OT: More on the CoronaVirus

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 2:53:32 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Yes, put him on the Diamond Princess. One Super Spreader infected at least 61 (as of now). It more than double many infection rate R0 in south ease Asia.

Infection rates depend on environment. An air-conditioned cruise ship with lots of social activities, and lots of elderly passengers with compromised immune systems is a great environment for a virus.

Even so it is pretty unlikely that a single person directly infected 61 others - they probably infected a few others, each of whom infected a few more. An R0 of three would give you three secondary infections, nine tertiary infections, and 27 fourth generation infections for total of forty. Pushing R0 up to fours gives you a total of 53 in the same number of generations

If that happens within a week, then all bets are off. The cruise itinerary is likely around a week.

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

The total number infected is still rising, but the rate of increase is finally decreasing, so the Chinese program to reduce R0 by getting people to stay at home does seem to be working.

The overnight infection in surrounding area (so called quarantine area) went up around 10%; so, it's consistent with Ro of 2. Actually, the entire country is effectively in quarantine.

2/7 2/8
BJ 274 297
SH 257 277
LS 711 772
RS 851 914
RW 600 661
CT 970 1034

Someone also mentioned that the police and military infections are not included. They are also part of the mobile infection carriers.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 23:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

A classic troll technique is to omit the context,
which is exactly what you have chosen to do.

Anyone reading the thread can find out the context if they don't
already know it. Failure to trim follow-ups is poor netiquette and one
of the habits of some here that drives me round the bend. Having been
on Usenet since dial-up days when B/W was expensive I've long been in
the habit of trimming the fat from my follow-ups. It's still regarded
as good practice, even though B/W is now cheap as chips. But you're a
troll, so the *last* thing you GaS about is good practice.

 

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 11:17:38 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 2:53:32 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Yes, put him on the Diamond Princess. One Super Spreader infected at least 61 (as of now). It more than double many infection rate R0 in south ease Asia.

Infection rates depend on environment. An air-conditioned cruise ship with lots of social activities, and lots of elderly passengers with compromised immune systems is a great environment for a virus.

Even so it is pretty unlikely that a single person directly infected 61 others - they probably infected a few others, each of whom infected a few more. An R0 of three would give you three secondary infections, nine tertiary infections, and 27 fourth generation infections for total of forty. Pushing R0 up to fours gives you a total of 53 in the same number of generations

If that happens within a week, then all bets are off. The cruise itinerary is likely around a week.

The thing about the corona virus is that infected people spread the infection early, well before they show any other sign of infection (like a fever).

But not within a week. Most carriers need a few days of hosting the virus.

> They won't shed many virus particles early on, but an enclosed air-conditioned cruise ship means that every virus has a pretty good chance of finding somebody to infect.

That's the same condition as in most WuHan quarantined buildings.

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

The total number infected is still rising, but the rate of increase is finally decreasing, so the Chinese program to reduce R0 by getting people to stay at home does seem to be working.

The overnight infection in surrounding area (so called quarantine area) went up around 10%; so, it's consistent with Ro of 2. Actually, the entire country is effectively in quarantine.

2/7 2/8
BJ 274 297
SH 257 277
LS 711 772
RS 851 914
RW 600 661
CT 970 1034

Someone also mentioned that the police and military infections are not included. They are also part of the mobile infection carriers.

Your idea of "someone" seems to include a lot of twits who are just as gullible and alarmist as you are. Police and military personnel who get infected are going to get reported and quarantined just like everybody else. The last thing you want is the people who are checking up on the rest of the population being sick and infecting the people they are checking.

They just find a cop death inside his apartment. Not in hospital and certainly not in the official database. Infected PLAs are just MIAs. The local authority does not even contact or report PLA conditions.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 11:17:38 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 2:53:32 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Yes, put him on the Diamond Princess. One Super Spreader infected at least 61 (as of now). It more than double many infection rate R0 in south ease Asia.

Infection rates depend on environment. An air-conditioned cruise ship with lots of social activities, and lots of elderly passengers with compromised immune systems is a great environment for a virus.

Even so it is pretty unlikely that a single person directly infected 61 others - they probably infected a few others, each of whom infected a few more. An R0 of three would give you three secondary infections, nine tertiary infections, and 27 fourth generation infections for total of forty. Pushing R0 up to fours gives you a total of 53 in the same number of generations

If that happens within a week, then all bets are off. The cruise itinerary is likely around a week.

The thing about the corona virus is that infected people spread the infection early, well before they show any other sign of infection (like a fever).

They won't shed many virus particles early on, but an enclosed air-conditioned cruise ship means that every virus has a pretty good chance of finding somebody to infect.

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

The total number infected is still rising, but the rate of increase is finally decreasing, so the Chinese program to reduce R0 by getting people to stay at home does seem to be working.

The overnight infection in surrounding area (so called quarantine area) went up around 10%; so, it's consistent with Ro of 2. Actually, the entire country is effectively in quarantine.

2/7 2/8
BJ 274 297
SH 257 277
LS 711 772
RS 851 914
RW 600 661
CT 970 1034

Someone also mentioned that the police and military infections are not included. They are also part of the mobile infection carriers.

Your idea of "someone" seems to include a lot of twits who are just as gullible and alarmist as you are. Police and military personnel who get infected are going to get reported and quarantined just like everybody else. The last thing you want is the people who are checking up on the rest of the population being sick and infecting the people they are checking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 11:29:32 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 23:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

A classic troll technique is to omit the context,
which is exactly what you have chosen to do.

Anyone reading the thread can find out the context if they don't
already know it. Failure to trim follow-ups is poor netiquette and one
of the habits of some here that drives me round the bend.

Cursitor Doom was around the bend long before he started posting here.
We aren't making him any worse - he's sea-green incorruptible.

Having been on Usenet since dial-up days when B/W was expensive I've long been in the habit of trimming the fat from my follow-ups. It's still regarded
as good practice, even though B/W is now cheap as chips. But you're a troll, so the *last* thing you GaS about is good practice.

Cursitor Doom is the troll here, and one of his trollish habits is accusing everybody else of being a troll. Tom Gardner isn't remotely troll-like, but Cursitor Doom is far enough out of his tree to make the claim and not realise how badly it reflects on his judgement.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 12:30:13 PM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 11:17:38 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 2:53:32 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail..com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Yes, put him on the Diamond Princess. One Super Spreader infected at least 61 (as of now). It more than double many infection rate R0 in south ease Asia.

Infection rates depend on environment. An air-conditioned cruise ship with lots of social activities, and lots of elderly passengers with compromised immune systems is a great environment for a virus.

Even so it is pretty unlikely that a single person directly infected 61 others - they probably infected a few others, each of whom infected a few more. An R0 of three would give you three secondary infections, nine tertiary infections, and 27 fourth generation infections for total of forty. Pushing R0 up to fours gives you a total of 53 in the same number of generations

If that happens within a week, then all bets are off. The cruise itinerary is likely around a week.

The thing about the corona virus is that infected people spread the infection early, well before they show any other sign of infection (like a fever).

But not within a week. Most carriers need a few days of hosting the virus.

Elderly people with compromised immune systems need fewer days than the regular population, and that's the population that cruise ships cater to.

They won't shed many virus particles early on, but an enclosed air-conditioned cruise ship means that every virus has a pretty good chance of finding somebody to infect.

That's the same condition as in most WuHan quarantined buildings.

Once the cruise ship got locked down into quarantine, the transmission probability would shrink to much the same levels as in the Wuhan quarantined buildings, but the 61 people who did get infected would have been infected when the ship wasn't locked down.

You seem to miss the point that transmission probabilities are heavily influenced by the way people behave. Cities and cruise ships get locked down to reduce transmission probabilities, and it works.

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

The total number infected is still rising, but the rate of increase is finally decreasing, so the Chinese program to reduce R0 by getting people to stay at home does seem to be working.

The overnight infection in surrounding area (so called quarantine area) went up around 10%; so, it's consistent with Ro of 2. Actually, the entire country is effectively in quarantine.

2/7 2/8
BJ 274 297
SH 257 277
LS 711 772
RS 851 914
RW 600 661
CT 970 1034

Someone also mentioned that the police and military infections are not included. They are also part of the mobile infection carriers.

Your idea of "someone" seems to include a lot of twits who are just as gullible and alarmist as you are. Police and military personnel who get infected are going to get reported and quarantined just like everybody else. The last thing you want is the people who are checking up on the rest of the population being sick and infecting the people they are checking.

They just find a cop dead inside his apartment. Not in hospital and certainly not in the official database.

People drop dead for all sorts of reasons. If he died of heart attack, as people do, he wouldn't be listed as infected (because he probably wasn't) or as a plague victim.

> Infected PLAs are just MIAs. The local authority does not even contact or report PLA conditions.

The Peoples Liberation Army would report separately - for fairly obvious reasons. The fact that local authority wouldn't be in the loop doesn't mean that any infections or deaths wouldn't end up in the overall statistics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/02/20 00:29, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 23:17:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

A classic troll technique is to omit the context,
which is exactly what you have chosen to do.

Anyone reading the thread can find out the context if they don't
already know it. Failure to trim follow-ups is poor netiquette

But you snipped so much of the context that the arguments
were obscured. That is bad netiquette, /at best/.

Occam's Razor leads to the conclusion that you didn't
want people to see the context, since it would show
you in bad light.

and one
of the habits of some here that drives me round the bend. Having been
on Usenet since dial-up days when B/W was expensive I've long been in
the habit of trimming the fat from my follow-ups. It's still regarded
as good practice, even though B/W is now cheap as chips. But you're a
troll, so the *last* thing you GaS about is good practice.

When I started I was able to access a blindingly fast 2400b/s.
It took >1s to transmit a 80*24 screen.

So please don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Please don't live in the past, however golden it might seem.

Snipping too much and forcing people to go back and attempt
to recover previous context wastes bandwidth and their lives.

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

<*PLONK*>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 9:00:49 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

Cursitor Doom doesn't like being outed as troll. He should have got used to it by now, but he's not into recognising his own defects.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:7953d4de-0f9f-45a4-93bd-6e3a267b7a1c@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 9:00:49 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

Cursitor Doom doesn't like being outed as troll. He should have
got used to it by now, but he's not into recognising his own
defects.

Billy S' BS is so hypocritical.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 9:35:08 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:7953d4de-0f9f-45a4-93bd-6e3a267b7a1c@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 9:00:49 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

Cursitor Doom doesn't like being outed as troll. He should have
got used to it by now, but he's not into recognising his own
defects.

Bill S' BS is so hypocritical.

Or so DLUNU thinks. Like much of his thinking, it's not entirely correct.

He's nowhere near as hopeless as Cursitor Doom, who is definitely our number one gullible twit, and unpleasant with it, and not quite as irascible as Phil Allison, but he's not exactly one of our more positive features either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/02/20 10:00, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

And again you snipped the *reason* your *behaviour*
is troll-like. I doubt anybody here is surprised!

I'm happy being in your kill-file. That means you
won't post fatuous attempts at responding to
(cf answering) sound points.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 1:19:08 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:

On 2/7/2020 8:27 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!


Possibly. But he might have been trying to put things in perspective.

Trouble is he may be wrong. While the fatality rate (which is presently not well known) seems to be lower than with SARS, the infection rate seems to be higher. So ultimately more people may die.

The fatality rate is not well known because this number is the number of infected people dying compared to those infected. But it has to be the same group of people. Presently the infection rate is such that the current death figures are from a smaller pool of infected than the currently infected numbers. So a bias exists if you just use the current numbers.

In the other direction is a bias from the reported infection number not including those who are infected, but do not develop symptoms enough to seek treatment. This seems to be significant in this case.

He was pretty clearly accurate in saying this is not as bad as Ebola. That's one bad ass disease. But not so hard to contain as a respiratory virus spread by simply being in the same room as a sick individual... or on a plane.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John S]

On 2/7/2020 8:27 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Possibly. But he might have been trying to put things in perspective.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:00:49 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation
for your behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

The whole public display of kill-filing someone is such a juvenile response to a conversation. It's not about kill-filing, it's about the "attitude" displayed. It's funny actually.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 1:19:08 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
On 2/7/2020 8:27 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!


Possibly. But he might have been trying to put things in perspective.

Trouble is he may be wrong. While the fatality rate (which is presently not well known) seems to be lower than with SARS, the infection rate seems to be higher. So ultimately more people may die.

The fatality rate is not well known because this number is the number of infected people dying compared to those infected. But it has to be the same group of people. Presently the infection rate is such that the current death figures are from a smaller pool of infected than the currently infected numbers. So a bias exists if you just use the current numbers.

In the other direction is a bias from the reported infection number not including those who are infected, but do not develop symptoms enough to seek treatment. This seems to be significant in this case.

He was pretty clearly accurate in saying this is not as bad as Ebola. That's one bad ass disease. But not so hard to contain as a respiratory virus spread by simply being in the same room as a sick individual... or on a plane.

Voice of America (is it alarmist?) said daily cremation is around 1500 to 2000, including all deaths.

My infection estimate:

W0 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6
R0 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10
WH 2.0 41 192 905 2766 13004 26008 52017
LS 1.7 180 306 520 884
RS 1.7 197 334 569 967
RW 1.7 137 232 395 673
G2 1.7 1120 1904 3236 5502
SH 1.5 98 147 220 330
BJ 1.5 113 169 254 381
HK 1.8 17 30
JP 1.5 20 30
US 1.5 11 16

Assumptions:
R0 for W0 to W3 was 4.7
35% spread from G0 (Ground 0) to G1 and G2 in W3
G0 is saturated, so reported infection rate is capped
G1 (RS, RW, LS are almost saturated
G2 is rest of China
MP Miltary police and army are not included

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 3:15:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 08/02/20 18:14, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:00:49 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation for your
behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

The whole public display of kill-filing someone is such a juvenile response
to a conversation. It's not about kill-filing, it's about the "attitude"
displayed. It's funny actually.


Yes, that and more. It looks like the person doing
the plonking only wants to:
- stroll in
- make stupid and/or incendiary statements
- refuse to acknowledge that
- stomp off to play with other toys
all of which are trolling characteristics

I often disagree with what you say (and vice versa!)
but I wouldn't dream of putting you in my killfile.

That is reserved for people with potty mouths and no
redeeming traits!

Lol, yes, we don't agree on much but usually manage to keep it civil.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/02/20 18:14, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:00:49 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation for your
behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

The whole public display of kill-filing someone is such a juvenile response
to a conversation. It's not about kill-filing, it's about the "attitude"
displayed. It's funny actually.

Yes, that and more. It looks like the person doing
the plonking only wants to:
- stroll in
- make stupid and/or incendiary statements
- refuse to acknowledge that
- stomp off to play with other toys
all of which are trolling characteristics

I often disagree with what you say (and vice versa!)
but I wouldn't dream of putting you in my killfile.

That is reserved for people with potty mouths and no
redeeming traits!

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/02/20 20:17, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 3:15:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 08/02/20 18:14, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:00:49 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:43:42 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

No, your being a troll is the simpler and adequate explanation for your
behaviour.

It's past time to put you back where you belong.

*PLONK*

The whole public display of kill-filing someone is such a juvenile response
to a conversation. It's not about kill-filing, it's about the "attitude"
displayed. It's funny actually.


Yes, that and more. It looks like the person doing
the plonking only wants to:
- stroll in
- make stupid and/or incendiary statements
- refuse to acknowledge that
- stomp off to play with other toys
all of which are trolling characteristics

I often disagree with what you say (and vice versa!)
but I wouldn't dream of putting you in my killfile.

That is reserved for people with potty mouths and no
redeeming traits!

Lol, yes, we don't agree on much but usually manage to keep it civil.

Frequently where we /do/ agree, I don't make a comment.
"Me too" should be kept to a minimum

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 6:22:01 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 1:19:08 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
On 2/7/2020 8:27 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!


Possibly. But he might have been trying to put things in perspective.

Trouble is he may be wrong. While the fatality rate (which is presently not well known) seems to be lower than with SARS, the infection rate seems to be higher. So ultimately more people may die.

The fatality rate is not well known because this number is the number of infected people dying compared to those infected. But it has to be the same group of people. Presently the infection rate is such that the current death figures are from a smaller pool of infected than the currently infected numbers. So a bias exists if you just use the current numbers.

In the other direction is a bias from the reported infection number not including those who are infected, but do not develop symptoms enough to seek treatment. This seems to be significant in this case.

He was pretty clearly accurate in saying this is not as bad as Ebola. That's one bad ass disease. But not so hard to contain as a respiratory virus spread by simply being in the same room as a sick individual... or on a plane.

Voice of America (is it alarmist?) said daily cremation is around 1500 to 2000, including all deaths.

Where? China as a whole has a population of 1.386 billion, and a life expectancy of 76.25 years.

That's a average death rate of 49,800 people per day.

> My infection estimate:

<snipped infantile guesswork>

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

clearly shows that the number of infections has stoppled rising exponentially and is now starting to look more like a logistic curve,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function

An optimist might hope that the total number infect might flatten out at around 60,000, but what we can see now is dominated by what's going on in Wuhan and adjacent areas, which are in lock-down. The R0 is going to be higher in places where there have been fewer infections so far and correspondingly less effort to minimise normal social contacts.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney