Past the peak, now what?

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 10:22:41 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/20 18:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Doctors and hospitals are turning away people with real problems. Many
hospitals are way below normal use, anticipating a crush any day now.

Not the doctors and hospitals in Italy and Spain

The USA is 2-3 weeks behind Italy, depending on what measure
you use.

One example, but the other graphs on that page are also
information dense.
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#covid-world-norm

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear.

That what happens when you get enough new cases to motivate the authorities to go in for lock-downs and contact tracing.

When they get motivated enough to do it properly - assuming they've got enough sense to get that far - they can get the R0 even lower and the new case per day numbers can not only decline to a linear increase but also eventually start falling and decline to zero.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/

The new case per day number hasn't declined to zero yet - they've still got travellers returning from less well-run countries - but community transmission has pretty much stopped.

The Hopkins site shows new US cases increasing almost linearly
since March 1.

Of course, the testing density has changed radically upward. I hope
someone does a really good analysis of this when it's over.

Why? You won't understand it when it is published. And Trump will probably stop it getting published, if Covid-19 doesn't get him first (one way or another).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 6:56:10 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
So how would you start the economy when the pandemic is fading?

I would keep the schools shut down until the usual time that schools start in the fall. By the time the pandemic is fading ,there would only be a few days that schools could be open before the regular end of school.

I would open domestic air traffic a couple of weeks before opening international flights. And require records being kept of the seats people were in case some one is exposed to someone who tests positive but shows no symtoms.

I would open restaurants , but would require payment by credit card for a couple of months or require keeping records of who ate when so that if there is any vius casos it would fairly easy to determine who might be exposed.

These are thoughts I had today. The main thought is I would spend some time thinking about the best way to start up life after the pandemic fades.

I'm thinking we should handle this like humanity has handled
disease outbreaks for thousand of years -- quarantine the affected
area and individuals, while the rest of the people carry on.

The problem is that the affected but not symptomatic can infect other people.

You have to quarantine not only the visibly affected but also the potentially infected - which is what South Korea did.

That's what our forebears did with typhus, yellow fever, leprosy,
tuberculosis, polio, SARS, Ebola, Hantavirus, smallpox, measles...

Back to SARS-CoV2, most of the U.S. is clear --
https://www.sylacauganews.com/

The current approach isn't meant to reduce the number of people who
ultimately get sick.

That's exactly what it is intended to do.

> In fact it may increase that number.

It shouldn't. China and South Korea are now down to no new domestic cases - what they are now reporting are returning travellers.

James Arthur doesn't seem to have noticed that China limited the number infected to 81,708 people, while the US is now at 336,830 with 34,196 new cases on the 4th April. On Sunday there were fewer, but that was probably the religious going out and infecting their congregations when they should have been going to the doctor to get tested.

The current approach is meant to make sure they don't all get sick at
the same time, to prevent hospitals being overloaded.

That's an incidental advantage.

But this means that when we all come out of hiding, whenever that
is, hungry, to hunt grubs and snakes to eat in our post-apocalyptic
society, that our vulnerable venerables will be surrounded by
asymptomatic individuals who might kill them, rather than immune
individuals whose bodies fight the illness instead.

The bodies of immune individual kill the illness stone dead, but only where it gets exposed to their immune system.

Getting to James Arthur's "everybody immune" heaven - actually 60% of the population being immune which would give enough herd immunity to stop epidemics expanding - involves killing off about 50 million people around the world - 4.7 billion people would have to catch the disease, which at a 1% mortality rate would be 50 million dead. Current mortality rates look more like 3.4% which would be closer to 160 million dead.

That makes me nervous for Mom, whom I'm rather fond of.

At this point I have two friends who contracted the WuFlu. Both
recovered, both are fine. One was exhausted for a month, the other
was out-of-sorts for a week, then back to long-distance running.

The latter got it via community-spread in southern California. Thought
it was a sinus infection, WuFlu confirmed by testing. Three weeks
quarantine with wife and kids, none of whom were infected.

I assume that he avoided physical contact with the wife and kids during his quarantine, and disinfected any surfaces that he'd contacted before he let them contact them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 6:29:45 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 3:59:45 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

We need good tests (infected and antibody tests). If you've had it
presumably you can go back to work.

