When is the Covid war over?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:56:32 +0100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 2:02:51 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:59:31 +0100, <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 7:51:42 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:50:10 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:43:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/2020 02:41, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:27:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/03/20 22:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
About 2.8 million people die in the US every year. 216K of those are
considered to be upper respiratory or flu/pneumonia. C19 has
officially killed 1544 so far.

The key phrase there is "so far".


US dailies are down slightly from yesterday, but the data is so noisy
that it will take a week or a month to really spot a trend. Some
european countries seem to have peaked. Different countries, even
neighbors, have very different patterns. There must be a lot of bad
data going around.

The only European country that might perhaps be close to peaking is
Italy but their health system is now so close to collapse that they are
airlifting some critical patients to German hospitals for ICU.

UK is expected to peak in May or June if the social distancing measures
are effective. Death rate peaks about two weeks after the daily
infection count reaches its highest point (typical residence time in
ICU). Fatalities will be much higher if ICU capacity is inadequate.

One thing you really should be worried by is that the US growth curve is
running ahead of Italy at the corresponding position. This is rather
surprising given that we know the sorts of things you should not do.

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn

That's the integral of cases, but the slopes are all declining.


Doubling time in the UK, Italy and Spain is presently 3 days. In the USA
it is 2 days and in Japan it is presently 8 days (though unclear how
much longer they can hold that line without taking further measures).

This site

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

has good graphs, but is's getting too popular/slow lately.

It doesn't matter how many catch it, we know that 4% of people who get it die. So the absolute maximum death toll is 4% of the world. That's far preferable to the stupid over the top government restrictions which will see the world economy collapse and countless business go bankrupt. Why not just lock in the vulnerable (elderly etc) people and let everyone else just have a week's sick days off work if they happen to catch it? Because that's all most people get, 7 days of lying in bed.


Yes, sir:

4% to 6% die, but 20% to 30% get diminished lung capacities due to tissue damages. I think we should avoid it and control the damages.

What we should be doing is sending China the bill. That's TWICE they've sent out a virus due to unclean wet meat markets. TWICE. They clearly didn't learn from SARS.

They did. So did the countries that had trouble with SARS. We didn't.

No they didn't, or those markets wouldn't still be running.

> The problem isn't the hygiene, but rather the kind of meat sold. Eating a wide range of wild-animal meat exposes you to lots of zoonoses. The African enthusiasm for bush-meat is just as bad. And we got measles from cows.

Perhaps. I'm all for everyone becoming a vegetarian, much healthier.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 12:15:22 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> If you're bad enough to need a ventilator, you're a lost cause.

Unless you recover. Do you not believe in recovery?

> I'm capable of making more effort to get that food, but some are not. My neighbour for example is 90 years old and has no computer. How do you expect her to shop for food? If she wants 10 of something, she has to go shopping three times, tripling her chance of infection!

She got to be 90 by finding ways to avoid dangers, and recover from setbacks. That means
she has resources beyond your imagination. She'll be fine.

 

[mpm]

On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 10:43:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Well, one thing's for sure.
Everybody here on S.E.D. is in the clear.

I've never seen a group of more "socially distant" people in my life! :0

In fact, one could argue we're so "socially distant" as to just be a bunch of assholes nobody wants to be around anyway!

 

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:46:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 9:58:04 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:00:21 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The lockdowns are trashing the economy, which hurts people, and are
probably not going to save many lives.

This displays no grasp at all of the concept of 'probability'. Show us a credible
model that gives a quantitative result other than 'many' lives in the balance.

We didn't lockdown in any of
the last few pandemics.

Which would those be? Flu was highly transmissible, and there WERE lockdowns,
but tuberculosis has a treatment and acts slowly, polio doesn't transmit quickly...
those were different. Mad cow? Syphilis? Rabies? Anthrax?

Chart. About halfway down.

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


I found a PDF of 'The Great Influenza: the Deadliest Pandemic in History
By John M. Barry' on Ebay for $2.49

https://www.ebay.com/itm/223951428602

You might want to grab a free copy of
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay,
(1841) while you're at it.

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

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-02 23:46, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 9:58:04 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:00:21 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The lockdowns are trashing the economy, which hurts people, and are
probably not going to save many lives.

This displays no grasp at all of the concept of 'probability'. Show us a credible
model that gives a quantitative result other than 'many' lives in the balance.

We didn't lockdown in any of
the last few pandemics.

Which would those be? Flu was highly transmissible, and there WERE lockdowns,
but tuberculosis has a treatment and acts slowly, polio doesn't transmit quickly...
those were different. Mad cow? Syphilis? Rabies? Anthrax?

Chart. About halfway down.

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


I found a PDF of 'The Great Influenza: the Deadliest Pandemic in History
By John M. Barry' on Ebay for $2.49

https://www.ebay.com/itm/223951428602

It's a very good book. Highly recommended.

The first 15% or so is introductory material that you can probably skim,
but the rest is very illuminating.

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

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 5:12:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

You might want to grab a free copy of
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay,
(1841) while you're at it.

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

What? No flying saucers, or Socialist Aussies?


<https://archive.org/details/memoirsofextraor01mack/page/n6/mode/2up>

 

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:13:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-04-02 23:46, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 9:58:04 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:00:21 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The lockdowns are trashing the economy, which hurts people, and are
probably not going to save many lives.

This displays no grasp at all of the concept of 'probability'. Show us a credible
model that gives a quantitative result other than 'many' lives in the balance.

We didn't lockdown in any of
the last few pandemics.

Which would those be? Flu was highly transmissible, and there WERE lockdowns,
but tuberculosis has a treatment and acts slowly, polio doesn't transmit quickly...
those were different. Mad cow? Syphilis? Rabies? Anthrax?

Chart. About halfway down.

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


I found a PDF of 'The Great Influenza: the Deadliest Pandemic in History
By John M. Barry' on Ebay for $2.49

https://www.ebay.com/itm/223951428602

It's a very good book. Highly recommended.

The first 15% or so is introductory material that you can probably skim,
but the rest is very illuminating.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I really like the introduction, the story of how medicine became
(somewhat) more scientific.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:10:59 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:56:32 +0100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 2:02:51 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:59:31 +0100, <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 7:51:42 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:50:10 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology..com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:43:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/2020 02:41, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:27:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/03/20 22:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
About 2.8 million people die in the US every year. 216K of those are
considered to be upper respiratory or flu/pneumonia. C19 has
officially killed 1544 so far.

The key phrase there is "so far".


US dailies are down slightly from yesterday, but the data is so noisy
that it will take a week or a month to really spot a trend. Some
european countries seem to have peaked. Different countries, even
neighbors, have very different patterns. There must be a lot of bad
data going around.

The only European country that might perhaps be close to peaking is
Italy but their health system is now so close to collapse that they are
airlifting some critical patients to German hospitals for ICU.

UK is expected to peak in May or June if the social distancing measures
are effective. Death rate peaks about two weeks after the daily
infection count reaches its highest point (typical residence time in
ICU). Fatalities will be much higher if ICU capacity is inadequate.

One thing you really should be worried by is that the US growth curve is
running ahead of Italy at the corresponding position. This is rather
surprising given that we know the sorts of things you should not do.

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn

That's the integral of cases, but the slopes are all declining.


Doubling time in the UK, Italy and Spain is presently 3 days. In the USA
it is 2 days and in Japan it is presently 8 days (though unclear how
much longer they can hold that line without taking further measures).

This site

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

has good graphs, but is's getting too popular/slow lately.

It doesn't matter how many catch it, we know that 4% of people who get it die. So the absolute maximum death toll is 4% of the world. That's far preferable to the stupid over the top government restrictions which will see the world economy collapse and countless business go bankrupt. Why not just lock in the vulnerable (elderly etc) people and let everyone else just have a week's sick days off work if they happen to catch it? Because that's all most people get, 7 days of lying in bed.


Yes, sir:

4% to 6% die, but 20% to 30% get diminished lung capacities due to tissue damages. I think we should avoid it and control the damages.

What we should be doing is sending China the bill. That's TWICE they've sent out a virus due to unclean wet meat markets. TWICE. They clearly didn't learn from SARS.

They did. So did the countries that had trouble with SARS. We didn't.

No they didn't, or those markets wouldn't still be running.

It's difficult to change people's behaviour. Some people still smoke cigarettes.

The problem isn't the hygiene, but rather the kind of meat sold. Eating a wide range of wild-animal meat exposes you to lots of zoonoses. The African enthusiasm for bush-meat is just as bad. And we got measles from cows.

Perhaps. I'm all for everyone becoming a vegetarian, much healthier.

There's no perhaps about it. And being vegetarian takes rather close attention to what you eat, if you want to stay healthy. We evolved as omnivores, not plant eaters.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:10:59 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:56:32 +0100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 2:02:51 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:59:31 +0100, <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 7:51:42 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 15:50:10 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:43:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/03/2020 02:41, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 01:27:07 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/03/20 22:38, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
About 2.8 million people die in the US every year. 216K of those are
considered to be upper respiratory or flu/pneumonia. C19 has
officially killed 1544 so far.

The key phrase there is "so far".


US dailies are down slightly from yesterday, but the data is so noisy
that it will take a week or a month to really spot a trend. Some
european countries seem to have peaked. Different countries, even
neighbors, have very different patterns. There must be a lot of bad
data going around.

The only European country that might perhaps be close to peaking is
Italy but their health system is now so close to collapse that they are
airlifting some critical patients to German hospitals for ICU.

UK is expected to peak in May or June if the social distancing measures
are effective. Death rate peaks about two weeks after the daily
infection count reaches its highest point (typical residence time in
ICU). Fatalities will be much higher if ICU capacity is inadequate.

One thing you really should be worried by is that the US growth curve is
running ahead of Italy at the corresponding position. This is rather
surprising given that we know the sorts of things you should not do.

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#wn

That's the integral of cases, but the slopes are all declining.


Doubling time in the UK, Italy and Spain is presently 3 days. In the USA
it is 2 days and in Japan it is presently 8 days (though unclear how
much longer they can hold that line without taking further measures).

This site

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

has good graphs, but is's getting too popular/slow lately.

It doesn't matter how many catch it, we know that 4% of people who get it die. So the absolute maximum death toll is 4% of the world. That's far preferable to the stupid over the top government restrictions which will see the world economy collapse and countless business go bankrupt. Why not just lock in the vulnerable (elderly etc) people and let everyone else just have a week's sick days off work if they happen to catch it? Because that's all most people get, 7 days of lying in bed.


Yes, sir:

4% to 6% die, but 20% to 30% get diminished lung capacities due to tissue damages. I think we should avoid it and control the damages.

What we should be doing is sending China the bill. That's TWICE they've sent out a virus due to unclean wet meat markets. TWICE. They clearly didn't learn from SARS.

They did. So did the countries that had trouble with SARS. We didn't.

No they didn't, or those markets wouldn't still be running.

It's difficult to change people's behaviour. Some people still smoke cigarettes.

The problem isn't the hygiene, but rather the kind of meat sold. Eating a wide range of wild-animal meat exposes you to lots of zoonoses. The African enthusiasm for bush-meat is just as bad. And we got measles from cows..

Perhaps. I'm all for everyone becoming a vegetarian, much healthier.

There's no perhaps about it. And being vegetarian takes rather close attention to what you eat, if you want to stay healthy. We evolved as omnivores, not plant eaters.

It does??? I think "rather close attention" is a bit of an overstatement. There are very few essential nutrients that are not common in plants. There are rather a lot that are not present in meat at all so that the absence of meat in the diet is not at all hard to compensate for.

What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?

--

Ricky C.

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 04:55, Ricky C wrote:
> What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?

Depends on how extreme the vegetarian religion is,
and how hygenic the production and preparation
processes are.

Two pinch points are are calcium and B12.

Those are both easily found in meat, dairy and fish,
but are low in other foods.

They can also easily be had from industrial supplements
too. However those that proselytise vegetarian diets
often have a philosophical belief that vegetarian is
sufficient and that supplements are unnecessary.

You will no doubt claim that you can get B12 and
Ca from X. When you do that, please indicate how
much of an ingredient you would need to eat to
get the RDA/RNA. I like broccoli, but I'm not
prepared to eat 2.5kg/day to get the RDA/RNA!

If you don't do that, then X contains Y claims are
about as much use as many people's statements
about the covid-19 epidemic progress.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be put in the same
category as our new resident covid trolls

 

[David Brown]

On 06/04/2020 05:55, Ricky C wrote:

On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:10:59 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:56:32 +0100, Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


The problem isn't the hygiene, but rather the kind of meat
sold. Eating a wide range of wild-animal meat exposes you to
lots of zoonoses. The African enthusiasm for bush-meat is just
as bad. And we got measles from cows.

While that is true, it is worth noting that bird flu came in through
chickens, and a big channel for flu variants is pigs - neither of these
are particularly exotic.

Humans have lived with, and eaten, all sorts of animals for millions of
years. It is the close proximity of large numbers of people, large
numbers of animals, and different kinds of animals that is (relatively)
new. You get bird flu from chickens by living with the chickens in your
house and crapping in your dinner. You get flu variants by having the
chickens and pigs living together. Yes, hygiene is very much a big
problem - though not the whole problem.

Perhaps. I'm all for everyone becoming a vegetarian, much
healthier.

There's no perhaps about it. And being vegetarian takes rather
close attention to what you eat, if you want to stay healthy. We
evolved as omnivores, not plant eaters.

It does??? I think "rather close attention" is a bit of an
overstatement. There are very few essential nutrients that are not
common in plants. There are rather a lot that are not present in
meat at all so that the absence of meat in the diet is not at all
hard to compensate for.

What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?

Tom has given some key points.

The mistake some people make about vegetarianism is that they simply cut
out the meat, and don't replace it with an appropriate variety of
vegetable alternatives. They go from "fish and chips" to "chips". A
lot of people don't think very much about what they eat, and in moving
to a vegetarian diet they replace the meat with the easiest
alternatives, which are typically starchy foods (pasta, potatoes, rice)
rather than dairy products, eggs, nuts, beans, pulses, wholegrain food,
etc. They see "going vegetarian" as "not eating meat" rather than
"eating vegetables".

In some countries, vegetarianism is very common, and there is plenty of
appropriate food available. It's easy to live as a vegetarian in the
UK, and (I assume) the USA. Here in Norway, it has become easier in
recent years but even just ten years ago it was hard to get basic
protein sources like soya. When I moved here 25+ years ago, I quickly
realised that it was vastly easier to add fish to my diet than to remain
vegetarian.

And as Tom pointed out, there are different degrees of idealism and
fanaticism in diets. Avoiding eggs and dairy food makes it harder to
get all the right nutrients. For the folks that add in "trendy"
intolerances, misunderstood ideas about "ecological" food, etc., it's
quite easy to miss out on important foodstuffs.

/I/ don't find my basically vegetarian diet lacking, but there is no
doubt that some people do. Mind you, a fair number of meat-eaters have
very poor diet too.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/04/2020 15:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:23:01 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/04/2020 01:00, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:40:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 12:26:33 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:00:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The lockdowns are trashing the economy, which hurts people, and are
probably not going to save many lives.

UK modelling suggests it may decrease the death toll by an order of
magnitude or so. That is a distinctly non-trivial contribution.

Oh. Computer modeling says that? How silly of me.

OK. *STOP* using spice then - that is also a computer model.

My criticism of the UK lockdown strategy is that it is necessary in the
bigger cities and virus hotspots like London and Birmingham where the
probability of remaining uninfected has become intolerably low.

This displays no grasp at all of the concept of 'probability'. Show us a credible
model that gives a quantitative result other than 'many' lives in the balance.

We know 96% of us can't die from it, that's good enough.

False assurance.
That was the result with an intact healthcare system, well supplied and operating
within its limits. One municipality's turnaround is not data to match a crisis overwhelming national
resources (Spain, Italy aren't finished with their reports).

And, false acceptable level of risk.
And, if 4% of us die this year (it does spread fast enough to cover the planet under one year)
that makes the effective life expectancy 25 years... it's a bigger danger to you, personally,
than other diseases. It's bigger, in fact, than ALL OTHER causes of death put together.
If you have a brain and a heart, that should raise your pulse rate.

The Princess cruise ships were captive petri dishes, with a lot of old
people on board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Princess_ship#2020_COVID-19

Those numbers are probably worse than you'd get in a more normal city
situation.

Not really. The population might have been atypical demographic but the
ones that got sick and tested positive had immediate access to one of
the worlds most sophisticated medical treatment centres for contagious
diseases at a time when their resources were not even remotely stressed.

On the ship?

They moved any critical patients to high containment intensive care.

We just have to wait and see how President Trump and his side-kick
perform but my money is on the USA doing uncontrolled pandemic bigger
and better than almost any other country on Earth.

He's already starting to sound like Private Frazer in Dad's Army judging
by his "inspirational" speech to the nation last night.

Only Russia, Brazil and India look to be doing a worse job.

China is worse than any of them.

Only in your blinkered paranoid delusional world. America is headed for
a very serious car crash pandemic with a clueless moron at the controls.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 06/04/20 04:55, Ricky C wrote:
What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?

Depends on how extreme the vegetarian religion is,
and how hygenic the production and preparation
processes are.

Two pinch points are are calcium and B12.

Those are both easily found in meat, dairy and fish,
but are low in other foods.

Not all other foods. Beside, being a veggie doesn't mean you only eat plants. I have a bowl of cereal with milk every morning that gives me lots of the B12 and calcium I need. In fact, the doctors have told me to eat less calcium since I develop kidney stones. Actually, there are many plant foods with adequate calcium. I've never heard anyone say this is a problem with a veggie diet or even a vegan diet. It's in cruciferous veggies, soybeans, figs and many others.

Even without the dairy, B12 is available from fortified foods like the various plant based milks or a pill. Turns out your body doesn't absorb B12 very well in quantities more than around 1 to 2 micrograms per day. It is absorbed into the bloodstream with the assistance of "intrinsic factor" (talk about an ad hoc name) so more than this amount is mostly excreted without absorption.

They can also easily be had from industrial supplements
too. However those that proselytise vegetarian diets
often have a philosophical belief that vegetarian is
sufficient and that supplements are unnecessary.

It is not so easy to get the B12 you need without some form of supplements, but that's a LONG way from saying you have to pay "rather close attention", whatever that means. More of Larkin's BS trying to emulate Trump.

You will no doubt claim that you can get B12 and
Ca from X. When you do that, please indicate how
much of an ingredient you would need to eat to
get the RDA/RNA. I like broccoli, but I'm not
prepared to eat 2.5kg/day to get the RDA/RNA!

Greens have 200 mg per cup, cooked as does soybeans. Figs have a quarter of a day's RDA in a cup. Almonds have 100 mg in just a handful. Other foods like broccoli, oranges, beans, etc may not have as much but it is present in non trivial amounts. It's not hard to reach 1000 mg and you don't have to keep detailed accounts of your food, just eat healthy as a habit and you will have everything you need.

I will confess that the other day when I went to the store I was jonesing for something snacky. I bought a bag of potato chips and ate them with mayonnaise. That was dinner. Not a balanced nutrition day. lol Being cooped up and only being able to shop every other week creates funny cravings.

If you don't do that, then X contains Y claims are
about as much use as many people's statements
about the covid-19 epidemic progress.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be put in the same
category as our new resident covid trolls

Which category are you in, the argumentative trolls? You seemed to want to knock my comments without doing much research. This is not rocket science.. You just have a to learn a bit. But it is important to distinguish between the prattle of nutrition junk information and the simple facts of what is in which foods.

--

Ricky C.

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:59:57 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

To me, this thread sounds like people are talking a bit at
cross-purposes. There seems to be very differing ideas of what "pay
attention to your diet" means, along with a confusion as to whether
/all/ vegetarians are at risk of B12 and calcium deficiency or just some
of them are.

It was "rather close attention" which sounds judgemental as if it is more than desirable effort. Oh, I attributed it to Larkin since that is the sort of thing he would say, but it was actually Sloman and that is the sort of thing he would say as well. They have more in common that they might think. lol

--

Rick C.

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

 

Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5f373f69-06f6-4ebd-9464-c72589c54c1b@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:20:48 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 06/04/2020 05:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:

There's no perhaps about it. And being vegetarian takes rather
close attention to what you eat, if you want to stay healthy.
We evolved as omnivores, not plant eaters.

It does??? I think "rather close attention" is a bit of an
overstatement. There are very few essential nutrients that are
not common in plants. There are rather a lot that are not
present in meat at all so that the absence of meat in the diet
is not at all hard to compensate for.

What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?


Tom has given some key points.

So now I'm asking you.


The mistake some people make about vegetarianism is that they
simply cut

out the meat, and don't replace it with an appropriate variety of
vegetable alternatives. They go from "fish and chips" to
"chips". A lot of people don't think very much about what they
eat, and in moving to a vegetarian diet they replace the meat
with the easiest alternatives, which are typically starchy foods
(pasta, potatoes, rice)

rather than dairy products, eggs, nuts, beans, pulses, wholegrain
food,

etc. They see "going vegetarian" as "not eating meat" rather
than "eating vegetables".

I had a lengthy and a bit heated discussion with someone here on
this issue some time back. We were talking about protein and the
numbers weren't adding up. Turns out he was talking about some
hair brain diet where right off the top some 20%-25% of the
calories were supplied by added fat! Sure, if you do that it is
hard to get proper nutrition.


In some countries, vegetarianism is very common, and there is
plenty of

appropriate food available. It's easy to live as a vegetarian in
the UK, and (I assume) the USA. Here in Norway, it has become
easier in recent years but even just ten years ago it was hard to
get basic protein sources like soya. When I moved here 25+ years
ago, I quickly realised that it was vastly easier to add fish to
my diet than to remain

vegetarian.

You are showing your ignorance of protein. If you eat 100%
vegetarian and don't include a bunch of processed crap, you will
have to work at not meeting your requirements for protein and all
the essential amino acids. Everything you eat has protein and
sufficient amounts. The only trick is getting all the essential
amino acids. But as it turns out there are only a handful of
vegetables that are not protein complete. So unless your diet is
mainly sweet potatoes or a very small number of less common
veggies, you can't miss your protein requirements.

I'm not sure what soya is, but if it's tofu, yuck! I eat it
sometimes, but not because it has any nutritional benefit. I
bought a bunch a while back to see if I could cook it to taste
good and decided it was crap. So over half of it is still in my
fridge in sealed packs. Does it have a point?


And as Tom pointed out, there are different degrees of idealism
and fanaticism in diets. Avoiding eggs and dairy food makes it
harder to get all the right nutrients. For the folks that add in
"trendy" intolerances, misunderstood ideas about "ecological"
food, etc., it's quite easy to miss out on important foodstuffs.

Not eating all animal products is vegan and that's not me. So I
don't care what others do. I especially don't care about the
drama of other people's eating disorders.


/I/ don't find my basically vegetarian diet lacking, but there is
no doubt that some people do. Mind you, a fair number of
meat-eaters have

very poor diet too.

Bingo! I actually know someone who eats meat and potatoes and
maybe bread if it's a hamburger bun. That's it. He will not eat
another vegetable.

Absolute best non meat protein source is Hemp Seed Hearts. Second
only to soy in protein content, but contain huge amounts of Omega-3s
and the right balance of omega-6s. That is why it is the best. The
other reason is because it tastes so much better than soy. Hemp
butter is fantastic! We could feed the underfed nations of the world
with hemp seed hearts. (not all by itself)

 

[David Brown]

On 06/04/2020 10:08, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:53:20 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 06/04/20 04:55, Ricky C wrote:
What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?

Depends on how extreme the vegetarian religion is, and how hygenic
the production and preparation processes are.

Two pinch points are are calcium and B12.

Those are both easily found in meat, dairy and fish, but are low in
other foods.

Not all other foods. Beside, being a veggie doesn't mean you only
eat plants. I have a bowl of cereal with milk every morning that
gives me lots of the B12 and calcium I need. In fact, the doctors
have told me to eat less calcium since I develop kidney stones.
Actually, there are many plant foods with adequate calcium. I've
never heard anyone say this is a problem with a veggie diet or even a
vegan diet. It's in cruciferous veggies, soybeans, figs and many
others.

Lack of calcium and B12 is rarely a problem in vegetarians who eat dairy
products - it is a very definite issue for vegans.

Even without the dairy, B12 is available from fortified foods like
the various plant based milks or a pill. Turns out your body doesn't
absorb B12 very well in quantities more than around 1 to 2 micrograms
per day. It is absorbed into the bloodstream with the assistance of
"intrinsic factor" (talk about an ad hoc name) so more than this
amount is mostly excreted without absorption.

For those who are more fanatic and less informed, "fortified foods" and
pills mean "chemicals to be avoided". Fortunately, the proportion of
people on crackpot diets is low - unfortunately, it seems to be rising.

They can also easily be had from industrial supplements too.
However those that proselytise vegetarian diets often have a
philosophical belief that vegetarian is sufficient and that
supplements are unnecessary.

It is not so easy to get the B12 you need without some form of
supplements, but that's a LONG way from saying you have to pay
"rather close attention", whatever that means. More of Larkin's BS
trying to emulate Trump.

Of course you have to pay attention to your diet, and be sure to eat a
variety of food with a sensible balance between "good" foods and "bad"
foods. That applies whether you eat meat or not.

You will no doubt claim that you can get B12 and Ca from X. When
you do that, please indicate how much of an ingredient you would
need to eat to get the RDA/RNA. I like broccoli, but I'm not
prepared to eat 2.5kg/day to get the RDA/RNA!

Greens have 200 mg per cup, cooked as does soybeans. Figs have a
quarter of a day's RDA in a cup. Almonds have 100 mg in just a
handful. Other foods like broccoli, oranges, beans, etc may not have
as much but it is present in non trivial amounts. It's not hard to
reach 1000 mg and you don't have to keep detailed accounts of your
food, just eat healthy as a habit and you will have everything you
need.

Paying attention to your diet does not mean counting and accounting (at
least, not to me). It means eating a variety of good food, and not just
whatever is simplest or quickest.

I will confess that the other day when I went to the store I was
jonesing for something snacky. I bought a bag of potato chips and
ate them with mayonnaise. That was dinner. Not a balanced nutrition
day. lol Being cooped up and only being able to shop every other
week creates funny cravings.

Nothing wrong with that on occasion - just not every day!

If you don't do that, then X contains Y claims are about as much
use as many people's statements about the covid-19 epidemic
progress.

I'm sure you wouldn't like to be put in the same category as our
new resident covid trolls

Which category are you in, the argumentative trolls? You seemed to
want to knock my comments without doing much research. This is not
rocket science. You just have a to learn a bit. But it is important
to distinguish between the prattle of nutrition junk information and
the simple facts of what is in which foods.

To me, this thread sounds like people are talking a bit at
cross-purposes. There seems to be very differing ideas of what "pay
attention to your diet" means, along with a confusion as to whether
/all/ vegetarians are at risk of B12 and calcium deficiency or just some
of them are.

 

[Ricky C]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:20:48 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 06/04/2020 05:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

There's no perhaps about it. And being vegetarian takes rather
close attention to what you eat, if you want to stay healthy. We
evolved as omnivores, not plant eaters.

It does??? I think "rather close attention" is a bit of an
overstatement. There are very few essential nutrients that are not
common in plants. There are rather a lot that are not present in
meat at all so that the absence of meat in the diet is not at all
hard to compensate for.

What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?


Tom has given some key points.

So now I'm asking you.

The mistake some people make about vegetarianism is that they simply cut
out the meat, and don't replace it with an appropriate variety of
vegetable alternatives. They go from "fish and chips" to "chips". A
lot of people don't think very much about what they eat, and in moving
to a vegetarian diet they replace the meat with the easiest
alternatives, which are typically starchy foods (pasta, potatoes, rice)
rather than dairy products, eggs, nuts, beans, pulses, wholegrain food,
etc. They see "going vegetarian" as "not eating meat" rather than
"eating vegetables".

I had a lengthy and a bit heated discussion with someone here on this issue some time back. We were talking about protein and the numbers weren't adding up. Turns out he was talking about some hair brain diet where right off the top some 20%-25% of the calories were supplied by added fat! Sure, if you do that it is hard to get proper nutrition.

In some countries, vegetarianism is very common, and there is plenty of
appropriate food available. It's easy to live as a vegetarian in the
UK, and (I assume) the USA. Here in Norway, it has become easier in
recent years but even just ten years ago it was hard to get basic
protein sources like soya. When I moved here 25+ years ago, I quickly
realised that it was vastly easier to add fish to my diet than to remain
vegetarian.

You are showing your ignorance of protein. If you eat 100% vegetarian and don't include a bunch of processed crap, you will have to work at not meeting your requirements for protein and all the essential amino acids. Everything you eat has protein and sufficient amounts. The only trick is getting all the essential amino acids. But as it turns out there are only a handful of vegetables that are not protein complete. So unless your diet is mainly sweet potatoes or a very small number of less common veggies, you can't miss your protein requirements.

I'm not sure what soya is, but if it's tofu, yuck! I eat it sometimes, but not because it has any nutritional benefit. I bought a bunch a while back to see if I could cook it to taste good and decided it was crap. So over half of it is still in my fridge in sealed packs. Does it have a point?

And as Tom pointed out, there are different degrees of idealism and
fanaticism in diets. Avoiding eggs and dairy food makes it harder to
get all the right nutrients. For the folks that add in "trendy"
intolerances, misunderstood ideas about "ecological" food, etc., it's
quite easy to miss out on important foodstuffs.

Not eating all animal products is vegan and that's not me. So I don't care what others do. I especially don't care about the drama of other people's eating disorders.

/I/ don't find my basically vegetarian diet lacking, but there is no
doubt that some people do. Mind you, a fair number of meat-eaters have
very poor diet too.

Bingo! I actually know someone who eats meat and potatoes and maybe bread if it's a hamburger bun. That's it. He will not eat another vegetable.

--

Ricky C.

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 06/04/20 09:20, David Brown wrote:

On 06/04/2020 05:55, Ricky C wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2020 at 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 5:10:59 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:56:32 +0100, Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


The problem isn't the hygiene, but rather the kind of meat
sold. Eating a wide range of wild-animal meat exposes you to
lots of zoonoses. The African enthusiasm for bush-meat is just
as bad. And we got measles from cows.

While that is true, it is worth noting that bird flu came in through chickens,
and a big channel for flu variants is pigs - neither of these are particularly
exotic.

Humans have lived with, and eaten, all sorts of animals for millions of years.
It is the close proximity of large numbers of people, large numbers of animals,
and different kinds of animals that is (relatively) new.  You get bird flu from
chickens by living with the chickens in your house and crapping in your dinner.
You get flu variants by having the chickens and pigs living together.  Yes,
hygiene is very much a big problem - though not the whole problem.


Perhaps.  I'm all for everyone becoming a vegetarian, much
healthier.

There's no perhaps about it. And being vegetarian takes rather
close attention to what you eat, if you want to stay healthy. We
evolved as omnivores, not plant eaters.

It does???  I think "rather close attention" is a bit of an
overstatement.  There are very few essential nutrients that are not
common in plants.  There are rather a lot that are not present in
meat at all so that the absence of meat in the diet is not at all
hard to compensate for.

What aspects of vegetarian diets do you find lacking?


Tom has given some key points.

The mistake some people make about vegetarianism is that they simply cut out the
meat, and don't replace it with an appropriate variety of vegetable
alternatives.  They go from "fish and chips" to "chips".  A lot of people don't
think very much about what they eat, and in moving to a vegetarian diet they
replace the meat with the easiest alternatives, which are typically starchy
foods (pasta, potatoes, rice) rather than dairy products, eggs, nuts, beans,
pulses, wholegrain food, etc.  They see "going vegetarian" as "not eating meat"
rather than "eating vegetables".

Worse: *many* just go from meat/milk to titles
such as "free from" meat/milk without bothering
to look at what isn't in the substitutes.

Examples: soy milk, almond milk, quorn chicken
pieces, quorn bacon rashers.

Now some of those may be OK products for cooking/texture,
but they are nutritionally very different.

In some countries, vegetarianism is very common, and there is plenty of
appropriate food available.  It's easy to live as a vegetarian in the UK, and (I
assume) the USA.  Here in Norway, it has become easier in recent years but even
just ten years ago it was hard to get basic protein sources like soya.  When I
moved here 25+ years ago, I quickly realised that it was vastly easier to add
fish to my diet than to remain vegetarian.

In Iceland I've seen small (~5cm) potatoes being sold in
the local supermarket. Each was individually barcoded

And as Tom pointed out, there are different degrees of idealism and fanaticism
in diets.  Avoiding eggs and dairy food makes it harder to get all the right
nutrients.  For the folks that add in "trendy" intolerances, misunderstood ideas
about "ecological" food, etc., it's quite easy to miss out on important foodstuffs.

/I/ don't find my basically vegetarian diet lacking, but there is no doubt that
some people do.  Mind you, a fair number of meat-eaters have very poor diet too.

Precisely.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 7:08:32 PM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:59:57 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

To me, this thread sounds like people are talking a bit at
cross-purposes. There seems to be very differing ideas of what "pay
attention to your diet" means, along with a confusion as to whether
/all/ vegetarians are at risk of B12 and calcium deficiency or just some
of them are.

It was "rather close attention" which sounds judgemental as if it is more than desirable effort. Oh, I attributed it to Larkin since that is the sort of thing he would say, but it was actually Sloman and that is the sort of thing he would say as well. They have more in common that they might think. lol

From Rick C's point of view, which isn't one to be emulated.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:24:41 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/04/2020 15:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:23:01 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/04/2020 01:00, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:40:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 12:26:33 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:00:21 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

The lockdowns are trashing the economy, which hurts people, and are
probably not going to save many lives.

UK modelling suggests it may decrease the death toll by an order of
magnitude or so. That is a distinctly non-trivial contribution.

Oh. Computer modeling says that? How silly of me.

OK. *STOP* using spice then - that is also a computer model.

I accurately simulate linear systems with known accurate component
models and initial conditions. Nobody accurately simulates chaotic
systems with bad componant models and unknown initial conditions, but
that doesn't stop them from trying, and generating press releases.

The more people you predict killed, the more likely that The
Associated Press will spread your name. So there is a
dead-bodies-stacked-up bidding war based on infallible Computer
Simulations by Top Scientists. Has any quotable source got to a
billion deaths yet?





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard