Up to two thirds of people who die from coronavirus in the n

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:39:53 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

Some estimate the Florida is already underwater due to global warming. I think some of the stupid MFs still estimate that despite the facts, they are that ignorant.

There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-03-30 12:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)

Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.

Good health to you both.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 1:58:34 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

But if you get sicker faster, you spend less time wandering around infecting other people, and the virus gets propagated less effectively.

John Larkin really doesn't understand the implications of the theory of evolution.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 3:01:35 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

So Fred claims to live in Hubei Province. The first reported patient started getting treated there on the 1st December (though it took a while for people to realise that it was new disease).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:23:19 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:23:29 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2020-03-30 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. [...]

Yes, but do you realize why?

Sure. There are lots of explanations around.

None of which you understand. In fact they are all the same explanation, but John Larkin doesn't understand any of the expositions well enough to realise it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:42:25 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Unfortunately antibodies don't last forever. Right now, their statistics about the number of people infected and mortality are way off. They don't have nearly enough samples, and the samples they do have are skewed toward people requiring hospitalization. And they're declaring COVID-19 as the cause of death in these older people with very severe complicating conditions, such as being on the verge of respiratory failure going into their illness, when they should be declaring cause of death as the lung condition due to complications from corona.

If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 3:34:37 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

In the fatuous hope of getting support for your fatuous "everybody has already had a mild case of Covid-19" theory.

Dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:59:35 PM UTC+11, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:39:59 PM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

Yeah, but 7 billion is only NEAR all the people on the planet (7.8 billion), and it's closer to the truth than
6 billion would have been. The number is probably correct enough for planning purposes.
You do realize, the exponential growth rate can easily reach that figure (unless already-got-over-it individuals become so prevalent that they block contact of the 'few' infectious folk with the 'unaffected' remnant of the population.

Apparently once 60% of the population (4.7 billion peole) have had Covid-19, herd immunity is high to stop it propagating as an epidemic - somebody was pontificating about it on our TV last night.

Getting there would kill close to 50 million people, which isn't a great idea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 31/03/20 00:39, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

The odd are that the vast majority of people will become infected if
they come into contact with others who are infected. That's the way
infections work.

There are only two groups who will not become infected - those who
remain totally isolated from the rest of the population (think of those
in Antarctica, for example, and those in other extremely remote areas
who see no others for months at a time - maybe some Amazon tribes, etc).
The other group will be those who are naturally resistant to the
infection. Quite probably there will be a few - those whose genes are
sufficiently different from everyone else to prevent the virus replicating.

--

Jeff

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 4:39:59 PM UTC-7, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

Yeah, but 7 billion is only NEAR all the people on the planet (7.8 billion), and it's closer to the truth than
6 billion would have been. The number is probably correct enough for planning purposes.
You do realize, the exponential growth rate can easily reach that figure (unless already-got-over-it
individuals become so prevalent that they block contact of the 'few' infectious folk with
the 'unaffected' remnant of the population.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:55:46 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.

Meaningless unless you propose a different number, and have logic to connect it
to known data. Criticism ought to be knowledge-BUILDING, not just nebulous
characterizations.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 29/03/2020 19:34, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific
adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and
epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down.

That might be kinder than using our advanced technology to keep them
alive just to suffer in a situation where recovery is impossible and
pain relief doesn't really work. We don't treat our pets so cruelly.

He is not alone in suggesting that the present strategy to save obvious
lives now may lead to an even greater loss of life later due to the
damage inflicted on the economy. A professor of risk management at
Bristol university has modelled this and he reckons that if UK GDP falls
by more than 6.5% it will kill more people than the virus. I'm not
entirely convinced by his argument but it is a distinct possibility.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1260175/coronavirus-uk-warning-economic-crisis-death-toll-covid-19-latest-update

Click on the picture to get the radio commentary. It was on BBC R4 about
1pm last Friday if you want to get the full interview. His paper isn't
published yet and I don't know where to find economics preprints.

Only the Depress (so named for its sky is falling apocalypse headlines)
has picked up on this particular story BBC online hasn't. MSN has:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/why-economic-crash-could-cost-more-lives-than-coronavirus/ar-BB11GWfH

I think he may well have a valid point. Another right wing commentator
in the UK who I seldom agree with and is in the very at risk population
put it slightly differently. His point was that keeping baby boomers
alive for a few more months or years by mortgaging the future of the
next generation is selfish and unfair. Politicians tend to be old.
(very few normal young people in the UK can buy a home today unless
their parents are seriously rich - house prices are beyond their reach)

The mess in India caused by the ill thought out implementation of a
national lock down will probably cause more mass casualties than the
virus. The mass migration of the poor will also spread the virus out of
the cities into remote rural areas ill prepared to deal with a pandemic.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 8:55:51 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-03-30 12:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)

Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.

Good health to you both.

This is the current statistics for my county:

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

 

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:41:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 2:53:53 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 8:18:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 2:35:08 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)

It's reported in the UK Daily Telegraph, which is an up-market source of right-wing rubbish.

I suppose that fact that two thirds of Covid-19 victims might have died from some other cause within a year is supposed to be comforting for the other third, who wouldn't have.

The fact that the guy is an epidemiologist doesn't make his extremely speculative predictions about the age-composition of the potential victims all that interesting.

It's not going to help the UK get their Covid-19 epidemic under control

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

There were only 2546 new cases on the 28th March, which is down from 2885 on the 27th March, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, as Italy demonstrates.

The same criteria is going to be used to ration ventilators in overwhelmed hospitals right now.

What criterion is that?

snipped Fred getting hysterical about the fact that hospitals prioritise the candidates for treatment with scarce resources. It's called triage, and it's been around since doctors had treatments that worked.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's not what triage is. Triage relates to ranking the incoming in accordance with urgency of treatment.

tri¡age
/trēˈäZH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(in medical use) the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties.

Rationing resources is not triage. Making a decision as to whether a person is a waste of scarce resource is not triage.

 

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:54:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:42:25 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Unfortunately antibodies don't last forever. Right now, their statistics about the number of people infected and mortality are way off. They don't have nearly enough samples, and the samples they do have are skewed toward people requiring hospitalization. And they're declaring COVID-19 as the cause of death in these older people with very severe complicating conditions, such as being on the verge of respiratory failure going into their illness, when they should be declaring cause of death as the lung condition due to complications from corona.

If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people. Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of. Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 00:03:04 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:55:46 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.

Meaningless unless you propose a different number, and have logic to connect it
to known data. Criticism ought to be knowledge-BUILDING, not just nebulous
characterizations.

Look at the JHU site. Cases have already peaked in most of Europe and
are really leveling in the USA.

There are about 6K hospitals in the USA that admit about 36M patients
a year. We're running about 600 deaths a day blamed on this virus.
BUILD from that.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:54:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

(Ithis is true)
> > I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

(but this is nonsense)
> There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable...

All persons are 'vulnerable' because we're all mortal.
The inequality being expressed is NOT an observation of individual prexisting conditions, however.
It is a reminder that COVID-19 seems to kill 21 per thousand infected, and that (given
the well-known life expectancy from ALL causes of death) one year kills 14 per thousand.

So, 'up to' two-thirds (14/21) of the deaths might be of people who (hypothetically, but not necessarily
related to anythig a doctor can see) would have died within a year.

But that same statistical inequality assures us that at least one-third of the folk who die
from COVID-19 are NOT at death's door before contracting the disease. And, it might
be a lot more than one-third (it could be most).

We have no reasonable expectation from the germ theory of disease to expect that
preexisting conditions are heavily involved, only some notations from concerned doctors
about WHICH, if any, conditions are vital, with the one exception of
youth (under nine years of age, in particular).

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 9:44:00 AM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-7, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:54:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

(Ithis is true)
I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

(but this is nonsense)
There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable...

All persons are 'vulnerable' because we're all mortal.
The inequality being expressed is NOT an observation of individual prexisting conditions, however.
It is a reminder that COVID-19 seems to kill 21 per thousand infected, and that (given
the well-known life expectancy from ALL causes of death) one year kills 14 per thousand.

So, 'up to' two-thirds (14/21) of the deaths might be of people who (hypothetically, but not necessarily
related to anythig a doctor can see) would have died within a year.

But that same statistical inequality assures us that at least one-third of the folk who die
from COVID-19 are NOT at death's door before contracting the disease. And, it might
be a lot more than one-third (it could be most).

We have no reasonable expectation from the germ theory of disease to expect that
preexisting conditions are heavily involved, only some notations from concerned doctors
about WHICH, if any, conditions are vital, with the one exception of
youth (under nine years of age, in particular).

This whole discussion has not addressed the un-said imperative: are the lives of old people worth saving? After all, they're going to die soon anyway. This is a reasonable question when you are young and (seemingly) invincible, but when you, or one of your loved ones, get into the old category it becomes a hell of a lot more personal. The people that are being faced with this decision right now are doctors and nurses at hospitals being overwhelmed with new, very sick patients. Like a war-time MASH unit, they have to triage these patients to decide which ones to save. Cuomo just said he "doesn't even want to think about that situation." Well, somebody will have to.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:03:01 AM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

> This whole discussion has not addressed the un-said imperative: are the lives of old people worth saving?

That imperative has been addressed by selling a health insurance plan, or
taxing and offering health coverage to residents. It isn't open for discussion
after the victim becomes needful of care.

Honorable persons don't kick-em-when-they're-down.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 8:55:51 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-30 12:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 21:41, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman
jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 29/03/20 16:35, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.


And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)

Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.

Good health to you both.


This is the current statistics for my county:

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

If you look around the country, most counties are like this or have even fewer infections. That is not to say they won't see higher infection levels, just that they will peak later.

A web site that displays prediction curves for infection at the state level show NY peaking this week and VA peaking the end of this month or early in May. VA has a lot of rural counties with literally 2 infections currently while NY state has NY city with a quarter of all infections in the country..

I don't know for sure, but it seems NYC has a lot of disregard for the stat-at-home concept. When the USNS Comfort sailed up the Hudson River crowds gathered to view it. Really? "Crowds"??? I guess we know why NYC is infection central.

They also haven't closed the subway yet. I can't think of a better breeding ground.

--

Rick C.

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