US COVID-19 Infection Rate Still not Peaked

[Clifford Heath]

On 21/4/20 3:20 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:45 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
Even this years seasonal
influenza is killing more people than C19 but we didn't shut down the
economy in much worse flu years.

Not here, it's not. So far this April Australia has had only 99
influenza cases, compared to 18,000 for the same period last year.

Bit of a reduction, isn't it?

Isolation works.

18K laboratory confirmed flu cases last season. 6K (lab confirmed?)
corona cases so far this season.

Whose arse did you pull those numbers from? The numbers I quoted were
for the first *three weeks* of April (the start of our season).

We had 310,000 flu cases last season, and 900 deaths. That's bad, but
not even 1/3 the ratio of COVID19.

You can't just get away with making up numbers, not in this, and not in
electronics either.

So what's special about corona? Why didn't Australia isolate and
prevent those 18K cases last season?

Because (a) the number wasn't 18,0000 (b) it didn't kill proportionately
many people (c) we have a vaccine for it (d) people who recover almost
never have ongoing issues from it and (e) it didn't threaten to
imminently become 2,000,000 cases with at least 20,000 or more deaths.

At least make an attempt to get your facts straight. Numbers don't lie,
but you do.

CH

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 3:20:54 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:45 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 21/4/20 12:44 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:40:28 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
Now rather than quibbling about which word we should use to describe the
growth function, can we please address the question:
"How many dead (or lifelong debilitated) people is too many?"
My question has been, what's special about this virus? On the
scale of winter killers, it's modest.

No, it's not modest. It's *epic*, anywhere strict control hasn't
occurred. It's bad enough where control has been only localised or only
partly effective.

And we just don't know how long any immunity lasts. We don't know if
there will *ever* be a vaccine - we have never succeeded in making an
effective vaccine to *any* corona virus.

Eradication is the *only* goal for a nation that wants to continue to be
a member of a global society. Apparently, the USA has abandoned that
goal. Start defaulting on your debt to the Chinese and you won't even
have a shirt to wear.

Even this years seasonal
influenza is killing more people than C19 but we didn't shut down the
economy in much worse flu years.

Not here, it's not. So far this April Australia has had only 99
influenza cases, compared to 18,000 for the same period last year.

Bit of a reduction, isn't it?

Isolation works.

18K laboratory confirmed flu cases last season. 6K (lab confirmed?)
corona cases so far this season.

So what's special about corona?

As we seem to have to keep reminding you a Covid-19 infection is a lot more likely to kill you than a flu infection., and it kills way more younger people than flu does.

> Why didn't Australia isolate and prevent those 18K cases last season?

They did offer anti-flu vaccinations - free for people as old as I am.

> Will Australia isolate in the future for every flu or cold epidemic?

Probably not.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:13:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:24:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:25:37 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

If one allows negative exponents, an RC decay is exponential virtually
forever (ignoring quantum and thermal effects). So, a physical
process that 'grows exponentially forever' can be an RC decay, viewed
in the inverse voltage as the dependent variable.

Count me in.
Spice it if you don't believe it.

So grows = decays now?

Why the question? Can't you work it out, or Spice it?
Yes, exponential laws of decay of one variable are laws of growth of the
reciprocal variable. It's obvious.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 21/04/2020 03:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:31:02 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 21/4/20 4:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:48:38 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 20/4/20 11:10 am, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
For the record, I'm not a fan of, nor do I even think it remotely appropriate, to participate in a "Let's re-open the economy" rally like this while being openly armed with semi-automatic rifles.

How many of those people protesting do you think actually understand what is meant by "exponential rate of growth"?

There's a succinct description of this:

National suicide by innumeracy.

CH

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

Who mentioned "forever"? That was *you*, I think.

"Grow to an unacceptable level" is quite enough to worry about. By the
time you start to hit the limit on available resource (population in
this case) it's already *far too many*.

You keep raising this completely spurious "grow forever" thing, only
because you have *no better argument*.

Well, several people told me that I didn't understand exponential
growth. When the slopes were already getting linear. Now they are
mostly flat or declining.

But that is because of aggressive countermeasures against the virus.
Linear growth will still infect the entire population eventually - it
just does it in time O(t) as opposed to O(ln(t)).

How about we allow a few of the deranged redneck states their chance to
commit collective suicide. That seems to be what Trump wants and he has
got his gun toting ignorant thugs protesting in various state capitals.

As is obvious to every reasonable person reading your posts.

