When is the Covid war over?

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 3:22:39 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:50:01 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:22:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:18:04 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:51:38 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> 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:

<snip>

Absolutely untrue, even among old people. Look it up.

It depends which lying news broadcaster bribed by the government that you believe.

And the Commander has an infallible way of working out when they are lying, which he hasn't bothered to tell us about.

I very much doubt we have the count of infections out by much. Why would we?

Because we only test people who are very sick and seem to have it. We
don't know how many have it and ignore it, or how many had it before
tests were available.

Easily worked out by guesswork, or random checking.

Sadly, guesswork isn't a reliable source, and doing random checks takes testing effort way from places where it could do more good.

> Just like you don't have to ask every single person in the country which way they're going to vote to get a fairly accurate idea.

You still have to ask quite a few and making sure that you ask a representative sample isn't trivial either.

What we have a lot of is fear, panic, press, politics, and bad data.

Agreed. Which is why we should have ignored it entirely and let it run its course just like a cold or flu.

And kill some 50 million people. Murderous halfwit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 2:50:10 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:22:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:18:04 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:51:38 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> 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:

<snip>

It kills almost everybody in hospitals, as they're the ones that are most vulnerable to it.

Absolutely untrue, even among old people. Look it up.

I very much doubt we have the count of infections out by much. Why would we?

Because we only test people who are very sick and seem to have it.

The US does. South Korea has now tested some 27% of their population, and Australia is desperately trying to catch up.

We don't know how many have it and ignore it, or how many had it before
tests were available.

The number of people who die of it is a useful guide, but not to John Larkin who doesn't really understand logical inference.

> What we have a lot of is fear, panic, press, politics, and bad data.

And demented creeps like John Larkin, who can't be bothered to try to make sense of the data we have got and exercises his imagination instead.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 2:01:48 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:

<snip>

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.

It's just a bad flu, stop being such a sissy.

It's an order of magnitude worse that flu. Stop being a half-wit.

> If you want to avoid it, nobody is stopping you. But closing half the world down is causing way more problems.

It's causing lots of problems. But lots of dead and damaged people present problems too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 1:51:42 AM UTC+11, 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 it's getting too popular/slow lately.

It doesn't matter how many catch it,

It matters a lot to the people who do catch it.

> we know that 4% of people who get it die.

We don't.

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

More important, you chance of dying from it increases with your age.

> 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.

If the restrictions are done right, relatively few people will get it, and only some of them will die.

As China and South Korea illustrate, if you put the restrictions in place early enough you can stop new domestic cases, and keep new infections coming in from overseas from starting new epidemics, at which point you don't need the restrictions any more - South Korea never actually went into lock-down - and can get back to making money.

> 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.

Because you don't know that they've caught it until they become symptomatic, and they can infect other people (usually two or three, but they can do better in large gatherings).

<snipped even more gross stupidity>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 18:00:21 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 5:13:24 AM UTC+11, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 18:46:08 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:22:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

I very much doubt we have the count of infections out by much. Why would we?

Because we only test people who are very sick and seem to have it. We
don't know how many have it and ignore it, or how many had it before
tests were available.

The outbreak maps do NOT show the uniformity that is consistent with the high-undetected-infected-population hypothesis. No one believes it is safe to assume that hypothesis, so it's useless. Testing here is showing about 7%

positives, which means the tests aren't only going to very ill (but it also
means we don't have good overall population coverage).

Waiting for a reliable test for immunity? Not a prudent option, rather we ought to continue with isolation strategies.

Continue isolating any longer and we'll all die of other problems.

Not for quite a while.

> It is not possible to run a civilisation without leaving your house.

But you can keep it going without leaving your house all that often.

> I guarantee you when this is over, there will be thousands of bankrupt companies, the economy will have collapsed, inflation through the roof, what a fucking mess.

And you've got enough money to pay out on that guarantee? As fucking messes go, it will have to be pretty bad to match the fatuous idiocies that you have been posting here.

> Just let 4% of us die and be done with it.

As if you know how many might die. Do an Italy or a New York and quite a few more people die because the hospitals run out of ventilators.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 5:12:05 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:22:33 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:50:01 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:22:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:18:04 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 15:51:38 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> 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:

<snip>

We could do voluntary social distancing, wipe down handrails, do some
basic sanitary stuff that we should always do.

Doesn't work. There's always some idiot that wants to go to church with all the other half-witted faithful, or to an end-of-the-world party.

And isolate/protect old and sick people, which we should also always do.

The lockdowns are trashing the economy, which hurts people, and are
probably not going to save many lives. We didn't lock-down in any of
the last few pandemics.

They didn't get far enough into the community to make lock-downs worth the effort.

I expect some gigantic disruptions to the electronic supply chain. We
had a buying panic over some values of ceramic caps last year. You
ain't seen nothin yet.

And what John Larkin thinks he can see frequently doesn't exist.

We are doing a giant parts breakdown run now, and buying for a lot of
likely production, before the big panics. If we over-buy, we'll use
most of it eventually.

Also known as being on the leading edge of the big panic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

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

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 01:57:43 +0100, Rickie C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 7:09:24 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 23:52:47 +0100, Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 22:12:27 +0100, dcaster@krl.org <dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 1:46:14 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 8:50:10 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 16:22:20 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

I very much doubt we have the count of infections out by much. Why would we?

Because we only test people who are very sick and seem to have it. We
don't know how many have it and ignore it, or how many had it before
tests were available.

The outbreak maps do NOT show the uniformity that is consistent with
the high-undetected-infected-population hypothesis. No one believes it is safe to
assume that hypothesis, so it's useless. Testing here is showing about 7%
positives, which means the tests aren't only going to very ill (but it also
means we don't have good overall population coverage).

Waiting for a reliable test for immunity? Not a prudent option, rather we ought to
continue with isolation strategies.

But it is not a this or that but not both choice. I am waiting for a reliable test for immunity, but am staying isolated in the mean time.

You'll go insane if you stay indoors for months.

Nobody has to stay indoors. You just need to avoid people you don't live with.

Which is why I go hillwalking illegally instead off walking in town. It's nicer too.

The way people ignore the idea there is an infectious disease that can kill results in more infections and more overloading of the hospitals.

So what? There's a 96% chance you'll be fine. Greater than that if you ain't old.

This is getting tiring. You just ignore any info you don't want to hear. First, the 96% is not a good number for avoiding serious disease and death. You completely ignore the collateral damage from clogging hospitals. But I get it. You've made up your mind and aren't interested in the facts.

Why would I care about the hospitals? Either I'm going to die form it or I'm not. There is nothing a hospital can do to cure me.

I don't care about what people like you think. The facts are out there and you are free to believe what you want. Even Larkin is not going out any more than he has to. He brags that he went to work with three other people in a big building. Woo Hoo, big risk taker. Essentially he is taking this very seriously but talking like it means nothing. Maybe he should volunteer to push wheelchairs at the hospital? How about you?

You know what I think's crazy, supermarket shopping. They limit you to three of each item, so everyone shops several times, more people, more queues, more infection. They ain't got a clue.

Why are you so obsessed with trivialities? You sound like that other guy who obsessed over the hand sanitizers at Walmart. Rather than asking them to fix the machine, he came here and griped.

It's not a triviality. It's the most annoying thing about the virus. I can't buy food, a home gym, brewing yeast, brewing sugar, or a freezer.

Why are you now called Ricky C with a Y?

To make Johnnie happy. Should I spell it with "ie"?

More likely you're evading killfiles.

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

 

[Commander Kinsey]

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.

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. If you want to stay indoors because you're a hypochondriac or you're elderly, then do so, but locking in young healthy folk who could be working and keeping the world running is insanity.

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

Which would those be? Flu

Flu comes out a few times a year, I don't recall ever being told to stay indoors.

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?

No lockdowns for mad cow, just wash your feet when going hillwalking.

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 3:23:53 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 01:57:43 +0100, Rickie C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 7:09:24 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 23:52:47 +0100, Ricky C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


The way people ignore the idea there is an infectious disease that can kill results in more infections and more overloading of the hospitals.

So what? There's a 96% chance you'll be fine. Greater than that if you ain't old.

This is getting tiring. You just ignore any info you don't want to hear. First, the 96% is not a good number for avoiding serious disease and death. You completely ignore the collateral damage from clogging hospitals. But I get it. You've made up your mind and aren't interested in the facts..

Why would I care about the hospitals? Either I'm going to die form it or I'm not. There is nothing a hospital can do to cure me.

If you have a heart attack you will care if the hospitals are functioning. Besides, your facts are just wrong. Ventilators help people breath until their bodies can fight off the virus.


> >> > I don't care about what people like you think. The facts are out there and you are free to believe what you want.

Obviously you don't care about the facts either. You do a good job of ignoring them.

Even Larkin is not going out any more than he has to. He brags that he went to work with three other people in a big building. Woo Hoo, big risk taker. Essentially he is taking this very seriously but talking like it means nothing. Maybe he should volunteer to push wheelchairs at the hospital? How about you?

You know what I think's crazy, supermarket shopping. They limit you to three of each item, so everyone shops several times, more people, more queues, more infection. They ain't got a clue.

Why are you so obsessed with trivialities? You sound like that other guy who obsessed over the hand sanitizers at Walmart. Rather than asking them to fix the machine, he came here and griped.

It's not a triviality. It's the most annoying thing about the virus. I can't buy food, a home gym, brewing yeast, brewing sugar, or a freezer.

My heart pumps purple peanut butter for you, boo, hoo.

--

Rick C.

----- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 20:26:27 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CFKinsey@military.org.jp> 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.

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. If you want to stay indoors because you're a hypochondriac or you're elderly, then do so, but locking in young healthy folk who could be working and keeping the world running is insanity.

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

Which would those be? Flu

Flu comes out a few times a year, I don't recall ever being told to stay indoors.

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?

No lockdowns for mad cow, just wash your feet when going hillwalking.

We have long lines now to get into grocery stores. Only a few people
are allowed in at a time. San Francisco banned plastic bags years ago,
so everybody got their own canvass shopping bags. The city just banned
them because they might carry germs. I think shoppers should strip
naked and be sprayed with disenfectant before they are allowed into
stores. Clothes and shoes can carry germs. Oh, hair too. Shave them.

I have a schoolmate who is an important MD. He says the patient count
in his hospital is way down from normal.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 02:05:16 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:18:25 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Indeed, as I said earlier, we only need to protect the elderly and anyone with a medical problem that means they couldn't handle corona aswell. Most of us will just have a week in bed when we get it.

Oh, so you plan to be a victim?

4% chance even if I get it, in fact less as I'm not elderly.

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
and by opposing, end them"

There's good work toward a vaccine, and I'm supportive of that branch
of the future. The speaker of the above lines, was suicidal.

And I have 5 machines running scientific models to find it:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
https://www.ipd.uw.edu/2020/02/rosettas-role-in-fighting-coronavirus/
You can run it on any desktop, laptop, or Android phone.

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

 

[Ricky C]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 5:14:30 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 20:26:27 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> 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.

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. If you want to stay indoors because you're a hypochondriac or you're elderly, then do so, but locking in young healthy folk who could be working and keeping the world running is insanity.

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

Which would those be? Flu

Flu comes out a few times a year, I don't recall ever being told to stay indoors.

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?

No lockdowns for mad cow, just wash your feet when going hillwalking.

We have long lines now to get into grocery stores. Only a few people
are allowed in at a time. San Francisco banned plastic bags years ago,
so everybody got their own canvass shopping bags. The city just banned
them because they might carry germs. I think shoppers should strip
naked and be sprayed with disenfectant before they are allowed into
stores. Clothes and shoes can carry germs. Oh, hair too. Shave them.

I was wondering about the value of banning the shopping bags. But the stores are the primary place to exchange the virus at this point and it makes sense to be extra cautious. Your clothes get washed periodically (as well as yourself). Some of us even wash our hair. When was the last time the shopping bag was cleaned in the way it would need to be free of infection? It seems to make sense to not bring the bags into the store. I bet they don't accept returns at the moment either.

I have a schoolmate who is an important MD. He says the patient count
in his hospital is way down from normal.

Sure, who wants to go into a hospital where they are treating sick people? I believe you have said that yourself many times.

--

Rick C.

----+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-04-03 17:14, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2020 20:26:27 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
CFKinsey@military.org.jp> 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.

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. If you
want to stay indoors because you're a hypochondriac or you're
elderly, then do so, but locking in young healthy folk who could be
working and keeping the world running is insanity.

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

Which would those be? Flu

Flu comes out a few times a year, I don't recall ever being told to
stay indoors.

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?

No lockdowns for mad cow, just wash your feet when going
hillwalking.

We have long lines now to get into grocery stores. Only a few people
are allowed in at a time. San Francisco banned plastic bags years
ago, so everybody got their own canvass shopping bags.

I just received a box of 500 single-use grocery bags from a restaurant
supply house. Super cheap, highly recommended.

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

 

[whit3rd]

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.

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.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 20:47:08 +0100, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 3:38:17 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2020 20:22:02 +0100, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 11:01:48 AM UTC-4, 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.

It's just a bad flu, stop being such a sissy. If you want to avoid it, nobody is stopping you. But closing half the world down is causing way more problems.

More problems compared to what? What will be the impact of a 1-4% death rate? It's not all older people. There are children dying as well, without pre-existing conditions.

You can't tell if they had something undetected. Clearly most younger folk are fine. It's just weeding out the weak, which will lessen the load on hospitals in the future. 96% survive, so clearly those 4% were inferior.

By definition "undetected" means it could not be detected. That doesn't appear to be happening with this disease. That's why we have so many infected and dying. They are being detected.

I'm talking about PREVIOUS illnesses, duh!

> There are many dying who are not in any way "weak".

As above, we don't know who has problems of other varieties. There are so many things we don't know in medicine.

> But if you support Eugenics, I guess the ends justify the means.

Without Eugenics, the human race is doomed. You have read Darwin haven't you?

Why do you think it is acceptable for a minority of the population should be allowed to put the rest of the population at risk.

They're not. Anyone who wants to hide can do so. If you stay in your house I can't infect you.

Of course you can when you deliver my mail and groceries. No one can hibernate 100%. Only a total twit would think you could.

It's pretty easy to avoid catching it off the postman. Don't let him cough over you, and disinfect the parcel.

That's why speeding is illegal. No one cares if you die, but you may take out others with you.

It's only slightly illegal, it's just a fine. You get fined more for not paying your TV license.

And explain the seatbelt law....

Your injuries and/or deaths exact a toll on the rest of us.

Only in a left wing thieving society.

> We don't allow suicide either.

That's because you're a moron, what gives you the right to imprison someone in a life they don't want? You put a dog down, yet you force a human to continue.

Stop being a spoiled brat and go back to playing your video games.

Nothing spoiled about it. I'm just telling you we're royally fucking up the world by trying to press the pause button.

You are just thinking of yourself with a tiny mind.

I'm thinking of the future of civilisation after we've got inflation through the roof and half the companies bankrupt.

> You remind me of Boris. How is he doing these days?

He has mild symptoms, because he's not elderly.

> Stupid is as stupid does.

Your grasp of grammar appalls me.

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 3, 2020 at 5:00:42 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

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.

Again, you use 'probably' without any calculation, or even estimate, of
probability. By watching the boat for a couple of weeks, then testing everybody,
you can tell how the exponential curve of infection in that (unusual) situation,
with aware persons trying not to contaminate each other, intersected
the timeline at 14 days. That's not much info.

It wasn't a petri dish (those are round, glass, with lids). A 'more normal city'
cannot be the description of a city in lockdown, so why mention it at all?
If you want to make assumptions and draw conclusions, you have to
express your assumptions and support the conclusions, a metaphor with
glass dishes is inadequate.

 

[John Larkin]

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.

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.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 6:26:33 AM UTC+11, 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.

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.

Wrong. You know that 96% of the population won't die of it, if they are lucky. All of them can die of it. In my age group 10% are likely to die or it - more if the ventilators in the local hospital are tied up trying to prevent younger people from dying.

If you want to stay indoors because you're a hypochondriac or you're elderly, then do so, but locking in young healthy folk who could be working and keeping the world running is insanity.

We didn't lock-down in any of the last few pandemics.

Which would those be? Flu

Flu comes out a few times a year, I don't recall ever being told to stay indoors.

Essentially it doesn't kill people who can still get around outdoors. Covid-19 is a lot more lethal - roughly a factor of ten, and more in an elderly population.

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?

No lockdowns for mad cow, just wash your feet when going hillwalking.

That didn't make any difference.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney