OT: CEO responses to Covid-19

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 8:23:44 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:

On 16/03/2020 02:35, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:

<snip>

I'd recommend reading <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet> again.

You are right that photons don't have to be quite energetic enough to be ionising in order to damage DNA or RNA (you don't "kill" viruses, because they are not alive - you render them non-viable).

"Ionising" isn't really the right word. It implies that that the radiation is kicking an electron out of the molecules it is hitting.

What UV does when it kills viruses and bacteria is to break chemical bonds.

They don't stay broken for long, but they tend to get recreated in new directions, creating new and slightly different chemical compounds which can be anything from less useful to downright dangerous to the creature whose surface has been irradiated.

> But high frequency, energetic photons are required, and the higher the frequency the better.

Up to a point. The most energetic photons around - X-rays and gamma rays - go straight through most materials (which is what makes X-rays useful).

> UVC is higher frequency than UVB, which is higher than UVA, and UVC therefore does much more damage for the same intensity.

It can get in further, and do a wider range of damaging things.

It is meaningless to give a specific safe exposure time without
specifying the intensity of radiation.

Absolutely.

With high enough intensity, a
few milliseconds of UVC will kill you. With the levels that pass
through the atmosphere (which absorbs almost all UVC from the sun), you
will not cause any harm to your skin.

What gets through will cause harm, but since very little gets through, it doesn't cause damage at enough sites for you to notice.

It is important in any such discussion to make a distinction between the
frequency (and therefore energy per photon) of the radiation, and the
intensity (the number of photons).

Which is what we spent a quite a while telling Dan. Happily he has not only got the message, but has been kind enough to tell us that he's now better informed than he was. This doesn't happen often and should be celebrated when it does.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John S]

On 3/15/2020 3:11 PM, David Brown wrote:

On 15/03/2020 16:03, John S wrote:
On 3/15/2020 7:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 23:49, John S wrote:

Mail was only an example. I do not use it anywhere on my body. My
dermatologist tells me to stay out of the sun. I take vitamin D
instead.

Because of the cost of drugs here, I have an occasional package of
drugs delivered from Turkey. The next package will receive a thorough
dose of UV-C.

That is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.  But the
biggest mistakes are out of your direct control - unless you voted for
the morons that built your astoundingly bad health system.


Unless you have some serious medical condition resulting in a poor
immune system, you don't need to use it on /anything/.

My immune system is 78 years old. I had asthma in my younger days
(probably caused by my parents' smoking).

Probably not.

And then I picked up smoking.

That is primarily your own fault, but you can blame your parents'
smoking here if you like, as there is a strong correlation.

I stopped over 20 years ago. However, there is something the doctors
do not like at the lower end of one lung. I am at risk. I will try to
do every thing I can to avoid all viruses. I get the seasonal flu
virus shot every year. I have the latest pneumonia shot. But, I am
still at risk, I know.

It makes sense to take reasonable precautions.  Unreasonable ones, less so.

Thank you for your concern.

 

[John S]

On 3/15/2020 6:46 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:c2d2bcb8-2106-44f9-bcbf-
72f7e3084f3f@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:15:28 AM UTC-4, John S wrote:
On 3/14/2020 6:31 PM, mpm wrote:
Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."


You mean like polio?

Touché.
How about this one, then:

"When the going gets tough, the weak get screwed."


"These are the times that try mens' holes!"

No, it's "These are the times that try mens' soles!"

 

John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote in news:r4nru5$dmq$3@dont-
email.me:

On 3/15/2020 6:46 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
wrote:
mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:c2d2bcb8-2106-44f9-bcbf-
72f7e3084f3f@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:15:28 AM UTC-4, John S wrote:
On 3/14/2020 6:31 PM, mpm wrote:
Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."


You mean like polio?

Touché.
How about this one, then:

"When the going gets tough, the weak get screwed."


"These are the times that try mens' holes!"


No, it's "These are the times that try mens' soles!"

Let me pore through this...

O! Sole Mio!

 

[legg]

On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

Given the relative age distribution of posters to the group, I'm wondering how many here will survive and how many will not be here in 2021?

