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

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 4:21:51 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

Yes, these are the sorts of conclusions that are drawn by overly simplistic thinking and a disregard for the facts.

In other words, "IDIOT!"

--

Rick C.

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

 

FlyShit <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5855583a-b6fe-41b8-9bde-627ebfab8bb1@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 11:10:33 AM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:03:01 AM UTC-7, FlyShit 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 di
scussion
after the victim becomes needful of care.

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

A legal contract is not a "moral imperative:"

He never said "moral" imperative, you "STUPID" fuck!

A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that
person to act.

Oh boy! Like we would ever need a primer from you on anything.

It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined
by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure
reason, in its practical aspect.

Damn, boy! You been huntin' stupid shit up online again? You and
practicality are mutually exclusive, dahlink. It's twoo, it's twoo!
You stink, motherfucker!

Not following the moral law was
seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later
thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the
divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of
conscience are simply right and often resist further
justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience
is the basic experience of encountering the right.

Which is why your whore mother should be put in prison. The
severely ass fucked street slut failed us all when she failed to
flush you. And that is as simply right as it gets, FlyShit.

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 11:10:33 AM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

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.

A legal contract is not a "moral imperative:"

A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are simply right and often resist further justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience is the basic experience of encountering the right.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

Sorry, you fucked up that one. The rate of new cases is approaching a leveling. For the number of cases to level off requires a much more pronounced change in the infection rate.

I was just telling a friend yesterday that I was concerned that "less knowledgeable" people would take a leveling off of the new infection rate to indicate we can relax. The US infection rate has not yet leveled off and needs to be REDUCED by a large amount. In China they didn't consider relaxing restrictions until the new infection rate was at zero for several days in the affected areas. Other parts of the country are still in lock down.

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.

Please apply that thinking to New York City. Many other cities in the US are in the early stages of the same thing. BUILD from THAT!

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:44:00 PM UTC-4, 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.

We all are vulnerable because when the hospital facilities are overwhelmed it doesn't matter WHY you need them, there won't be enough to go around. It's not like CV patients will be giving second priority. They will weigh every case on its merits and many with other diseases will not receive treatment.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 1:03:01 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

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.

The problem with using age as a medical parameter is that there is only a loose association with medical condition. I have a friend who is 93. He has no medical issues requiring treatment other than vision. In spite of the average life expectancy of 3 years, there is no reason he won't live to be 100 or more. That live expectancy included many who have serious medical conditions and are being treated for such.

The point is the life expectancy is not a result of age, but of medical condition that happens to correlate with age. He would deserve treatment over someone in their 20's who has illnesses and a less chance of living.

Age is not a medical condition. Averages don't tell you how a patient will fare. Look at medical conditions.

--

Rick C.

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

 

I just read that a few old people have survived it. Two of them over 100 years old, one with COPD.

I attribute it partly to the fact that they have immune systems not poked by 100 vaccines at birth. I am not anti-vax but I think they go too far. In fact there are data that strongly suggest that too many vaccines bring on more allergies. Allergies are an improper (we think...) immune system response to (hopefully) harmless stimuli.

At 10 years old you were born in 1920, maybe 1921. the infant mortality rate had been cut down considerable from levels the century before. However they only got maybe 4 vaccines. So it was probably more attributable to better postnatal care and procedures. some were still born on kitchen tables, a friend of mine, his Father was born in a speakeasy. In neither case was good post partum care available. They didn't need so much prenatal care because the food was better and they were generally healthier. But still the laws of nature are that not all survive.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:06:20 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

I just read that a few old people have survived it. Two of them over 100 years old, one with COPD.

I attribute it partly to the fact that they have immune systems not poked by 100 vaccines at birth. I am not anti-vax but I think they go too far. In fact there are data that strongly suggest that too many vaccines bring on more allergies. Allergies are an improper (we think...) immune system response to (hopefully) harmless stimuli.

At 10 years old you were born in 1920, maybe 1921. the infant mortality rate had been cut down considerable from levels the century before. However they only got maybe 4 vaccines. So it was probably more attributable to better postnatal care and procedures. some were still born on kitchen tables, a friend of mine, his Father was born in a speakeasy. In neither case was good post partum care available. They didn't need so much prenatal care because the food was better and they were generally healthier. But still the laws of nature are that not all survive.

You are talking about people born at a time of less postpartum care, but also a much higher infant mortality.

Nothing you've said makes any sense. In particular that "a few old people survived it". Even among the very old the mortality rate is not 100% or anywhere near it.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:06:13 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

I just read that a few old people have survived it. Two of them over 100 years old, one with COPD.

I attribute it partly to the fact that they have immune systems not poked by 100 vaccines at birth. I am not anti-vax but I think they go too far. In fact there are data that strongly suggest that too many vaccines bring on more allergies. Allergies are an improper (we think...) immune system response to (hopefully) harmless stimuli.

At 10 years old you were born in 1920, maybe 1921. the infant mortality rate had been cut down considerable from levels the century before. However they only got maybe 4 vaccines. So it was probably more attributable to better postnatal care and procedures. some were still born on kitchen tables, a friend of mine, his Father was born in a speakeasy. In neither case was good post partum care available. They didn't need so much prenatal care because the food was better and they were generally healthier. But still the laws of nature are that not all survive.

I was born (not conceived) in the back of my uncle's 1936 Ford. He
resented my bleeding all over the seat.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 1:02:19 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

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:

<snip>

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 example was a first world person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

> The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

> 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.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

> Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious..

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

> 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.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.

I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 1:08:54 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

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.

Order of treatment is rationing a scarce resource - doctors available to start treating a particular patient.

> Rationing resources is not triage.

If the doctors available to treat patients are seen as a resource, then triage is exactly that.

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

If there's only so much resource available - less than than required to treat every patient who would get an advantage from it - triage does involve making life and death decisions.

Ignoring the fact that the doctors available are a resource which has to be rationed is a fine way of obscuring what's going on, but still utterly idiotic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 31/03/2020 20:10, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 4:21:51 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
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.

Yes, these are the sorts of conclusions that are drawn by overly simplistic thinking and a disregard for the facts.

Actually they are the sort of conclusions that people who properly
understand risk management come to after considering *ALL* of the facts.

> In other words, "IDIOT!"

Nature is the final arbiter in these things.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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 example was a first world person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage. That woman never even tested positive for the virus and she actually died of heart attack. She looks like one of those anorexic types addicted to hydroxycut:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

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.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15..

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

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.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.

I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:46:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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).

Disease spreads begins in fits and starts. It does not start to trend smoothly until you have an already large infected population. The COVID-19 was already infecting well in advance of November-December 2019 time frame. And it was in U.S. probably in September 2019 or earlier. The public health authorities will never acknowledge that because it belies their total lack of surveillance capability in that regard. Something they have been warned about for the past 30 years that I am personally aware of, and never did anything about.
The U.S is a case history in total absence of preparedness in addition to the ultimate incompetence in organizing themselves once the disaster was upon them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 31/03/2020 15:02, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

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:

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

You might want to consider the large number of perfectly healthy medics
that the disease has already killed in Italy then. It has killed a
couple of medics in the UK and two perfectly healthy teenagers as well.

It works roughly like your entire annual risk of dying compressed into a
week of coronavirus according to the analysis by David Spiegelhalter

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-covid-represent-4539118e1196

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 31/03/2020 15:08, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

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:

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.


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.

Triage is originally a military term which roughly categorises
casualties according to the severity of their injuries:

Will survive anyway
Will survive if treated promptly
Will die anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage#History

It was one of the positive outcomes of the Napoleonic Wars.

One UK medical practice has got into trouble today by sending people for
whom resuscitation makes no sense Do Not Resuscitate forms to fill in.
It is a brutal truth that for those frail over 70's with underlying
health conditions the chances of rescuss working are slim -a t most 10%.

Telling people that is a little insensitive but is also realistic. The
TV soaps where more than 80% recover cause unreasonable expectations.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 11:14:46 PM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:46:47 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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).

Disease spreads begins in fits and starts. It does not start to trend smoothly until you have an already large infected population. The COVID-19 was already infecting well in advance of November-December 2019 time frame.

Obviously. Patient zero got it from somewhere. It would be neat if he got it from a bat, but it's just a likely that it got from somebody who had got a mild case from a bat.

Go back any further and you'd have had more sick people in Wuhan in December that were actually observed.

> And it was in U.S. probably in September 2019 or earlier.

Brought over by bats piggy-backing on flying pigs. The disease gets noticed because it makes about 20% of the people who get it seriously or critically ill in way that looks odd to doctors, and it's pretty infectious.

If you had it in the US in September, you'd have noticed. They managed to notice when ot got to Iran, where hypochondriacs are thinner on the ground.

> The public health authorities will never acknowledge that because it belies their total lack of surveillance capability in that regard.

That's one of the less plausible hypotheses you've come up with.

> Something they have been warned about for the past 30 years that I am personally aware of, and never did anything about.

Not strictly true. You've claimed that they were warned about corona viruses, but when you came up with an example of the kind of warning you meant, it listed a whole grab-bag of possible zoonoses, and siad that the was no way of predicting which one would cause the next epidemic.

> The U.S is a case history in total absence of preparedness in addition to the ultimate incompetence in organizing themselves once the disaster was upon them.

They've done remarkably badly. China had beaten the disease in Wuhan before it got away in the US and the US now has 188,647 cases - more twice as many as China has had, with about a quarter of the population to infect, and there were 24742 new cases there on the 31st March, when China peaked at about a tenth of that.

Trump hasn't got much of attention span and his administrative team is picked for their skills as sycophants, but it's still a remarkably poor performance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 8:46:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 10:59:51 PM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


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 example was a first world person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage.

The BBC is about as main stream as main media gets.

That woman never even tested positive for the virus and she actually died of heart attack. She looks like one of those anorexic types addicted to hydroxycut:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

Spiked is rather less relaible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

You conveniently ignore the specifics of your example case. I think the latest buzz phrase for that is cognitive dissonance.

https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

I'm sure you think you know what happened on the other side of the world.
It wouldn't be wise to trust your medical judgement.

This particular doctor was not only working as a clinician but he was managing the entire response in his region. My explanation of cause of death is definitive.

was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

In other words, immunisation doesn't work. The ignorance is all yours.

Immunization is all about increasing the speed of response to infection. That's how it works. Have you worked through a single textbook of immunology in your entire life? Don't bother answering, I know the answer.

You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

By which you mean I've disagreed with your ignorant half-assed statements..

LOL- my statements are not opinion.

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.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Nothing seems to inform you.

Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

Who would that be? In fact what seems to work is rigorous contact tracing and isolating anybody who might have got infected. South Korea got that to work without any lock-down, but lock-down does limit the number of contacts you have to isolate.

Since R0 is dependent on social behaviour, which varies a lot from person to person and from time to time, a single number is a fairly gross simplification, but it's good enough for explaining what going on.

Who gives a damn what's going on. Even the most primitive herd animals, as well as jungle dwelling baboons, to whom your intellect most closely matches at this point, know how to recognize a sick animal and stay clear.

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.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.

I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

Getting vaccinated is the one that works best. Not getting infected is just good but harder to sustain.

You're not going to see a vaccine in your lifetime.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 8:44:00 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/03/2020 15:08, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
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:

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.


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.

Triage is originally a military term which roughly categorises
casualties according to the severity of their injuries:

Will survive anyway
Will survive if treated promptly
Will die anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage#History

It was one of the positive outcomes of the Napoleonic Wars.

One UK medical practice has got into trouble today by sending people for
whom resuscitation makes no sense Do Not Resuscitate forms to fill in.
It is a brutal truth that for those frail over 70's with underlying
health conditions the chances of rescuss working are slim -a t most 10%.

Telling people that is a little insensitive but is also realistic. The
TV soaps where more than 80% recover cause unreasonable expectations.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

People just went bonkers over this leaked resource allocation plan from Michigan:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/27/health/michigan-henry-ford-letter-coronavirus/index.html

It involves a lot more than triage as it's traditionally understood, especially the part about removing people from ongoing treatment.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/27/health/michigan-henry-ford-letter-coronavirus/index.html

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 10:59:51 PM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


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 example was a first world person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage.

The BBC is about as main stream as main media gets.

That woman never even tested positive for the virus and she actually died of heart attack. She looks like one of those anorexic types addicted to hydroxycut:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

Spiked is rather less relaible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

I'm sure you think you know what happened on the other side of the world.
It wouldn't be wise to trust your medical judgement.

was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

In other words, immunisation doesn't work. The ignorance is all yours.

> You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

By which you mean I've disagreed with your ignorant half-assed statements.

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.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Nothing seems to inform you.

Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

Who would that be? In fact what seems to work is rigorous contact tracing and isolating anybody who might have got infected. South Korea got that to work without any lock-down, but lock-down does limit the number of contacts you have to isolate.

Since R0 is dependent on social behaviour, which varies a lot from person to person and from time to time, a single number is a fairly gross simplification, but it's good enough for explaining what going on.

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.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.

I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

Getting vaccinated is the one that works best. Not getting infected is just good but harder to sustain.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney