mitigation vs suppression strategy Covid19

[mpm]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

mpm wrote in
news:7175df8a-6842-4586-b2bd-a17cc9999676@googlegroups.com:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 11:06:03 AM UTC-4,
There are guns that shoot tee-shirts into the crowds at concerts.
And some that shoot tennis balls.

I know that the ones that use a cartridge (ammo) are indeed
classified as firearms and you still need to pass a background
check to own one.


NONE do. They are all air (CO2) operated paintball gun variants.

That's not true. I inquired about one I saw in a gun store, and was promptly informed that it was classified as a firearm, requiring all hoops and regulatory paperwork. I don't know the name, but I could probably find it in a Google search. (Not something I would ever need or buy.)

I own high powered, powder actuated nail gun and I do not need a
permit or background check to own it.

Yes, I think they're called RAM-sets, or something like that.

For whatever reason, they are not classified as a "firearm".

I sure it's a definitional thing, but off-hand, I can't tell you what it might be. Or, perhaps that class of tools might just be categorically excluded from the regulations, even though it generally operates on the same principles as traditional firearms. Black-powder rifles come to mind in this regard. I understand they can even be purchased and possessed by felons (with no background check require), as they are NOT firearms (even though they SURE look like one, and operated by pretty much the same principles!) You can even carry one openly in public in those States that have only "concealed carry" for handguns (though I would not personally advocate such behavior).

 

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:19:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

RL

W.r.t the original topic, I spoke to a friend who shall remain
nameless, who likely unknowingly experienced the WuFlu.

Said friend is, by any reasonable measure, very high risk -- exposed
to lots of Chinese nationals who travel. S/he got "the worst cold
ever" -- sniffles then lungs -- and was dragging butt for four weeks.
That was in January, after droves of said contacts returned from holiday,
before WuFlu was on local radar.

Thus there could indeed be many cases that have already run their
course and recovered, unrecognized. That would be hopeful, and
useful to know.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 11:18:06 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:19:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

RL

W.r.t the original topic, I spoke to a friend who shall remain
nameless, who likely unknowingly experienced the WuFlu.

Said friend is, by any reasonable measure, very high risk -- exposed
to lots of Chinese nationals who travel. S/he got "the worst cold
ever" -- sniffles then lungs -- and was dragging butt for four weeks.
That was in January, after droves of said contacts returned from holiday,
before WuFlu was on local radar.

Thus there could indeed be many cases that have already run their
course and recovered, unrecognized. That would be hopeful, and
useful to know.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

To what purpose? We have no reason to think that number would be high. Better part of a thousand people died of this disease just yesterday. I is likely to be over 1,000 today. There is no excuse to fuck around with this sort of silly mind games any further. The death rate from this disease in this country is more than twice the recovery rate presently.

I'd rather try to deal with the disease than to imagine how it might just go away on it's own without hurting anyone.

For some countries worldometers.info posts deaths vs. recoveries on the same chart and new cases vs. recoveries. Not so for the US.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 2:18:06 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:19:35 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

<snip>

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

Only if you run tests on enough of the population. The US hasn't got enough tests kits to test for the presence of the virus, what's the change that they have test kits for the antibodies to the virus?

In fact the antibody test kits seem to be under rapid development - the UK government has ordered 3 million of them

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-coronavirus-latest-news-covid-19-antibody-test-ready-in-days/

and they are are supposed to be ready in days.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies
and are relatively safe.

A small number of the population HAS had it, and as long as that number is small,
there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve that is important for
public health. So, the percent number is nowhere near critical at
this time (though it will become important in a later decade).

 

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 10:31:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 2:16:19 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:51:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:39:08 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:32:48 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:11:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:17:53 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:

Since what you have just said is pretty exactly what I said, you haven't actually pointed out any difference in our appreciations of the basic science.

before you make more statements as crazy as your vaccine development hysteria.

There's nothing "hysterical" about pointing out that a number of people are looking at new ways of creating vaccines, particularly when the one that proposes inject DNA to get our cells to synthesise viral proteins for our immune system to generate antibodies too has already been injected in it's first human guinea pig.

They don't "inject" DNA into our cells. They use an innocuous virus vector to do the "injecting." The headlined trials of the Moderna vaccine are using the rhinovirus. It's a class of vaccine known as a DNA vaccine. They have been in development for at least 25 years that I know of.

By which you presumably mean that somebody speculated that this might work some 25 years ago.

Your presumption is wrong, they were being trialed 25 years ago.

How come you don't know that?

Why should I? I just read New Scientist.

I doubt your comprehension of what you read. So far it's produced nothing useful.

And what makes you think the technology will suddenly be a uncharacteristically massive success just because we have this perceived crisis?

Because people will start throwing money at the problem. I'm not saying that this particular approach will work, but their are lots of others, all of which are getting a lot more attention and support than they would if there wasn't a glittering pile of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Throwing money at it doesn't work. And it's not like these people were starved of cash in the past. They have lots of money. The pandemic just enables them to get even more money. Industrie insiders have described this latest ripoff as a money grab.

You're becoming completely hysterical. The real world rarely to never offers happy endings.

I've not manifested any kind of hysterical reaction. Your melodramatic scepticism looks rather more irrational - calling it hysterical would be a stretch.

Well of course, people, such as yourself, desperate for a fantasy ending and having absolutely no knowledge of any of the significant parameters, alwsy accuse anyoen who opposes their ideas, hallucinations, fairy tale beliefs..

Your claim that the only we would get get a working vaccine is via one of the traditional routes may not be hysterical but it's clearly irrational.

I made no such claim. You're going loony.

The did seem to be the core of your argument - such as it was. The lunacy was all yours.

I said no such thing. What I did say was that no matter the technology used to produce the vaccine, they will always need extensive safety testing, and that takes years of followup.

Epidemiological estimates tend to be logarithmic. It's not physical chemistry. There is too much variability to begin to formulate anything approaching the status of a scientific "rule."

Twaddle.

Fact. Try upgrading your understanding of the science.

"Epidemiological estimates tend to be logarithmic" is not a scientific claim.

It's a fact.

There are other scarier developments unfolding. Something called antibody-dependent (disease) enhancement ADE is a big one, and a studied factor in the lethality of MERS, another corona virus.

Except that Covid-19 isn't MERS, and a lot less lethal.

They're both corona virus, and CoViD-19 does in fact have nearly the same mortality for vulnerable people.

What's that got to do with anything?

They both kill by the exact same mechanism. The MERS disease has been studied for quite a few years now, and also research into vaccine development. What do you think the medical profession does? "This is SARS-CoV-2, not MERS, so we drop everything we learned about MERS and its treatment and re-start everything from scratch to learn about SARS-CoV-2. Seriously. Anyway, that's what it has to do with anything.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/mers-cov/en/

The MERS mortality rate is 35%. Covid-19 kills 15% of the 80+ age group, so it is less lethal even there.

Another clueless interpretation of a factoid. SARS has the exact same mortality for the people going into a state of acute respiratory distress. Why would any sane person give a damn about what percentage of the population they are? The fact is they have this patient in front of them, who needs to be saved. and is suffering from MERS for all intents and purposes.

This thing is going to be around for the rest of our lives.

Probably.

Life will NEVER return to normal,

It will as soon as we get an effective vaccine.

and 1) people lose immunity after about a year or so, and

How could anybody possibly know that? The first recognised patient got the disease on the 1st December 2019, so nobody has been immune for longer than four months. Most people retain immunity to most diseases for life - RNA viruses mutate fast enough that this doesn't always help.

Virologists have been studying corona virii for the past 50 years. They know quite a bit about them, and this was one their findings.

And where have they articulated this insight? Provide a link.
Most corona virus do seem to mutate faster than Covid-19, and what you are probably saying is that they mutate fast enough to become unrecognisable, even if you lack the wit to realise this.

No- corona doesn't mutate much at all. You're repaeting a bunch of doomsday hysteria. Go find your own links. I'm not going to annotata every statement for a casual argument with someone who doesn't know much.

2) second time around infection /can/ be much worse due to this ADE phenomenon, and of course damage accumulated from a previous infection.

Again, how could you possibly know that? Hysterical speculation isn't actually evidence, and your grasp of what might be credible seems to have evaporated entirely.

Findings observed from a half century of dealing with these things.

To which you haven't bothered to provide any kind of link. The fact that ADE happens with MERS isn't any kind of evidence that it might happen with Covid-19.

Claiming that it has been known about for half a century - since 1970 - when the Wikipedia page on the subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

doesn't have any reference dated earlier than 1985 is a little suspect. Wikipedia identifies it with dengue fever and - more recently - with HIV.
Antibodies to one particular sort of flu have been shown to make you more susceptible to a different flu virus, but that's not interesting in this context.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 10:51:33 PM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 10:31:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 2:16:19 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:51:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:39:08 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:32:48 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:11:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:17:53 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre....@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:

Since what you have just said is pretty exactly what I said, you haven't actually pointed out any difference in our appreciations of the basic science.

before you make more statements as crazy as your vaccine development hysteria.

There's nothing "hysterical" about pointing out that a number of people are looking at new ways of creating vaccines, particularly when the one that proposes inject DNA to get our cells to synthesise viral proteins for our immune system to generate antibodies too has already been injected in it's first human guinea pig.

They don't "inject" DNA into our cells. They use an innocuous virus vector to do the "injecting." The headlined trials of the Moderna vaccine are using the rhinovirus. It's a class of vaccine known as a DNA vaccine. They have been in development for at least 25 years that I know of.

By which you presumably mean that somebody speculated that this might work some 25 years ago.

Your presumption is wrong, they were being trialed 25 years ago.

But you can't be bothered posting a link to anything that you think says so..

How come you don't know that?

Why should I? I just read New Scientist.

I doubt your comprehension of what you read. So far it's produced nothing useful.

Nothing that you can use to support your pathological pessimism.

And what makes you think the technology will suddenly be a uncharacteristically massive success just because we have this perceived crisis?

Because people will start throwing money at the problem. I'm not saying that this particular approach will work, but their are lots of others, all of which are getting a lot more attention and support than they would if there wasn't a glittering pile of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Throwing money at it doesn't work.

It frequently helps. It is the biggest difference between academic and industrial research.

> And it's not like these people were starved of cash in the past.

Compare the progress on a vaccine against malaria with the progress on vaccines against diseases rich people get.

They might not have been starved, but there's a lot more support for work that can get sold to numerous well-heeled customers.

> They have lots of money. The pandemic just enables them to get even more money. Industry insiders have described this latest ripoff as a money grab.

Industry insiders resent it when outsiders get money the insiders would like to have had.

You're becoming completely hysterical. The real world rarely to never offers happy endings.

I've not manifested any kind of hysterical reaction. Your melodramatic scepticism looks rather more irrational - calling it hysterical would be a stretch.

Well of course, people, such as yourself, desperate for a fantasy ending and having absolutely no knowledge of any of the significant parameters, always accuse anyone who opposes their ideas, hallucinations, fairy tale beliefs.

What makes you think I'm desperate for a fantasy ending?

It would be nice if there was a vaccine against Covid-19 sooner rather than later - and there will be one eventually - and it would be nice if one of the many new tricks the molecular biologist have worked up in recent years delivered one sooner than the established approaches.

You seem to want to discount the idea that that this might happen - which might be seen as suggesting that you are desperate for an end-of-the-world outcome.

Your claim that the only we would get get a working vaccine is via one of the traditional routes may not be hysterical but it's clearly irrational.

I made no such claim. You're going loony.

The did seem to be the core of your argument - such as it was. The lunacy was all yours.

I said no such thing. What I did say was that no matter the technology used to produce the vaccine, they will always need extensive safety testing, and that takes years of followup.

What - exactly - are they testing for? What particular disaster are you being particularly anxious about here? Attenuated viruses were occasionally not attenuated enough, but that's not what's being looked at here.

Epidemiological estimates tend to be logarithmic. It's not physical chemistry. There is too much variability to begin to formulate anything approaching the status of a scientific "rule."

Twaddle.

Fact. Try upgrading your understanding of the science.

"Epidemiological estimates tend to be logarithmic" is not a scientific claim.

It's a fact.

It's a fatuous lump of word salad. What are the epidemiologists supposed to be estimating? Why would they write the number they were estimating in logarithmic form? What would it mean it they did?

There are other scarier developments unfolding. Something called antibody-dependent (disease) enhancement ADE is a big one, and a studied factor in the lethality of MERS, another corona virus.

Except that Covid-19 isn't MERS, and a lot less lethal.

They're both corona virus, and CoViD-19 does in fact have nearly the same mortality for vulnerable people.

What's that got to do with anything?

They both kill by the exact same mechanism.

So does bacterial pneumonia, which hasn't got anything to do with either of them.

> The MERS disease has been studied for quite a few years now, and also research into vaccine development. What do you think the medical profession does? "This is SARS-CoV-2, not MERS, so we drop everything we learned about MERS and its treatment and re-start everything from scratch to learn about SARS-CoV-2.

We've known about the corona viruses that cause about a quarter of common cold case for a whole lot longer. How come we haven't learned anything from them?

Seriously. Anyway, that's what it has to do with anything.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/mers-cov/en/

The MERS mortality rate is 35%. Covid-19 kills 15% of the 80+ age group, so it is less lethal even there.

Another clueless interpretation of a factoid. SARS has the exact same mortality for the people going into a state of acute respiratory distress.

But many more people who get infected by MERS go into acute respiratory distress. It's a crucial difference between it and Covid-19.

> Why would any sane person give a damn about what percentage of the population they are? The fact is they have this patient in front of them, who needs to be saved. and is suffering from MERS for all intents and purposes.

Pneumonia for all intents and purposes. Once a patient is acutely ill, it's all about get enough oxygen into the blood stream

This thing is going to be around for the rest of our lives.

Probably.

Life will NEVER return to normal,

It will as soon as we get an effective vaccine.

and 1) people lose immunity after about a year or so, and

How could anybody possibly know that? The first recognised patient got the disease on the 1st December 2019, so nobody has been immune for longer than four months. Most people retain immunity to most diseases for life - RNA viruses mutate fast enough that this doesn't always help.

Virologists have been studying corona virii for the past 50 years. They know quite a bit about them, and this was one their findings.

And where have they articulated this insight? Provide a link.

Most corona virus do seem to mutate faster than Covid-19, and what you are probably saying is that they mutate fast enough to become unrecognisable, even if you lack the wit to realise this.

No - corona doesn't mutate much at all. You're repeating a bunch of doomsday hysteria.

Cite something I've posted that looks like doomsday hysteria to you.

Mostly you are complaining that I don't share your irrational pessimism.

> Go find your own links. I'm not going to annotate every statement for a casual argument with someone who doesn't know much.

Which is to say you don't know enough to be able to find the evidence support your own potty delusions.

2) second time around infection /can/ be much worse due to this ADE phenomenon, and of course damage accumulated from a previous infection.

Again, how could you possibly know that? Hysterical speculation isn't actually evidence, and your grasp of what might be credible seems to have evaporated entirely.

Findings observed from a half century of dealing with these things.

To which you haven't bothered to provide any kind of link. The fact that ADE happens with MERS isn't any kind of evidence that it might happen with Covid-19.

Claiming that it has been known about for half a century - since 1970 - when the Wikipedia page on the subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

doesn't have any reference dated earlier than 1985 is a little suspect. Wikipedia identifies it with dengue fever and - more recently - with HIV. Antibodies to one particular sort of flu have been shown to make you more susceptible to a different flu virus, but that's not interesting in this context.

In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:18:51 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies
and are relatively safe.

For the population, it would help estimate when things will peak and
burn out. Whether we need to lock down much longer.

A small number of the population HAS had it,

How do you know that, if it hasn't been tested?


and as long as that number is small,

there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve that is important for
public health. So, the percent number is nowhere near critical at
this time (though it will become important in a later decade).

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 1:18:56 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies
and are relatively safe.

A small number of the population HAS had it, and as long as that number is small,
there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve that is important for
public health. So, the percent number is nowhere near critical at
this time (though it will become important in a later decade).

There are two things of possible interest -- knowing the proportion of
a population who've actually had the WuFlu and recovered, and also
it would be very helpful if we could predict who's susceptible,
i.e., if infected, who will or won't develop a severe case, e.g. SARS/ARDS.

It's possible that much of the population already has some degree of
resistance, innate or acquired.

It's also possible that most people haven't been exposed, aren't immune,
but also aren't at risk of severe illness. If so, most of the world
needn't worry.

A friend worried about that latter case -- that there could be legions
of symptom-free carriers cluelessly broadcasting their Wuhan(tm) viruses.

I asked him if he knew what he'd just described?
"No."
"The Zombie Apocalypse." ;-)

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:29 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:18:51 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies
and are relatively safe.

For the population, it would help estimate when things will peak and
burn out. Whether we need to lock down much longer.


A small number of the population HAS had it,

How do you know that, if it hasn't been tested?

Don't be silly. We know people have had the disease, and have known that for months.
And, we know it spreads fast (which means lots of victims weren't immune).

and as long as that number is small,
there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve ...

Let me elaborate on that: one concern is the number of new cases (infections) and that
is presumably dominated by folk in the transmissive stages of disease interacting with
others who are without immunity.

So, the rate of new cases will be proportional to both those population numbers,
i.e. a coefficient times the 'infectious' population, times the 'unprotected' population.

But a 98% unprotected population only changes by one percent if 70 million people become
immune. A 2% unprotected population changes by 50% if 70 million people become immune.
That's why the number of immune individuals is not 'critical' in a calculation of
the disease progress, at this time (of obvious fast-spread conditions).

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:29 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:18:51 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies
and are relatively safe.

For the population, it would help estimate when things will peak and
burn out. Whether we need to lock down much longer.


A small number of the population HAS had it,

How do you know that, if it hasn't been tested?

Don't be silly. We know people have had the disease, and have known that for months.
And, we know it spreads fast (which means lots of victims weren't immune).

and as long as that number is small,
there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve ...

Let me elaborate on that: one concern is the number of new cases (infections) and that
is presumably dominated by folk in the transmissive stages of disease interacting with
others who are without immunity.

So, the rate of new cases will be proportional to both those population numbers,
i.e. a coefficient times the 'infectious' population, times the 'unprotected' population.

The number of "new cases" is currently dominated by testing, and there
are serious biases in how valuable, in-demand tests are deployed.
Testing is chasing the disease.

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

But a 98% unprotected population only changes by one percent if 70 million people become
immune. A 2% unprotected population changes by 50% if 70 million people become immune.
That's why the number of immune individuals is not 'critical' in a calculation of
the disease progress, at this time (of obvious fast-spread conditions).

Once half the population has had it, another doubling is unlikely.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 2:12:21 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Once half the population has had it, another doubling is unlikely.

Yes, and once the other half has it a doubling is noticeably less likely.

For any differential equation it can be very useful to know the boundary conditions.

At the other end of the range, how quickly does the disease spread if there are zero infected individuals?

With the knowledge of these boundary conditions shouldn't we be able to solve the equation? It's just a matter of plugging in some data and solving, no?

Y(x+1) = Y(x) * (1 + (k * (1-Y(x)))

The death rate Z is a different equation

Z(x+1) = m * Y(x-d) * (1 + p * (Z(x)/N)^2)

Where m is the mortality rate given proper treatment and N is the number of ICU beds / ventilators available.

d is the average number of days from illness onset to death. k and p are constants we will need to evaluate to fit the available data.

As you can see the death rate is very sensitive to the ratio Z(x)/N. The expression (Z(x)/N) is squared because it doesn't just impact deaths due directly to the virus but will also impact deaths due to other illnesses and accidents.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:48:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You obviously did not follow it up adequately. Lancet just opened up all their corona virus papers to the public. Try looking there. There is corona specific ADE research there. In short the ADE allows the virus to infect first line defense immune cells, sort of like HIV, which does not bode well for the host. And there are numerous examples of second time around infection being much, much worse for a variety of viruses. Now how do you think that's happening...

 

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:48:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

See the video from CoVid-19 update on 3/36/2020. Fauci takes the podium at 1:24:45, and launches into a summary of vaccine development at 1:27:50. The safety issue of "enhancement" comes up at 1:28:16. Now tell me what kind of "enhancement" that may be be. He's perfectly describing ADE. His coverage regarding risk is not even close to being comprehensive. He could say some things that would make people jump out of their seats, but he didn't because he knows how hysterical the fantasy people like yourself can become.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/watch-live-white-house-coronavirus-task-force-holds-news-briefing-2

Now tell me who's talking out their rear end.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 2:52:54 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 1:18:56 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies and are relatively safe.

A small number of the population HAS had it, and as long as that number is small, there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve that is important for public health. So, the percent number is nowhere near critical at this time (though it will become important in a later decade).

There are two things of possible interest -- knowing the proportion of
a population who've actually had the WuFlu and recovered, and also
it would be very helpful if we could predict who's susceptible,
i.e., if infected, who will or won't develop a severe case, e.g. SARS/ARDS.

It's possible that much of the population already has some degree of
resistance, innate or acquired.

At about the same level as it is possible that moon is made of green cheese..

There's absolutely no evidence that suggests anything the sort, and since this is a new virus, such a result would be very surprising.

It's also possible that most people haven't been exposed, aren't immune,
but also aren't at risk of severe illness. If so, most of the world
needn't worry.

The Italian statistics aren't exactly encouraging.

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

A friend worried about that latter case -- that there could be legions
of symptom-free carriers cluelessly broadcasting their Wuhan(tm) viruses.

I asked him if he knew what he'd just described?
"No."
"The Zombie Apocalypse." ;-)

Symptom-free means that their immune system has got on top of the virus, so they aren't broadcasting the virus.

Corid-19 does seems to generate some nonstructural proteins (along with the virus casing and the virus genome) when it takes over a host cell and these do seem to slow down the host's immune response, which allows the host to broadcast virus particles before the immune response (and the symptoms) kick in.

If you never develop the low level symptoms reflecting the immune response, all your respiratory tract cells would be taken over as virus factories and you'd die, which is higher level symptom. You wouldn't be mobile enough to look like a zombie.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 5:12:21 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:23:29 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 22:18:51 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 8:18:06 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Antibody tests will tell us a critical number: what per cent of the
population has already had it?

The critical information will be for individuals, to know if they've got antibodies
and are relatively safe.

For the population, it would help estimate when things will peak and
burn out. Whether we need to lock down much longer.


A small number of the population HAS had it,

How do you know that, if it hasn't been tested?

Don't be silly. We know people have had the disease, and have known that for months.
And, we know it spreads fast (which means lots of victims weren't immune).

and as long as that number is small,
there won't be any important lessening of the growth curve ...

Let me elaborate on that: one concern is the number of new cases (infections) and that
is presumably dominated by folk in the transmissive stages of disease interacting with
others who are without immunity.

So, the rate of new cases will be proportional to both those population numbers,
i.e. a coefficient times the 'infectious' population, times the 'unprotected' population.

The number of "new cases" is currently dominated by testing, and there
are serious biases in how valuable, in-demand tests are deployed.
Testing is chasing the disease.

It might be in the US. Australia has now tested a higher proportion of the population than anywhere else except South Korea.

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

Most likely very few.

But a 98% unprotected population only changes by one percent if 70 million people become immune. A 2% unprotected population changes by 50% if 70 million people become immune.

That's why the number of immune individuals is not 'critical' in a calculation of the disease progress, at this time (of obvious fast-spread conditions).

Once half the population has had it, another doubling is unlikely.

But since lots of them will be having to get together with grieving relatives funerals there will be a lot of new opportunities for transmission.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 7:26:39 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:48:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


In that particular case I was able to follow up your hysterical allegation about ADE and demonstrate that you were talking out of your back end.

You obviously did not follow it up adequately. Lancet just opened up all their corona virus papers to the public. Try looking there.

Link? We'd like to know whatever it is that you have totally misunderstood.

>There is corona specific ADE research there.

Perhaps. What I could find was a lot of academic speculation, and no shred of evidence.

> In short the ADE allows the virus to infect first line defense immune cells, sort of like HIV, which does not bode well for the host.

It doesn't. HIV infects immune system cells, and eventually destroys them all. ADE down regulates the immune response of the host cell, which is an entirely different mechanism.

>And there are numerous examples of second time around infection being much, much worse for a variety of viruses. Now how do you think that's happening...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

gives a lot of different examples. None of them seem to have anything to do with Covid-19, so you are just churning out alarmist piffle.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 9:34:39 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

The absolute incidence of infection or immunity in the general
population is of *vital* immediate interest. It could circumvent a
worldwide great depression, and could utilize limited resources
with 50% efficiency instead of 2%.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 11:12:21 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

A general-population antibody test would be useful here. Just a few
thousand properly scattered tests would indicate how many people have
had it.

That smacks of an attempt to do statistics? There is no likelihood of random
sampling telling us anything about the whole planet's population, because
the genetic and environmental conditions vary. Also, the tests aren't
of known reliability. Next year, maybe, with a lot MORE than a thousand tests.

The silly '50% have antibodies' hypothesis isn't useful enough to be worth testing now.

Good grief, if we did antibody tests on a thousand random US citizens
we'd have a good idea of how many have had it. Right now, we have no
idea.

Repeat that every week and look at the trend. You don't want to know
that?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"