For reasons that have nothing to do with health, I spent the month of January in an effective quarantine. Then in Feb I caught the flu and spent two weeks in isolation. Now my good friend in a retirement community is effectively in lockdown and I will be in a virtual quarantine because I won't be traveling to see him. This is going to be a lonely year.

The Lancet published a recalculation of the case fatality
rate, taking the delay between 'diagnosed' and death into
account, as of March 1st. This looked to have stabilized at
about 6%, vs the 1-2% being generally spouted before March 15.
It's now 3.5%.

>https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2820%2930195-X/fulltext

The CFR of SARS rose from 3% to 10%, as all the data came in,
without similar delays being considered in the mean time.

By age, in China, up to Feb 11:

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-CFR-by-age-in-China-1-800x526.png

With underlying health conditions:

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-CFR-by-health-condition-in-China.png

Seasonal flu fatality rates are generally an order of magnitude lower.

RL

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:35:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain
items (mail, for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be
quite paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used
for sterilising medical equipment. Don't try it on your
hands, however - you'll kill your skin cells before you
destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and
UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which
is energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is
therefore useful for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the
cells in your body. UVC is higher frequency and lower wavelength
than UVA and UVB - it has more energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the
safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and
gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand
correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have
to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses. Again I am no
expert and don't have any uvc sources.

Not trying to be insulting, but your statement about ionizing shows
that you don't understand the issue. The ability of light to ionize
isn't about the strength, it's about the wavelength. That's the
photoelectric effect. Light is in quanta that have a finite amount
of energy which is determined by the wavelength. Too long a
wavelength and there isn't enough energy in the quantum to dislodge
an electron from it's bond with the atom, so no ionization. An
adequately short wavelength gives the quanta enough energy to knock
loose the electrons independent of intensity.

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the highest
ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's why they use it
in germicidal applications. It does the job, at least on bacteria.
I don't know how well it works on viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is damaging DNA or
RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If the UVC is short enough
wavelength to be ionising, it will break bonds directly. At longer
wavelengths the photons do not have enough energy to knock off electrons
immediately, but they can provide the energy needed to induce other
chemical reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks long
wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would surprise me greatly
if that were the case in practice. And even then, a higher intensity
source would ensure plenty of photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 2:52:09 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:28:11 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Trump appears to be a Trojan horse installed by Putin to destroy Western
democracy. His crazy panic speech yesterday totally spooked the markets
and destroyed shareholder value big time.

The stock market was over-priced and had to crash. The central banks
have ratcheted down interest rates specifically to move people out of
savings and into stocks. They are basically playing the market with
fake money. They have been riding the tiger's back and can't ratchet
much more.

There is nothing more dangerous to an economy than letting economists
get control of it.

When JL discusses anything other than analog electronics, the phrase that comes to mind is "idiot savant". Unfortunately while he knows he is good at analog electronics, he can't seem to grasp his lack of understanding of virtually every other topic.

In that way he is useful as a contrarian indicator.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:28:11 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/03/2020 15:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:44:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/03/20 14:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Today I got emails from the CEOs of three companies
about their actions to protect us against Covid-19.
Walmart said their stores are cleaned daily, with
sanitizing solutions. Subway said they're cleaning
most-touched surfaces once per hour. A local pub-
restaurant, Tavern in the Square, uses disinfectant
wipes to clean and sanitize all tables, phones, POS-
screens, check presenters, booths, chairs and menus
in between guest's seatings. Plus five other items.

We have signs up, "if you are sick, stay home."

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/health/coronavirus-facts-vs-panic

So far, this is a modest flu that has been hyper-hyped by the internet
and politics. Possibly many people have had it and barely noticed.

It is somewhat 40x more lethal than seasonal flu and there appears to be
a cohort of people for whom the virus makes them infective without
showing any symptoms or it becomes infective well before symptoms show.
The venue in London where my wife should have been yesterday is being
deep cleaned today after someone tested positive for coronavirus.

In that case you wouldn't worry (about coronavirus!) if you
needed to go to Italy or South Korea.

Really?


Apparently kids don't get this. So why are we closing schools?

UK isn't - at least not yet. Only schools with confirmed cases have been
closed and deep cleaned for a week before reopening.

Not all responses are sensible. There can be a lot of
"health theatre" - cf "security theatre" i.e. visible
actions that people suppose increase security but
actually don't.

The UK appears quite sensible in that respect, but
time will tell.

Much as I think our Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a buffoon he appears
to be listening and acting on the advice of his scientific advisors.
This is a bit of a surprise but credit where it is due.

Trump appears to be a Trojan horse installed by Putin to destroy Western
democracy. His crazy panic speech yesterday totally spooked the markets
and destroyed shareholder value big time.

The stock market was over-priced and had to crash. The central banks
have ratcheted down interest rates specifically to move people out of
savings and into stocks. They are basically playing the market with
fake money. They have been riding the tiger's back and can't ratchet
much more.

There is nothing more dangerous to an economy than letting economists
get control of it.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:14:28 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

Basically the virus is already running wild in the USA but since normal
people cannot afford to get tested there are no good statistics at all.

I had a minor E.R. mishap yesterday in what you would no doubt
consider to be the savage deplorable hinterlands. The staff were
fully prepared for WuFlu, and ready to test all comers at no charge.

The physician offered me a C.T. scan for a benign indication, which
I refused, since, as Dad used to say, the possible results made no
difference to the ultimate courses of action.

If I had been unable to pay, the C.T. would have been free.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/03/20 18:51, John Larkin wrote:

The stock market was over-priced and had to crash. The central banks
have ratcheted down interest rates specifically to move people out of
savings and into stocks. They are basically playing the market with
fake money. They have been riding the tiger's back and can't ratchet
much more.

The Alex cartoon is a wonderfully perceptive and cynical
observation of the City of London, and has been since the
mid 80s.

For example:
https://www.alexcartoon.com/index.cfm?cartoon_num=7630

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 16/3/20 6:39 pm, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> Not all cliffs are on shorelines.

I like to be on a shoreline. Preferably just off the shoreline, in the
water, in fact.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:52:09 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:28:11 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/03/2020 15:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:44:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/03/20 14:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2020 19:16:05 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

<snip>

There is nothing more dangerous to an economy than letting economists
get control of it.

Bankers are a whole lot worse. Compare the Wall Street rash in 1929 with the GFC in 2008.

Of course, somebody who thinks he knows what he is talking about - like Donald Trump or John Larkin - could be even more dangerous.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 9:29:11 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Bill,

While I'm thinking about it, I wanted to let you know that in addition to panic-buying of toilet paper due to the Coronavirus scare, there's also been a run on ammo.

9mm (which is an extremely popular handgun caliber) is totally out of stock at numerous web retailers. I'm also hearing reports from friends that the local gun stores are packed with first-time gun buyers, some even having to form lines out the door.

I don't really have an agenda here; I just wanted to point it out as we've discussed "America's obsession" with firearms several times.

I have to admit I haven't figured out the toilet paper thing yet.
Very strange....

It's exactly the same thinking. There are some things you don't want to run out of when you need it.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[mpm]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Bill,

While I'm thinking about it, I wanted to let you know that in addition to panic-buying of toilet paper due to the Coronavirus scare, there's also been a run on ammo.

9mm (which is an extremely popular handgun caliber) is totally out of stock at numerous web retailers. I'm also hearing reports from friends that the local gun stores are packed with first-time gun buyers, some even having to form lines out the door.

I don't really have an agenda here; I just wanted to point it out as we've discussed "America's obsession" with firearms several times.

I have to admit I haven't figured out the toilet paper thing yet.
Very strange....

 

[David Brown]

On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:35:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain
items (mail, for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be
quite paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used
for sterilising medical equipment. Don't try it on your
hands, however - you'll kill your skin cells before you
destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and
UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which
is energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is
therefore useful for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the
cells in your body. UVC is higher frequency and lower wavelength
than UVA and UVB - it has more energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the
safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and
gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand
correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have
to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses. Again I am no
expert and don't have any uvc sources.

Not trying to be insulting, but your statement about ionizing shows
that you don't understand the issue. The ability of light to ionize
isn't about the strength, it's about the wavelength. That's the
photoelectric effect. Light is in quanta that have a finite amount
of energy which is determined by the wavelength. Too long a
wavelength and there isn't enough energy in the quantum to dislodge
an electron from it's bond with the atom, so no ionization. An
adequately short wavelength gives the quanta enough energy to knock
loose the electrons independent of intensity.

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the highest
ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's why they use it
in germicidal applications. It does the job, at least on bacteria.
I don't know how well it works on viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is damaging DNA or
RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If the UVC is short enough
wavelength to be ionising, it will break bonds directly. At longer
wavelengths the photons do not have enough energy to knock off electrons
immediately, but they can provide the energy needed to induce other
chemical reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks long
wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would surprise me greatly
if that were the case in practice. And even then, a higher intensity
source would ensure plenty of photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???

UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising energy
depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often defined as 10 eV,
the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is defined as 33 eV, which
is needed for ionising water molecules. That is well beyond UVC, and in
the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily found
online.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-03-15, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org> wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:6472cdbc-c75a-
4681-b445-774ae928ccc3@googlegroups.com:

Here in the US we have not restricted travel inside the US,

Kalamazoo, Michigan has cops at certain locations denying access to
certain neighborhoods if you do not live there.

"let me see you papers, please..."

And "Iz it zafe yet?" (dental drill squeals in the background.

They said something about hearing about a big (private) party being
organized. Sounds almost like martial law.

Hasn't a state of emergency been declared?

--
Jasen.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:19:47 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the highest
ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's why they use it
in germicidal applications. It does the job, at least on bacteria.
I don't know how well it works on viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is damaging DNA or
RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If the UVC is short enough
wavelength to be ionising, it will break bonds directly. At longer
wavelengths the photons do not have enough energy to knock off electrons
immediately, but they can provide the energy needed to induce other
chemical reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks long
wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would surprise me greatly
if that were the case in practice. And even then, a higher intensity
source would ensure plenty of photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???


UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising energy
depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often defined as 10 eV,
the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is defined as 33 eV, which
is needed for ionising water molecules. That is well beyond UVC, and in
the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily found
online.

So when you used the term "non-ionizing UVC", what limits were you talking about? Why would you refer to any UVC wavelengths as non-ionizing in the context of this conversation???

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

Their graph covers only ~1k cases in toto. This might be the
explanation:
"** Does not include ... U.S.-identified cases where the date of
illness onset has not yet been reported."


Only Washington, California, and New York report community
transmission, which is impressive.

The daily new cases graph on this page suggests we're still
experiencing exponential growth--
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:37:51 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 15:19, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

It looks nonsensical from the start of March onwards. The bar indicates
that they have no idea what data is in the pipeline from the past week.

It's not data in a pipeline. It is infected people who have not been detected yet. It's a pretty simple concept, try to pay attention.

They have modelled the US reporting system on wagon trains to move the
data so that realtime information is impossible to obtain.

Wow! What a total failure in understanding.

UK and Italy can manage daily up to date statistics every day. Growth so
far has been alarmingly exponential with exponent around 1.35 to 1.4.

Yes, daily reports of how many infected they count today. Everyone does that. It's not the best indication of progress in fighting the disease.

That US graph looks worryingly like the Italian one in that either you
already have complete control and the infection is decaying or you have
not got anything like workable testing systems and it is utter garbage.
I know which I would put my money on.

Fortunately for us you have nothing to do with the matter.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Martin Brown]

On 17/03/2020 15:19, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

It looks nonsensical from the start of March onwards. The bar indicates
that they have no idea what data is in the pipeline from the past week.

They have modelled the US reporting system on wagon trains to move the
data so that realtime information is impossible to obtain.

UK and Italy can manage daily up to date statistics every day. Growth so
far has been alarmingly exponential with exponent around 1.35 to 1.4.

That US graph looks worryingly like the Italian one in that either you
already have complete control and the infection is decaying or you have
not got anything like workable testing systems and it is utter garbage.
I know which I would put my money on.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown