Past the peak, now what?

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 9:11:47 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 10/04/2020 12:55, mpm wrote:

Really? Because in the United States, the mobile phone networks
routinely retain that data (and more) for at least TEN YEARS.

Not sure how long they keep such data in the UK.

If they don't keep it a long time it greatly diminishes the potential use. Storing data is a whole lot easier than storing physical items. Back when cables were the name for a telegram sent over an undersea cable they used paper tape to send the telegrams. They provided copies to the NSA (or whatever it was called back then) before they were sent over the cable. Then they were saved... a long time.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

fredag den 10. april 2020 kl. 13.55.08 UTC+2 skrev mpm:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 2:17:15 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Carrying a mobile phone tells the mobile phone network where you are at any given time. The police have long since taken to telling the networks to keep that data on file for a couple of weeks in case the police find themselves needing it.

Really?
Because in the United States, the mobile phone networks routinely retain that data (and more) for at least TEN YEARS.

here the carriers are required to keep location data for 5 years, in case
authorities request it, but they'll need to get a warrant

our ~equivalent to the CDC would like to use the location data, but as far I understand carriers have refused until they are sure of legality

 

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 8:07:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 08/04/2020 23:35, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 4:44:30 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 08/04/2020 20:31, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

Sweden does not have control at all - not remotely. It has exponential
increases in the cases and deaths, it is losing control in the hospitals
in Stockholm, several key epidemiologists are now publicly warning of a
looming disaster, and they don't even know how many deaths they have had
(they've changed the way they count several times).

Thanks for that info. However, the point remains that, starting from
the same growth rate, Swedes have lowered their exponent to comparable
or less than the U.S.', without shutting down.

There is always a delay between shutting down, and the shutdown having
an effect on the numbers. There are also many other factors involved -
some inevitable (such as the denser population in cities in the USA),
some cultural (such as the vastly different health systems), and some
dynamic (such as the very poor early testing in the USA - a certain part
of your growth of known cases is due to more testing).

You're over complicating the issues. Our excellent healthcare -- the
care people get once infected -- has little bearing on people getting
infected in the first place. Health care beyond basic supportive care
might not even change outcomes, much.

I agree that healthcare of infected people in hospital does not affect
infection rates (unless it is so bad that significant numbers of people
get infected in hospitals).

Healthcare systems affect who goes to the doctor, and who goes to
hospital - and there the US system is worse than any other western
democracy.

You're assuming visiting a doctor reduces infection rates, you're
assuming that happens less in the United States, you're assuming
something not particularly clear about hospitals, and you're
assuming all sorts of unmerited things about the U.S. health system.

That's over complicating the issue unnecessarily. Most of your
assumptions are unmerited but they're also irrelevant, as we'll
soon see, because they're contradicted by the empirical evidence.

> Your inferior welfare system is also a significant factor.

Then why is Europe so much worse off?

How did the Red Death manage to sweep so far uncontrolled across Europe,
given all your assumptions about ready-access to socialized medical care
and an extensive welfare state preventing that? Why didn't those save
you?

Does this mean Europe and the U.K. have inferior medical systems,
doctors that are harder to access, and inferior welfare states?

I mean, you've assumed these things should save a country, and that
lack of these produced what you consider an inadequate response in
the U.S. But the U.S. had much better results than yours. The U.S.
had better initial containment, lower infections rates, and lower
spread. That's despite the testing, despite non-socialized medicine,
despite all your hypothetical defects.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions -- developing a theory --
without checking its ramifications empirically, to see if they make
sense.

Testing is another faux controversy -- Europe had far more cases
and initially a 2-4x higher infection rate than the U.S., despite
whatever testing. Europe was COVID-swarmed weeks before the U.S.,
because Europe failed to cut off their inflow of infected individuals.
Testing, testing, testing while new vectors keep flowing in is
a losing proposition.

Good testing lets you know the state of the disease, and lets you
isolate carriers faster. But it is only part of the solution.

Well then why did Europe have a so much greater spread than the United
States? Viruses spread, so the U.S. may catch Europe eventually. But
by all the things you argue being deficient here, Europe should've
had less spread in the early stages, and instead it was a lot worse.

Your theory of COVID-testing-preventing-spread is full of assumptions
you haven't tested, such as assuming 1. a few initial cases whom you
2. can identify and test, and that 3. identifying them means they're
then magically non-spreaders.

But that fails completely if there are a) people without symptoms
who will not seek testing, b) people who mistake their symptoms for
something else, c) if the disease is already too widely disseminated
to catch the potential spreaders, and for many other reasons that,
in fact, apply.

So, simple-mindedly assuming that testing allows one to isolate and
stop this contagion is a superficial narrative, a hypothesis that falls
apart on inspection and in real-life experience. Otherwise, Europe
wouldn't have had the spread that Europe in fact had.

Running around testing doesn't stop the spread. COVID-19 experience
has demonstrated that was a lot of expense and distraction, for not
much obvious control.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 13/4/20 12:57 pm, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 8:07:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
Your inferior welfare system is also a significant factor.
Then why is Europe so much worse off?

Good testing lets you know the state of the disease, and lets you
isolate carriers faster. But it is only part of the solution.

Well then why did Europe have a so much greater spread than the United
States?

It probably has a lot to do with the number of people who live in small
apartments, so they go out to public parks and other places with shared
facilities.

You really can't compare Europe with (most of) America.

CH

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 12:57:30 PM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 8:07:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 08/04/2020 23:35, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 4:44:30 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 08/04/2020 20:31, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

<snip>

Your theory of COVID-testing-preventing-spread is full of assumptions
you haven't tested, such as assuming 1. a few initial cases whom you
2. can identify and test, and that 3. identifying them means they're
then magically non-spreaders.

If you are coughing and sneezing you can be identified and tested.

Once you've been identified as infected by Covid-19 you should locked down in isolation where you won't spread the disease to anybody else. It's called quarantine and there's nothing magical about it.

But that fails completely if there are a) people without symptoms
who will not seek testing,

Once there's an epidemic in progress, anybody coming from an infected area gets quarantined for long enough - 14 days with Covid-19 - to make sure that they won't give it to anybody else even if they infected, but symptom free.

b) people who mistake their symptoms for
something else,

If you are coming from an area where the disease is epidemic, you get quarantined, no matter what you symptoms (or non-symptoms) might look like to you.

c) if the disease is already too widely disseminated

to catch the potential spreaders, and for many other reasons that,
in fact, apply.

This seems to reflect that US theory that once you've got an epidemic going there's nothing you can do to slow it down. Places like Singapore,Taiwan, China and South Korea subscribe to other theories, and don't seem to have nearly as many dead people.

So, simple-mindedly assuming that testing allows one to isolate and
stop this contagion is a superficial narrative, a hypothesis that falls
apart on inspection and in real-life experience. Otherwise, Europe
wouldn't have had the spread that Europe in fact had.

You've got to get the timing right. Italy and Spain did too little too late, and the UK seems to have got onto the same trajectory.

Running around testing doesn't stop the spread.

Obviously not. It's what you can do - after being informed by the data you can get by testing lots of people - that can make a difference.

> COVID-19 experience has demonstrated that was a lot of expense and distraction, for not much obvious control.

The US had a scandalous shortage of Covid-19 test kits early on.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/worldwide-covid-19-testing-ratio-per-country-million/1800124

shows that it isn't exactly a world leader, even now.

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

shows that the US infection rate - at 1,693 per million inhabitants - isn't that bad. But the half the Covid-19 infections in the US are concentrated in just three states - New York, New Jersey and Louisiana, and their infection rates at 9,655, 6,964 and 4,416 are high by international standards - only San Marino and Vatican City have done worse than New York.

Nothing suggests that the adjacent states aren't going to get as bad, given a few more weeks of Trump posing as somebody who knows what he is doing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:a01a368c-4d25-4865-
8b89-233657236516@googlegroups.com:

If you are coughing and sneezing you can be identified and tested.

I cough and sneeze every morning from my allergies for about 15 to 20
minutes. Never took any allergy pills. Never will. I also cough and
hack a lot when I am on the bike in cold weather. I have been coughing
and sneezing and hacking for decades.

If anything heavy expectoration, as long as it is properly directed,
is probably good for the person doing it as it rids the body of mucus
containing suspended particulates like dust germs and virus spores.

Keeping all that shit in there likely exacerbates any infection.

You body responds by making mucus so you can EXPELL all that crap
trying to kill you.

 

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 19:57:26 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 8:07:01 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 08/04/2020 23:35, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 4:44:30 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 08/04/2020 20:31, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 1:02:49 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

Sweden does not have control at all - not remotely. It has exponential
increases in the cases and deaths, it is losing control in the hospitals
in Stockholm, several key epidemiologists are now publicly warning of a
looming disaster, and they don't even know how many deaths they have had
(they've changed the way they count several times).

Thanks for that info. However, the point remains that, starting from
the same growth rate, Swedes have lowered their exponent to comparable
or less than the U.S.', without shutting down.

There is always a delay between shutting down, and the shutdown having
an effect on the numbers. There are also many other factors involved -
some inevitable (such as the denser population in cities in the USA),
some cultural (such as the vastly different health systems), and some
dynamic (such as the very poor early testing in the USA - a certain part
of your growth of known cases is due to more testing).

You're over complicating the issues. Our excellent healthcare -- the
care people get once infected -- has little bearing on people getting
infected in the first place. Health care beyond basic supportive care
might not even change outcomes, much.

I agree that healthcare of infected people in hospital does not affect
infection rates (unless it is so bad that significant numbers of people
get infected in hospitals).

Healthcare systems affect who goes to the doctor, and who goes to
hospital - and there the US system is worse than any other western
democracy.

You're assuming visiting a doctor reduces infection rates, you're
assuming that happens less in the United States, you're assuming
something not particularly clear about hospitals, and you're
assuming all sorts of unmerited things about the U.S. health system.

That's over complicating the issue unnecessarily. Most of your
assumptions are unmerited but they're also irrelevant, as we'll
soon see, because they're contradicted by the empirical evidence.

Your inferior welfare system is also a significant factor.

Then why is Europe so much worse off?

How did the Red Death manage to sweep so far uncontrolled across Europe,
given all your assumptions about ready-access to socialized medical care
and an extensive welfare state preventing that? Why didn't those save
you?

Does this mean Europe and the U.K. have inferior medical systems,
doctors that are harder to access, and inferior welfare states?

I mean, you've assumed these things should save a country, and that
lack of these produced what you consider an inadequate response in
the U.S. But the U.S. had much better results than yours. The U.S.
had better initial containment, lower infections rates, and lower
spread. That's despite the testing, despite non-socialized medicine,
despite all your hypothetical defects.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions -- developing a theory --
without checking its ramifications empirically, to see if they make
sense.

Most people "think" by accepting a preferred conclusion, then find or
make up reasons why it must be so, and find evidence that it is so.

Testing is another faux controversy -- Europe had far more cases
and initially a 2-4x higher infection rate than the U.S., despite
whatever testing. Europe was COVID-swarmed weeks before the U.S.,
because Europe failed to cut off their inflow of infected individuals.
Testing, testing, testing while new vectors keep flowing in is
a losing proposition.

Good testing lets you know the state of the disease, and lets you
isolate carriers faster. But it is only part of the solution.

Well then why did Europe have a so much greater spread than the United
States? Viruses spread, so the U.S. may catch Europe eventually. But
by all the things you argue being deficient here, Europe should've
had less spread in the early stages, and instead it was a lot worse.

Your theory of COVID-testing-preventing-spread is full of assumptions
you haven't tested, such as assuming 1. a few initial cases whom you
2. can identify and test, and that 3. identifying them means they're
then magically non-spreaders.

But that fails completely if there are a) people without symptoms
who will not seek testing, b) people who mistake their symptoms for
something else, c) if the disease is already too widely disseminated
to catch the potential spreaders, and for many other reasons that,
in fact, apply.

So, simple-mindedly assuming that testing allows one to isolate and
stop this contagion is a superficial narrative, a hypothesis that falls
apart on inspection and in real-life experience. Otherwise, Europe
wouldn't have had the spread that Europe in fact had.

Running around testing doesn't stop the spread.

But it sure bends the data.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:44:55 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:a01a368c-4d25-4865-
8b89-233657236516@googlegroups.com:


If you are coughing and sneezing you can be identified and tested.


I cough and sneeze every morning from my allergies for about 15 to 20
minutes. Never took any allergy pills. Never will. I also cough and
hack a lot when I am on the bike in cold weather. I have been coughing
and sneezing and hacking for decades.

Try a nasal steriod spray. Flonase is over-the-counter now. It's a
miracle drug.

I used Flonase spray for decades and it killed my springtime nasal
pollen allergies, but I eventually got allergic to some ingredient and
got a mild sore throat [1]. Now I use the children's version of
Nasacort which doesn't seem to have that side effect.

The older Cromolyn Sodium spray is pretty good, not as good as the
steroids, but has no side effects for me. That's the fallback if I
develop problems with the Nasacort.

It's high pollen season here now.

[1] which an idiot ENT misdiagnosed as presby larynx. ENTs seem to
come from the bottom of the med school classes.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:ugt89fp4n969cdet8s248n2co9csu9sb23@4ax.com:

Try a nasal steriod spray. Flonase is over-the-counter now. It's a
miracle drug.

No, IDIOT! Learn to read what I wrote.

Never have... never will. And oh looky, no lifelong reliance on a
chemical.

Get a clue, dumbfuck. My morning allergy response is mild
specifically because I let my own body manage it.

Ricin would be a miracle drug if ALL of the idiots like you in the
world took it.

 

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:37:47 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:ugt89fp4n969cdet8s248n2co9csu9sb23@4ax.com:

Try a nasal steriod spray. Flonase is over-the-counter now. It's a
miracle drug.


No, IDIOT! Learn to read what I wrote.

A simple "thank you" would have been a suitable response.

OK, I tried to help. I won't do that again.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:u2399fh7q3ctjsiib8nancmkmhvknc4kvq@4ax.com:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:37:47 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:ugt89fp4n969cdet8s248n2co9csu9sb23@4ax.com:

Try a nasal steriod spray. Flonase is over-the-counter now. It's
a
miracle drug.


No, IDIOT! Learn to read what I wrote.

A simple "thank you" would have been a suitable response.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you would not have made your
uninformed suggestion.

OK, I tried to help.

No, you didn't. It was another "I know something and you do not"
Larkin thing.

> I won't do that again.

You have yet to 'do it' to start with. You have ALWAYS had unkind
words for me, all the while acting like I am so offensive for calling
you the piece of shit that you are for doing it.

I now know why. It is a republican standard MO thing. Something I
did not know about when I thought it meant being conservative.
You're just a fucking idiot. There r=are a LOT of posts folks make
which you only give a cursory glance at and then post something
stupid.

I've been around decades, dork boy. Why would you think I would
have never heard of antihistamines? Oh, that's right, you were not
really trying to help... more just trying to inflame as usual.

Oh and steroids increase the odds of the occurance of cataracts.

Good job of "helping". Not.

Again, IF you had read what I wrote, inflame boy, it would have
been obvious to you that I do the daily wheez as a regimen and do not
want or need your histamine manipulating ASSistance.