Do we know a person who is immune can't spread the disease the same way a doorknob or table surface does?

They can, but being immune means that you immune system can recognise the virus and kill it off before it can replicate in your body.

> How does being immune from the disease make a person safe to be around? Seems rather opposite to me. If they are immune you will never know they gave it to you.

They won't give it to you, They may let somebody else's viruses give it to you, but it's pretty unlikely.

Being immune isn't enough. You will need to be immune and not come in contact with not immune individuals. So we will need three classes of people, immune community, not immune-not infected community (with distancing) and the infected community.

All three classes of people would need to be isolated from one another. I can't see that working. Better to just keep the isolation as long as possible and maintain social distancing after. The fact that you are immune doesn't mean you aren't a doorknob.

Essentially now we are treating everyone as if they were infectious. Potentially the immune and infected communities could be safely merged and only the not infected put in quarantine. But that would likely mean families would need to be split up and that sounds pretty unworkable.

Am I wrong?

The immune are safe to work with the infected, and they could be useful there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:57:54 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 12:29:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:46:54 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 11:17:54 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
So how would you start the economy when the pandemic is fading?

My premise is that you have already decided to start removing restrictions and the question is how.

But you don't specify the point at which you decide to remove restrictions, which has to influence thewhat way in which you dismantle them.

It has to be on a community by community basis, which means that you have to decide what constitutes a community when it come to virus-swapping.
what

No, _I do not specify what point the decision is made to start removing restrictions. _Obviously to me that point is after the hospitals are not overloaded and before every last case of the virus has been detected and treated.

It may be obvious to you, but it is wrong. If there's one virus carrier running around they can start a new tree of infections, and with no restrictions, the tree will expand just as fast as it did when the epidemic started.

> If you believe that it is necessary to know what constitutes a community , explain why and then how you would start getting the economy going.

What constitutes a "community" is going to come out of contact tracing - the geographical relationships between the individual who infected other people, and the individuals they infected.

If there isn't an infected person close enough to a community to infect anybody in it, you can take off the restrictions within that community.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Robert Baer]

dcaster@krl.org wrote:

So how would you start the economy when the pandemic is fading?

I would keep the schools shut down until the usual time that schools start in the fall. By the time the pandemic is fading ,there would only be a few days that schools could be open before the regular end of school.

I would open domestic air traffic a couple of weeks before opening international flights. And require records being kept of the seats people were in case some one is exposed to someone who tests positive but shows no symtoms.

I would open restaurants , but would require payment by credit card for a couple of months or require keeping records of who ate when so that if there is any vius casos it would fairly easy to determine who might be exposed.

These are thoughts I had today. The main thought is I would spend some time thinking about the best way to start up life after the pandemic fades.

Dan

FADES???
Wait 2 week after 90% of population die; may fade then...

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 8:37:22 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

The curve is sigmoid, exponential increasing at the low
end, decaying at the top end, and the most linear part is the fastest-growth
part (the least possible to handle).

Look at the new case curves for various countries:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Not many beautiful Gaussian impulses.

I didn't say Gaussian, I said sigmoid. S-shaped. It's not 'new cases', it's total cases that
has that shape if no intervention occurs.

How could the new-case rate be both threatening and sigmoid?

No one said it was new-case rate. And no one has seen anything except the
first part of the sigmoid, which is exponential growth, which gets lopped off
without completing the curve when lockdown is effective.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:02:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 06/04/20 01:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/20 18:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Doctors and hospitals are turning away people with real problems. Many
hospitals are way below normal use, anticipating a crush any day now.

Not the doctors and hospitals in Italy and Spain

The USA is 2-3 weeks behind Italy, depending on what measure
you use.

One example, but the other graphs on that page are also
information dense.
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#covid-world-norm

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear. The Hopkins site shows new US cases increasing almost linearly
since March 1.

There is a lot of noise, but the interesting questions are:
- why does it /appear/ to go linear

The number of new cases er day levels off.

- what's the minimum measurement period for it to
be justified in calling it linear

Two days would do.

> - what causes it to go linear

The effective transmission rate goes down to one

The US is nowhere near linear at the moment.

Of course, the testing density has changed radically upward. I hope
someone does a really good analysis of this when it's over.

Indeed. But hindsight is a "jam tomorrow" concept when
in the middle of draining the swamp

If John Larkin ever develops any insight - even with hindsight - I'll be surprised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:55:22 PM UTC+10, Robert Baer wrote:

dcaster@krl.org wrote:

So how would you start the economy when the pandemic is fading?

I would keep the schools shut down until the usual time that schools start in the fall. By the time the pandemic is fading ,there would only be a few days that schools could be open before the regular end of school.

I would open domestic air traffic a couple of weeks before opening international flights. And require records being kept of the seats people were in case some one is exposed to someone who tests positive but shows no symtoms.

I would open restaurants , but would require payment by credit card for a couple of months or require keeping records of who ate when so that if there is any vius casos it would fairly easy to determine who might be exposed.

These are thoughts I had today. The main thought is I would spend some time thinking about the best way to start up life after the pandemic fades.

Dan

FADES???
Wait 2 week after 90% of population die; may fade then...

Wrong on two counts. 60% of the population has to get infected to provide enough herd immunity to stop the epidemic, and even at at 3.4% mortality rate that's only 2% of the population.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 01:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/20 18:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Doctors and hospitals are turning away people with real problems. Many
hospitals are way below normal use, anticipating a crush any day now.

Not the doctors and hospitals in Italy and Spain

The USA is 2-3 weeks behind Italy, depending on what measure
you use.

One example, but the other graphs on that page are also
information dense.
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#covid-world-norm

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear. The Hopkins site shows new US cases increasing almost linearly
since March 1.

There is a lot of noise, but the interesting questions are:
- why does it /appear/ to go linear
- what's the minimum measurement period for it to
be justified in calling it linear
- what causes it to go linear

The US is nowhere near linear at the moment.

Of course, the testing density has changed radically upward. I hope
someone does a really good analysis of this when it's over.

Indeed. But hindsight is a "jam tomorrow" concept when
in the middle of draining the swamp

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 04:37, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

It will be fun to compare the predictions to
reality after this is over.

It always is.

Some will turn out to be remarkably accurate, but will
that have been pure luck?

My bet is that the decent prognostications will be
continually refined as more information becomes available.

A decade ago prognostications were made about the progress
of a serious foot and mouth epidemic. They were far too
optimistic because nobody realised just how much farm
animals were shuttled around the country, spreading it
all the time.

Similar lack of comprehension over the food supply chain
rattled cages when the horsemeat scandal erupted years
later. Nobody realised how many intermediaries and countries
there were between farm and plate.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 1:37:22 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 5:22:41 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear

Worst model ever. The curve is sigmoid, exponential increasing at the low
end, decaying at the top end, and the most linear part is the fastest-growth
part (the least possible to handle).

Look at the new case curves for various countries:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Not many beautiful Gaussian impulses.

How could the new-case rate be both threatening and sigmoid? We'd all
die.

If it's sigmoid not everybody is going to die.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/coronavirus-case-counts-are-meaningless/

But just because they are meaningless doesn't make them uninteresting.

As Nate Silver points out, they aren't meaningless if you know something about testing - which John Larkin clearly doesn't.

No one cares about the part we're NOT planning to get to, we have to handle
the disease at the low end (few people yet infected). When/if there's
a vaccine, the whole top end of the 'natural' sigmoid doesn't happen.

For best survival, exponential growth is the part we see now, and
we won't see the rest.

Epidemiology is a science, of the observational sort (not experimental, unless in some small microbe-infects-big-microbel variants), with good mathematical predictions that (of course) oversimplify.

20:1 in either direction.

We know why John Larkin thinks that. He hasn't got a clue, and thinks that everybody else is in the same sorry state.

It will be fun to compare the predictions to
reality after this is over.

Not nearly as much as you like to think.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:34:26 PM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 6:29:45 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 3:59:45 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 9:17:54 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

We need good tests (infected and antibody tests). If you've had it
presumably you can go back to work.

Do we know a person who is immune can't spread the disease the same way a doorknob or table surface does?

They can, but being immune means that you immune system can recognise the virus and kill it off before it can replicate in your body.

Yes, that's the definition of "immune" and not relevant.


How does being immune from the disease make a person safe to be around? Seems rather opposite to me. If they are immune you will never know they gave it to you.

They won't give it to you, They may let somebody else's viruses give it to you, but it's pretty unlikely.

Yes, you play with words as if you are saying something worthwhile. No one cares who "owns" the viruses. If it is unlikely for an immune individual to transmit a virus to someone who is not immune, then it's no more likely for that to happen with a doorknob which you previously said could happen.. There's no reason why a hand shake with someone to shook hands with an infected individual is less likely to transmit the disease than using a doorknob used by a infected individual.

That the virus lasts longer on stainless steel than on most surfaces is one reason. The fact that the individual is likely to wash his hands between handshakes is another - door-knobs don't do that.

The critical point that somebody who is infectious is generating lots of new virus particles. Anybody who isn't actually generating virus particles isn't going to have anything like the number of virus particles to spread.

Being immune isn't enough. You will need to be immune and not come in contact with not immune individuals. So we will need three classes of people, immune community, not immune-not infected community (with distancing) and the infected community.

All three classes of people would need to be isolated from one another. I can't see that working. Better to just keep the isolation as long as possible and maintain social distancing after. The fact that you are immune doesn't mean you aren't a doorknob.

Essentially now we are treating everyone as if they were infectious. Potentially the immune and infected communities could be safely merged and only the not infected put in quarantine. But that would likely mean families would need to be split up and that sounds pretty unworkable.

Am I wrong?

The immune are safe to work with the infected, and they could be useful there.

Yes, that's what I said, the immune can come into contact with the infected. But they would need to be very, very careful not to transmit the virus themselves. The standard PPE does not provide much of a barrier over the course of a working day with many healthcare workers getting sick and even dying. Such workers can also transmit the disease even if they are immune.

But they don't have anything like the number of virus particles to spread.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:56:31 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 06/04/20 08:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:02:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 01:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/20 18:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Doctors and hospitals are turning away people with real problems. Many
hospitals are way below normal use, anticipating a crush any day now.

Not the doctors and hospitals in Italy and Spain

The USA is 2-3 weeks behind Italy, depending on what measure
you use.

One example, but the other graphs on that page are also
information dense.
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#covid-world-norm

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear. The Hopkins site shows new US cases increasing almost linearly
since March 1.

There is a lot of noise, but the interesting questions are:
- why does it /appear/ to go linear

The number of new cases er day levels off.

- what's the minimum measurement period for it to
be justified in calling it linear

Two days would do.

- what causes it to go linear

The effective transmission rate goes down to one

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those
numbers to move in the right direction.

According to the New Scientist, what worked for South Korea and China was effective contract tracing. They looked at every new infected person and isolated everybody they had been on contact with for the past fortnight, and kept them isolated for a fortnight.

They might not have got everybody who'd got infected, but they got enough of them to get the effective transmission rate well below one.

Lock-down on it's own should be able to get the effective transmission rate below one, but you would have to be pretty rigorous about it.

Italy and Spain look as if they are getting there. The UK and the US less so.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 08:36, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:02:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 01:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/20 18:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Doctors and hospitals are turning away people with real problems. Many
hospitals are way below normal use, anticipating a crush any day now.

Not the doctors and hospitals in Italy and Spain

The USA is 2-3 weeks behind Italy, depending on what measure
you use.

One example, but the other graphs on that page are also
information dense.
http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#covid-world-norm

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear. The Hopkins site shows new US cases increasing almost linearly
since March 1.

There is a lot of noise, but the interesting questions are:
- why does it /appear/ to go linear

The number of new cases er day levels off.

- what's the minimum measurement period for it to
be justified in calling it linear

Two days would do.

- what causes it to go linear

The effective transmission rate goes down to one

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those
numbers to move in the right direction.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 09:20, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:56:31 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 08:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:02:20 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 01:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 22:13:36 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/20 18:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Doctors and hospitals are turning away people with real problems.
Many hospitals are way below normal use, anticipating a crush any
day now.

Not the doctors and hospitals in Italy and Spain

The USA is 2-3 weeks behind Italy, depending on what measure you
use.

One example, but the other graphs on that page are also information
dense. http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#covid-world-norm

One interesting pattern, if there are patterns in all this noise, is
that the new-case rate starts out exponential but then tends to go
linear. The Hopkins site shows new US cases increasing almost
linearly since March 1.

There is a lot of noise, but the interesting questions are: - why does
it /appear/ to go linear

The number of new cases er day levels off.

- what's the minimum measurement period for it to be justified in
calling it linear

Two days would do.

- what causes it to go linear

The effective transmission rate goes down to one

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those numbers to
move in the right direction.

According to the New Scientist, what worked for South Korea and China was
effective contract tracing. They looked at every new infected person and
isolated everybody they had been on contact with for the past fortnight, and
kept them isolated for a fortnight.

They might not have got everybody who'd got infected, but they got enough of
them to get the effective transmission rate well below one.

Lock-down on it's own should be able to get the effective transmission rate
below one, but you would have to be pretty rigorous about it.

Italy and Spain look as if they are getting there. The UK and the US less
so.

Agreed. I should have said "minimum action", as that might
give the UK and US some cause for hope the outcome won't be
merely herd immunity.

Now BoJo has it and is in hospital[1], perhaps that will
be the main benefit of his premiership: to convince doubters
that covid isn't a walk in the park.

[1] But BoJo is still in charge, of course!

 

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:08:44 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/04/20 04:37, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It will be fun to compare the predictions to
reality after this is over.

It always is.

Some will turn out to be remarkably accurate, but will
that have been pure luck?

Yes. There are plenty of candidates.

My bet is that the decent prognostications will be
continually refined as more information becomes available.

I bet not. The only good simulations will be hindcasts. They might get
the tail close, during the tail.

A decade ago prognostications were made about the progress
of a serious foot and mouth epidemic. They were far too
optimistic because nobody realised just how much farm
animals were shuttled around the country, spreading it
all the time.

Similar lack of comprehension over the food supply chain
rattled cages when the horsemeat scandal erupted years
later. Nobody realised how many intermediaries and countries
there were between farm and plate.

Right. Simulations are usually wrong in complex human-driven systems.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 3:56:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 06/04/20

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those
numbers to move in the right direction.

Absolutely amazing. No one responded to my post. Lots of posts about when one should start the economy going , but not one post about the details on exactly how the economy should be started. No discussion on when sports events should be allowed to have fans come to matches. No discussion on when schools should reopen. No discussion of when foreign travel should be permitted. When should restaurants be allowed to have unlimited numbers of customers in attendance? When should cruise ships be allowed to resume cruises. Should they get tested for infection before being allowed to book a cruise?

I expect there will be lots of posts after the fa Act about the mistakes made in starting .the economy. I do hope some thought is being done by the various government agency on loosing the restrictions.

Dan

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:4d0e5efd-cb5e-4473-8d64-320703c9e838@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 3:56:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those
numbers to move in the right direction.

Absolutely amazing. No one responded to my post. Lots of posts
about when one should start the economy going , but not one post
about the details on exactly how the economy should be started.
No discussion on when sports events should be allowed to have fans
come to matches. No discussion on when schools should reopen. No
discussion of when foreign travel should be permitted. When
should restaurants be allowed to have unlimited numbers of
customers in attendance? When should cruise ships be allowed to
resume cruises. Should they get tested for infection before being
allowed to book a cruise?

I expect there will be lots of posts after the fa Act about the
mistakes made in starting .the economy. I do hope some thought is
being done by the various government agency on loosing the
restrictions.

Dan

Maybe folks think things wills just start back up again as
employers call employees back to assess what logistics are required
to 'tool up the factory' again. Whether the 'factory' is an actual
factory or just a small business.

I would rather talk about removing an extremely dangerous element
that poses immediate danger to use all.

Donald John Trump is STILL being allowed to damage our nation
further with his ZERO skill inability to perform efficaciously in ANY
task, much less this moment of crisis.

His IMMEDIATE removal would be a great first step.

There. I participated. Some will not like it, but THAT is the
right first step.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 11:51:09 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:4d0e5efd-cb5e-4473-8d64-320703c9e838@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 3:56:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those
numbers to move in the right direction.

Absolutely amazing. No one responded to my post. Lots of posts
about when one should start the economy going , but not one post
about the details on exactly how the economy should be started.
No discussion on when sports events should be allowed to have fans
come to matches. No discussion on when schools should reopen. No
discussion of when foreign travel should be permitted. When
should restaurants be allowed to have unlimited numbers of
customers in attendance? When should cruise ships be allowed to
resume cruises. Should they get tested for infection before being
allowed to book a cruise?

I expect there will be lots of posts after the fa Act about the
mistakes made in starting .the economy. I do hope some thought is
being done by the various government agency on loosing the
restrictions.

Dan


Maybe folks think things wills just start back up again as
employers call employees back to assess what logistics are required
to 'tool up the factory' again. Whether the 'factory' is an actual
factory or just a small business.

I would rather talk about removing an extremely dangerous element
that poses immediate danger to use all.

Donald John Trump is STILL being allowed to damage our nation
further with his ZERO skill inability to perform efficaciously in ANY
task, much less this moment of crisis.

His IMMEDIATE removal would be a great first step.

There. I participated. Some will not like it, but THAT is the
right first step.

Thanks for participating.

Unfortunately there are a lot of things that are not practical. Removing of Trump may be one of those things. He might be able to be removed in the next general election. But my guess is he will be reelected. This is just what I believe will happen.

Another thing I think will happen is that the government will remove all the restrictions while there are still new cases concurring. And that is why I think how the economy is restarted is important.

Dan

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:30e85c6d-8b5e-46ef-9519-52d846ab3eca@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 11:51:09 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:4d0e5efd-cb5e-4473-8d64-320703c9e838@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 3:56:31 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 06/04/20

All true, but I'm more interested in what actions cause those
numbers to move in the right direction.

Absolutely amazing. No one responded to my post. Lots of
posts about when one should start the economy going , but not
one post about the details on exactly how the economy should be
started. No discussion on when sports events should be allowed
to have fans come to matches. No discussion on when schools
should reopen. No discussion of when foreign travel should be
permitted. When should restaurants be allowed to have unlimited
numbers of customers in attendance? When should cruise ships
be allowed to resume cruises. Should they get tested for
infection before being allowed to book a cruise?

I expect there will be lots of posts after the fa Act about the
mistakes made in starting .the economy. I do hope some thought
is being done by the various government agency on loosing the
restrictions.

Dan


Maybe folks think things wills just start back up again as
employers call employees back to assess what logistics are
required to 'tool up the factory' again. Whether the 'factory'
is an actual factory or just a small business.

I would rather talk about removing an extremely dangerous
element
that poses immediate danger to use all.

Donald John Trump is STILL being allowed to damage our nation
further with his ZERO skill inability to perform efficaciously in
ANY task, much less this moment of crisis.

His IMMEDIATE removal would be a great first step.

There. I participated. Some will not like it, but THAT is the
right first step.

Thanks for participating.

Unfortunately there are a lot of things that are not practical.
Removing of Trump may be one of those things. He might be able to
be removed in the next general election. But my guess is he will
be reelected. This is just what I believe will happen.

Another thing I think will happen is that the government will
remove all the restrictions while there are still new cases
concurring. And that is why I think how the economy is restarted
is important.

Dan

You do not seem to have a grasp of what "crippling death rate"
means.

The failure was not testing or developing a quick test. Tracking
is crucial.

We ARE going to re-bump, and it will also be wosre that it should
be or could be.

We are not doing enough and it is NOT about the damned homemade
masks the stay at home folks "should" wear when they go to the store.

What one should do when traversing to the store is parctice good
brething procedures while you are there, mask or not. You are taking
a chance on YOU getting it no matter what you do short of a full
sealed face mask and fed air. You are *helping* keep down any chance
of there being any cloud in a closed space if you do wear a mask.
The best thing is to refrain from talking in closed spaces without a
mask to capture your spittle, just like the surgeons do.

The guys (viruses) are too little for such a low level mask to
actually stop it, so you can still get it with a mask on from a
local, closed space 'cloud' of air in a poorly ventilated setting..
They are not to help YOU they are to help you refrain from
aeresolizing YOUR spittle and breath. ie help others. ie help by
not being a potential contributing transmission vector.