CH

Antibody testing will tell what fraction of a closely confined
population will get it before it burns itself out. A few uncontrolled
experiments suggest something in maybe the 25% range, maybe less.

The only hard evidence so far in a very hot spot is 15% at most. The
antibody tests at present give a fair proportion of false positives so
that is still likely to be an over estimate.

Countries that started Mid-February are typically a few weeks past
peak, and some are way down. Start to peak looks like about a month.

Has anyone noticed the periodicities superimposed on many of the
new-case curves? Looks like about a week, and many show three or four
good bumps so far.

That is a reporting artefact caused by weekends and bank holidays.

And there is sometimes a huge spike on the same day all across the
world.

The jhu site is great. Zoom up onto the USA on the map, then select
"incident rate" and "testing rate" and compare the dot patterns.

Seek and ye shall find.

There are none so blind as those that won't see.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 20/04/2020 19:25, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:48:38 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 20/4/20 11:10 am, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
For the record, I'm not a fan of, nor do I even think it
remotely appropriate, to participate in a "Let's re-open the
economy" rally like this while being openly armed with
semi-automatic rifles.

How many of those people protesting do you think actually
understand what is meant by "exponential rate of growth"?

There's a succinct description of this:

National suicide by innumeracy.

CH

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

Maybe name some.

The expansion of the universe is one such - even more so now that dark
energy is making it accelerate with increasing time. Not that I am a
great fan of dark energy but the evidence for it is now pretty clear.

Even that might not go on forever though but best estimates are for at
least another 20 billion years or so before the "big rip".

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

It all goes haywire when the ever increasing cosmological expansion of
spacetime exceeds the influence of all other forces of nature.

I'm spicing and testing a circuit now that has exponential growth.
Hope that I don't get a nuclear explosion that kills everyone.

But in the real world exponential growth into a susceptible population
doesn't deviate much from being exponential until the fraction that
is immune exceeds about 30%. It becomes very obvious at 50% since by
then half the population is immune so the transmission is halved.

Nowhere on Earth has the level of this infection been allowed to get
that high although ISTR the worst cruise ships it came close to 20%.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 21/4/20 6:21 pm, Martin Brown wrote:

How about we allow a few of the deranged redneck states their chance to
commit collective suicide. That seems to be what Trump wants and he has
got his gun toting ignorant thugs protesting in various state capitals.

That would be a fine idea if (a) there weren't people deserving of
federal protection in said states and (b) it was possible to close the
borders to those states until it's over.

CH

 

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:46:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:13:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:24:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:25:37 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

If one allows negative exponents, an RC decay is exponential virtually
forever (ignoring quantum and thermal effects). So, a physical
process that 'grows exponentially forever' can be an RC decay, viewed
in the inverse voltage as the dependent variable.

Count me in.
Spice it if you don't believe it.

So grows = decays now?

Why the question? Can't you work it out, or Spice it?
Yes, exponential laws of decay of one variable are laws of growth of the
reciprocal variable. It's obvious.

If you stand on your head, it's obvious that up is down.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:21:02 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/04/2020 03:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:31:02 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 21/4/20 4:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:48:38 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 20/4/20 11:10 am, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
For the record, I'm not a fan of, nor do I even think it remotely appropriate, to participate in a "Let's re-open the economy" rally like this while being openly armed with semi-automatic rifles.

How many of those people protesting do you think actually understand what is meant by "exponential rate of growth"?

There's a succinct description of this:

National suicide by innumeracy.

CH

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

Who mentioned "forever"? That was *you*, I think.

"Grow to an unacceptable level" is quite enough to worry about. By the
time you start to hit the limit on available resource (population in
this case) it's already *far too many*.

You keep raising this completely spurious "grow forever" thing, only
because you have *no better argument*.

Well, several people told me that I didn't understand exponential
growth. When the slopes were already getting linear. Now they are
mostly flat or declining.

But that is because of aggressive countermeasures against the virus.

Except in places that didn't do that, but peaked and declined anyhow.

Linear growth will still infect the entire population eventually - it
just does it in time O(t) as opposed to O(ln(t)).

That's widely claimed and unknown and unlikely. In situations where
densely packed people were heavily exposed, a fraction of the people
got the infection. That was, or should been, determined early, to
separate a possible cold from a possible 1918. That wasn't done, and
panic was substituted.

If everyone will get it eventually, well, they will. Except they
won't.

How about we allow a few of the deranged redneck states their chance to
commit collective suicide. That seems to be what Trump wants and he has
got his gun toting ignorant thugs protesting in various state capitals.

You are being as nasty a bigot as the people you mock.

How about we allow a few deranged redneck states to keep growing and
eating their own food, and let the enlightened progressives on the
coasts starve?

I remember a bumper sticker:

LET THE BASTARDS FREEZE IN THE DARK.

Same idea.

As is obvious to every reasonable person reading your posts.

CH

Antibody testing will tell what fraction of a closely confined
population will get it before it burns itself out. A few uncontrolled
experiments suggest something in maybe the 25% range, maybe less.

The only hard evidence so far in a very hot spot is 15% at most. The
antibody tests at present give a fair proportion of false positives so
that is still likely to be an over estimate.

Then why will 100% of the population eventually get it? You just said
that. Top Scientists keep saying that.

Countries that started Mid-February are typically a few weeks past
peak, and some are way down. Start to peak looks like about a month.

Has anyone noticed the periodicities superimposed on many of the
new-case curves? Looks like about a week, and many show three or four
good bumps so far.

That is a reporting artefact caused by weekends and bank holidays.

And there is sometimes a huge spike on the same day all across the
world.

The jhu site is great. Zoom up onto the USA on the map, then select
"incident rate" and "testing rate" and compare the dot patterns.

Seek and ye shall find.

There are none so blind as those that won't see.

Do it. The dot patterns align nicely. Obviously testing causes
coronavirus.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:40:00 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 21/4/20 3:20 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:45 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
Even this years seasonal
influenza is killing more people than C19 but we didn't shut down the
economy in much worse flu years.

Not here, it's not. So far this April Australia has had only 99
influenza cases, compared to 18,000 for the same period last year.

Bit of a reduction, isn't it?

Isolation works.

18K laboratory confirmed flu cases last season. 6K (lab confirmed?)
corona cases so far this season.

Whose arse did you pull those numbers from? The numbers I quoted were
for the first *three weeks* of April (the start of our season).

Austrailian health ministry site.

The jhu site

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

shows this thing almost over in Australia. 491 deaths claimed so far.
It's almost over in most places that started early.

We had 310,000 flu cases last season, and 900 deaths. That's bad, but
not even 1/3 the ratio of COVID19.

The ratios are distorted. When antibody tests are done, they drop way
down. Early on, only clinically ill people get tested. The actual
ratio of deaths to infections is factors of 10 less.

You can't just get away with making up numbers, not in this, and not in
electronics either.

So what's special about corona? Why didn't Australia isolate and
prevent those 18K cases last season?

Because (a) the number wasn't 18,0000 (b) it didn't kill proportionately
many people (c) we have a vaccine for it (d) people who recover almost
never have ongoing issues from it and (e) it didn't threaten to
imminently become 2,000,000 cases with at least 20,000 or more deaths.

Nobody knew that in the early, exponential phase. But there was no
panic. Why did C19 cause such hysteria, when influenzas are
historically much more deadly?

Nobody wants to answer that question. Or whether future appearances of
new viruses will also lock down the world.

At least make an attempt to get your facts straight. Numbers don't lie,
but you do.

CH

It's peaking and going away. Maybe some day we'll get some good
numbers.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:20:14 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/04/2020 19:25, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:48:38 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 20/4/20 11:10 am, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
For the record, I'm not a fan of, nor do I even think it
remotely appropriate, to participate in a "Let's re-open the
economy" rally like this while being openly armed with
semi-automatic rifles.

How many of those people protesting do you think actually
understand what is meant by "exponential rate of growth"?

There's a succinct description of this:

National suicide by innumeracy.

CH

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

Maybe name some.

The expansion of the universe is one such - even more so now that dark
energy is making it accelerate with increasing time. Not that I am a
great fan of dark energy but the evidence for it is now pretty clear.

Even that might not go on forever though but best estimates are for at
least another 20 billion years or so before the "big rip".

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

It all goes haywire when the ever increasing cosmological expansion of
spacetime exceeds the influence of all other forces of nature.

I'm spicing and testing a circuit now that has exponential growth.
Hope that I don't get a nuclear explosion that kills everyone.

But in the real world exponential growth into a susceptible population
doesn't deviate much from being exponential until the fraction that
is immune exceeds about 30%. It becomes very obvious at 50% since by
then half the population is immune so the transmission is halved.

Nowhere on Earth has the level of this infection been allowed to get
that high although ISTR the worst cruise ships it came close to 20%.

Even in 1918 only about a quarter of the world's population got
infected. Any species must maintain enough genetic diversity that no
virus is going to infect all of them.

Something like 20% seems to be a fundamental infection limit for C19.
If that is so, 80% of the population was already immune, born that way
or primed by previous colds.

What we need is a good antibody study on a confined population, like a
small country, that is basically over the epidemic. The numbers are
very rough now.

An aircraft carrier has to be worst-case for people in proximity. The
tested infection rate on the Theodore Roosevelt was about 13%, with
one death out of 4800 crew.








--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:21:56 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:46:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 3:13:43 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:24:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, April 20, 2020 at 11:25:37 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

How many people here think that physical processes can grow
exponentially forever?

If one allows negative exponents, an RC decay is exponential virtually
forever (ignoring quantum and thermal effects). So, a physical
process that 'grows exponentially forever' can be an RC decay, viewed
in the inverse voltage as the dependent variable.

Count me in.
Spice it if you don't believe it.

So grows = decays now?

Why the question? Can't you work it out, or Spice it?
Yes, exponential laws of decay of one variable are laws of growth of the
reciprocal variable. It's obvious.

If you stand on your head, it's obvious that up is down.

John Larkin would know.

There was an experiment with inverting spectacles that demonstrated that you can learn to correct for this fairly quickly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:39:11 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:21:02 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 21/04/2020 03:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:31:02 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 21/4/20 4:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:48:38 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
On 20/4/20 11:10 am, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2020 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

<snip>

Linear growth will still infect the entire population eventually - it
just does it in time O(t) as opposed to O(ln(t)).

That's widely claimed and unknown and unlikely. In situations where
densely packed people were heavily exposed, a fraction of the people
got the infection.

This does seem to be one of John Larkin's more persistent misreading of the cruise ship situations.

The crew were supposed to keep the passengers isolated from one another, but the Princess line crews don't seem to have been all that good at it.

That was, or should been, determined early, to
separate a possible cold from a possible 1918. That wasn't done, and
panic was substituted.

There's a thing called medical ethics which does discourage that kind of experiment.

If everyone will get it eventually, well, they will. Except they
won't.

If we get a vaccine that works (and we should) we won't all eventually get it.

Governments that can organise effective lockdowns and rigorous contact tracing can cut the number of people eventually infected to around 200 to 300 per million. China is sitting at 54 per million.

Spain (4,367) and Italy (2,997) haven't done nearly as well. The US looks to be hellbent on catching up. It has only got to 2,400 per million, but when I last looked, three states with 10% of the US population were responsible for half the cases, and New York had 12,850 infected per million population.

How about we allow a few of the deranged redneck states their chance to
commit collective suicide. That seems to be what Trump wants and he has
got his gun toting ignorant thugs protesting in various state capitals.

You are being as nasty a bigot as the people you mock.

How about we allow a few deranged redneck states to keep growing and
eating their own food, and let the enlightened progressives on the
coasts starve?

If enough of them get Covid-19 they won't grow all that much food.

<snip>

As is obvious to every reasonable person reading your posts.

Antibody testing will tell what fraction of a closely confined
population will get it before it burns itself out.

The antibody tests done so far seem to be producing decidedly improbable results.

There have been reservations expressed about the reliablility of the antibody tests currently available.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/

A few uncontrolled
experiments suggest something in maybe the 25% range, maybe less.

The cruise ships weren't any kind of experiment, and they weren't left to stew for long enough to justify your bizarre claim.

> >The only hard evidence so far in a very hot spot is 15% at most.

Ten times higher than anything listed on worldometers.

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

San Marino, with 14,028 per million inhabitants.

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

It's a microstate embedded in Northern Italy, with population of 33,344.

The antibody tests at present give a fair proportion of false positives so
that is still likely to be an over estimate.

Most likely a huge over-estimate.

Then why will 100% of the population eventually get it? You just said
that. Top Scientists keep saying that.

We know that herd immunity should stop the epidemic spread of Covid-19after about 60% of the population has been infected and developed immunity, but an infected nurse in an old peoples home in Australia managed to infect ten other staff and about thirty patients. With sixty percent herd immunity she'd only have infected sixteen people. Two of the elderly people she infected have already died, but the rest haven't recovered yet.

Countries that started Mid-February are typically a few weeks past
peak, and some are way down. Start to peak looks like about a month.
Has anyone noticed the periodicities superimposed on many of the
new-case curves? Looks like about a week, and many show three or four
good bumps so far.

That is a reporting artefact caused by weekends and bank holidays.

And there is sometimes a huge spike on the same day all across the
world.

The jhu site is great. Zoom up onto the USA on the map, then select
"incident rate" and "testing rate" and compare the dot patterns.

Seek and ye shall find.

There are none so blind as those that won't see.

Do it. The dot patterns align nicely. Obviously testing causes
coronavirus.

You seem to be confusing cause and effect. If there's lots of Covid-19 around, there's a lot more testing than there is in places where there is less of it.

There's an argument that if you get more than 5% positive test results, you aren't doing enough testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing

has a long table at bottom of the page, and it give the US 19.3% positive results - way too high. Essentially the US is only testing people who are likely to have the disease.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 11:56:20 AM UTC-4, with no apparent sense of irony, Bill Sloman wrote:

> The US is doing a rotten job of slowing down the epidemic - and there's a whole lot of the country that doesn't seem to have enough people get sick to take the issue seriously.

Post of the day. Thanks!

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:56:18 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:40:00 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

On 21/4/20 3:20 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:45 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
Even this years seasonal
influenza is killing more people than C19 but we didn't shut down the
economy in much worse flu years.

Not here, it's not. So far this April Australia has had only 99
influenza cases, compared to 18,000 for the same period last year.

Bit of a reduction, isn't it?

Isolation works.

18K laboratory confirmed flu cases last season. 6K (lab confirmed?)
corona cases so far this season.

Whose arse did you pull those numbers from? The numbers I quoted were
for the first *three weeks* of April (the start of our season).

Austrailian health ministry site.

The jhu site

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

shows this thing almost over in Australia. 491 deaths claimed so far.
It's almost over in most places that started early.



We had 310,000 flu cases last season, and 900 deaths. That's bad, but
not even 1/3 the ratio of COVID19.

The ratios are distorted. When antibody tests are done, they drop way
down.

The only antibody tests that have been done so far are decidedly suspect.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/

Early on, only clinically ill people get tested. The actual
ratio of deaths to infections is factors of 10 less.

Pollyanna strikes again.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

You can't just get away with making up numbers, not in this, and not in
electronics either.

So what's special about corona? Why didn't Australia isolate and
prevent those 18K cases last season?

Because (a) the number wasn't 18,0000 (b) it didn't kill proportionately
many people (c) we have a vaccine for it (d) people who recover almost
never have ongoing issues from it and (e) it didn't threaten to
imminently become 2,000,000 cases with at least 20,000 or more deaths.

Nobody knew that in the early, exponential phase. But there was no
panic. Why did C19 cause such hysteria, when influenzas are
historically much more deadly?

Influenza's have killed more people, but they've had a lot longer time to do it in.

Getting Covid-19 does seem much more likely to lead to death than getting the flu. The flu pretty much only kills the frail and elderly, and Covid-19 kills them much more often than it kills younger people, while Covid-19 does seem to kill quite a few younger fitter people who would ahve survive even severe flu.

Nobody wants to answer that question. Or whether future appearances of
new viruses will also lock down the world.

Everybody answers that question every time you are silly enough to ask it, but you don't pay any attention to the answers.

At least make an attempt to get your facts straight. Numbers don't lie,
but you do.

It's peaking and going away. Maybe some day we'll get some good
numbers.

The new case number in the US do seem to be declining, but very slowly, much as they are in Italy, but even more slowly.

Other countries have contained their epidemics better, and seen the new case per day number fall much faster.

The US is doing a rotten job of slowing down the epidemic - and there's a whole lot of the country that doesn't seem to have enough people get sick to take the issue seriously.

California - with 865 infections per million inhabitants - a tenth of New York's
level - does seem to be one of the them.

--
Bill sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:40:08 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 21/4/20 3:20 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:45 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
Even this years seasonal
influenza is killing more people than C19 but we didn't shut down the
economy in much worse flu years.

Not here, it's not. So far this April Australia has had only 99
influenza cases, compared to 18,000 for the same period last year.

Bit of a reduction, isn't it?

Isolation works.

18K laboratory confirmed flu cases last season. 6K (lab confirmed?)
corona cases so far this season.

Whose arse did you pull those numbers from? The numbers I quoted were
for the first *three weeks* of April (the start of our season).

6,645 cases, 71 deaths, 21-Apr-2020.

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-infographic_18.pdf

We had 310,000 flu cases last season, and 900 deaths. That's bad, but
not even 1/3 the ratio of COVID19.

You can't just get away with making up numbers, not in this, and not in
electronics either.

So what's special about corona? Why didn't Australia isolate and
prevent those 18K cases last season?

Because (a) the number wasn't 18,0000 (b) it didn't kill proportionately
many people (c) we have a vaccine for it (d) people who recover almost
never have ongoing issues from it and (e) it didn't threaten to
imminently become 2,000,000 cases with at least 20,000 or more deaths.

At least make an attempt to get your facts straight. Numbers don't lie,
but you do.

CH

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:10:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:40:08 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 21/4/20 3:20 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:45 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:
Even this years seasonal
influenza is killing more people than C19 but we didn't shut down the
economy in much worse flu years.

Not here, it's not. So far this April Australia has had only 99
influenza cases, compared to 18,000 for the same period last year.

Bit of a reduction, isn't it?

Isolation works.

18K laboratory confirmed flu cases last season. 6K (lab confirmed?)
corona cases so far this season.

Whose arse did you pull those numbers from? The numbers I quoted were
for the first *three weeks* of April (the start of our season).

6,645 cases, 71 deaths, 21-Apr-2020.

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-infographic_18.pdf

We had 310,000 flu cases last season, and 900 deaths. That's bad, but
not even 1/3 the ratio of COVID19.

You can't just get away with making up numbers, not in this, and not in
electronics either.

So what's special about corona? Why didn't Australia isolate and
prevent those 18K cases last season?

Because (a) the number wasn't 18,0000 (b) it didn't kill proportionately
many people (c) we have a vaccine for it (d) people who recover almost
never have ongoing issues from it and (e) it didn't threaten to
imminently become 2,000,000 cases with at least 20,000 or more deaths.

At least make an attempt to get your facts straight. Numbers don't lie,
but you do.

CH

Cheers,
James Arthur

The population of Australia is about 25 million. 71 deaths, assigned
to this virus, is about 3 PPM.

New daily cases are way, way down according to jhu, under 80 a day
from a peak of 1300. Looks good.

It has the lopsided bell curve, steep raise and slower tail. Maybe
lockdowns do that.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[keith wright]

On Tuesday, 21 April 2020 05:38:11 UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
....

What we need is a good antibody study on a confined population, like a
small country, that is basically over the epidemic. The numbers are
very rough now.

An aircraft carrier has to be worst-case for people in proximity. The
tested infection rate on the Theodore Roosevelt was about 13%, with
one death out of 4800 crew.
....

Hardly a representative population - mainly very fit, disciplined, young people without any health issues.

Although the conditions were bad there was authoritarian control - any breach of the social distancing possible would have been dealt with harshly.

kw

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:21:56 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:46:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Yes, exponential laws of decay of one variable are laws of growth of the
reciprocal variable. It's obvious.

If you stand on your head, it's obvious that up is down.

I gave your physics question has a valid answer, and your
standing on your head doesn't impress a virus. It doesn't
change what your GPS device thinks is 'down'.

The issue is, are more people dying or are fewer dying? It might be
helpful if we can tell the difference, and figure out what might
influence the death rate.

So I think "more" and "less" have meaning here.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:21:56 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:46:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Yes, exponential laws of decay of one variable are laws of growth of the
reciprocal variable. It's obvious.

If you stand on your head, it's obvious that up is down.

I gave your physics question has a valid answer, and your
standing on your head doesn't impress a virus. It doesn't
change what your GPS device thinks is 'down'.

Have you ever worked in negciptemp? It's a fine physical variable,
with all sorts of uses.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 4:39:11 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 09:21:02 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/04/2020 03:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Well, several people told me that I didn't understand exponential
growth. When the slopes were already getting linear. Now they are
mostly flat or declining.

But that is because of aggressive countermeasures against the virus.

Except in places that didn't do that, but peaked and declined anyhow.

There aren't any 'places' that did deeds, there are PEOPLE making their
decisions. The virus can be fought, but it cannot fight back, yet
in a huge pool of infected persons in contact with uninfected
persons, it can evolve. So, we deny the contact of infected
and uninfected.

We all understand the struggle in different ways, while you mock.
Let me be very clear: any attempt to make sense of a chart and
imagine trends is... ignorance. 'Peaked and declined' wouldn't
be a good description of a sine oscillator, either.

You've rejected every useful model and generated none.

That's OK; just stay out of the way, we'll tax you for the various productive
efforts.