you were before.

 

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.
Then this idea of hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

They can end the lockdown right now as long as people resolve to use their masks, wash their hands, keep their distance and stay home if they feel sick. The restaurant and bar/lounge industry as we know it is finished. Theaters/cinema should be okay with audience reduction. Retail can resume with crowd density control. All the paper pushers in the business workplace should be able to function as usual. Dunno exactly what those maniacs who scream and jump up and down at the stock exchange are doing, but they'll have to use some other method to communicate. Tell them to adapt or die. All the education stuff can go online and stay online- that part may be the best consequence of the pandemic. We have enough infrastructure to support telework, videoconferencing , and remote computing. Make the people who need it use it. Get all these damned commuters off the road. A lot of business travel especially as it pertains to sales is total bullshit. Make them go to skype or similar. Hopefully all forms of vacation travel will be banned indefinitely. Most factories and warehouse operations shouldn't have a problem, except for low end sweatshop operations which will need to shut down until they figure out how to modernize themselves. Construction is still ongoing and no one is hearing about a bunch of people in that business getting sick. The governors are talking a good game, but just about all construction is continuing.
https://www.curbed.com/2020/3/30/21199753/coronavirus-covid-19-construction-industry
The list of activities is near endless I'm sure. Government authority will have to implement a reporting system, rewards based I'm sure, so they can shut down the abusers.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple
peaks. But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go
out and get infected.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

My original post is to stress that you don't want to catch this disease, period.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[bitrex]

On 4/26/2020 3:20 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 1:01:45 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

Just because someone self-reports their virus infection was asymptomatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered internal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.
Then this idea of hypersensitivity and disease enhancement, observed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

They can end the lockdown right now as long as people resolve to use their masks, wash their hands, keep their distance and stay home if they feel sick. The restaurant and bar/lounge industry as we know it is finished. Theaters/cinema should be okay with audience reduction. Retail can resume with crowd density control. All the paper pushers in the business workplace should be able to function as usual. Dunno exactly what those maniacs who scream and jump up and down at the stock exchange are doing, but they'll have to use some other method to communicate. Tell them to adapt or die. All the education stuff can go online and stay online- that part may be the best consequence of the pandemic. We have enough infrastructure to support telework, videoconferencing , and remote computing. Make the people who need it use it. Get all these damned commuters off the road. A lot of business travel especially as it pertains to sales is total bullshit. Make them go to skype or similar. Hopefully all forms of vacation travel will be banned indefinitely. Most factories and warehouse operations shouldn't have a problem, except for low end sweatshop operations which will need to shut down until they figure out how to modernize themselves. Construction is still ongoing and no one is hearing about a bunch of people in that business getting sick. The governors are talking a good game, but just about all construction is continuing.
https://www.curbed.com/2020/3/30/21199753/coronavirus-covid-19-construction-industry
The list of activities is near endless I'm sure. Government authority will have to implement a reporting system, rewards based I'm sure, so they can shut down the abusers.

You think the suburban mega-mall is finally done, too?

There's this big mall near me I used to go to as a kid. Its hey-day was
in the early 90s. A number of other malls were closed but this one
seemed to be hanging on still as of last year, mostly by re-orienting
towards women's clothing retailers, high-end jewelers, "eSports" gaming
facilities, stuff like that people still want to see in person.

Weird to think it may be the end for that place.

 

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 3:04:03 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 4/26/2020 2:48 PM, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 2:44:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 4/26/2020 2:41 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 4/26/2020 2:28 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 18:05:51 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
cd@not4mail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:01:30 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

What is the exit strategy for the economic lockdown?

Varies from country to country. The important thing is to NOT do
anything
the WHO is demanding. Whatever they may or may not know about health,
their standpoint is indefensible economically.

A common, and probably silly, prediction is that there will be
oscillatory cycles of lockdown relief and re-infection, multiple peaks.
But however we relax lockdown, it will free some people to go out and
get infected.

It will keep frontline healthcare workers almost constantly at the point
of exhaustion (and beyond) for an indefinite period.

My big question: did/does lockdown net save lives? Or just prolong the
chaos? Or even cost lives?

They should have let the damn thing rip IMO. Yes, many of us would die
(and I'm at in an elevated risk group myself) but the dragged-out way
this is being handled is going to have damaging and even ruinous
economic
consequences for a huge proportion of people all around the world.

Yes, especially the poorest places where people were already
struggling to keep themselves and their kids alive.

Assuming that this is not just another seasonal cold, voluntary
distancing and sanitation would be effective; enough people are
terrified for that to mostly work. Shutting down the world economy for
some indefinite time is doing a great deal of harm that will outlast
this epidemic. This is not about "profit", it's about survival.

Again, I have seen no coherent plan for an exit strategy. Some places
will extend the lockdown, some will go back to work soon, some have
never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine,
in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

Prediction: this will increase migration from the big urban centers,
especially US northeast, to lower density states. This will increase
economic inequality.



Lower-density states have enough trouble keeping their populations
fully-employed as it is. That's the reason they're low-density! If
well-paid jobs were all over the place there would be more people!
There's no well-paid work in say North Dakota unless you're qualified to
work in the industries that are big there like mining or gas extraction
or agriculture or military/defense. Otherwise you'll be working at Wal-Mart

One thing people can get even on a low income in Massachusetts is
state-assisted healthcare and dental care at low or no cost. If you lose
your job here you can at least still get medical coverage. What
advantage is there to leaving that situation to move to e.g. North
Dakota where you'll be making less money working one of the few
service-industry jobs available than unemployment insurance pays, plus
can't afford healthcare coverage?


they cal MA a "socialist state" no fuckin' Wyoming is a socialist state.
15% of the population works for the government. near 35% of state
revenue comes from the feds.

https://ballotpedia.org/Wyoming_state_budget_and_finances#Federal_aid_to_the_state_budget

Every state has two senators. Maybe they are swamping the budget for the entire state? Are they counted as federal employees? That could swamp out the employment numbers too! It's not a high population state.


Why move to the Rust Belt when you can move to say Rhode
Island/Providence and get basically all the cost-of-living advantages of
living in Toledo but still within 50 mile driving radius of some of the
best-paying employers in the country

Rhode Island? Toledo? You must have a high tolerance for ugliness.