Why You Must Act Now

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:48:27 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 16/03/2020 17:46, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 1:15:53 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

The counter-point would be that there's no point in testing for
something if the answer won't change subsequent actions. Better to
concentrate limited efforts where the effort might change
subsequent actions.

I don't like that, but it is rational.

It sounds rational, but the devil is in the details. What does it

The one where the UK is getting it totally wrong at the moment is that
they have said any family member with symptoms entire family must self
isolate. This sounds OK at first glance *BUT* many medics marry other
medics so you lose two trained staff each time one of them gets sick and
if they do have coronavirus you really need to test for it.

Testing for this virus is not like connecting your oscilloscope to a circuit. First it takes over a day to get a result. Then there is a non-trivial false negative result rate. Then there is the delay in being infected and testing positive or showing symptoms. Considering that medics will be dealing with a lot of people it makes sense to me that anyone with a reasonable possibility of being infected should go into quarantine at least initially.

People that have recovered no longer need full PPE since ordinary
barrier nursing will be sufficient protection for them and I strongly
suspect that running out of PPE mid-pandemic will be the next disaster.

mean exactly "might change subsequent actions"? Anyone who tests
positive will be treated for the disease even if this only means self
quarantine at home. But if many are not tested, many infected won't
know to be quarantined.

There is no realistic treatment for the disease beyond helping people to
cope with the symptoms and oxygenation or ventilation if they are unable
to breathe. UK only has about 5000 ventilators and the health minister
has been asking JCB if they could knock some up on their heavy tractor
production line (they mostly make quarry trucks and earth movers).

None of which is relevant to the issue of testing.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 6:40:29 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 16/03/2020 18:16, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 1:57:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 16/03/20 17:46, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 1:15:53 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 16/03/20 16:04, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 16/03/20 14:23, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

What's also increasing exponentially is the availability
of testing kits.

In the US that wouldn't be difficult!

In the UK we are scaling back testing of people with cough
or fever in the community, reserving testing for those in
hospital.

And that is part of the problem. People don't universally
end up in the hospital with this disease. They live their
lives and infect others. Without widespread testing many
don't know they are infected and the problem appears better
than it really is.

Agreed.

The counter-point would be that there's no point in testing for
something if the answer won't change subsequent actions. Better
to concentrate limited efforts where the effort might change
subsequent actions.

I don't like that, but it is rational.

It sounds rational, but the devil is in the details. What does
it mean exactly "might change subsequent actions"? Anyone who
tests positive will be treated for the disease even if this only
means self quarantine at home. But if many are not tested, many
infected won't know to be quarantined.

It is sufficient detail in the context of the UK recommended
actions, which I'm not going to repeat in full here. Summary: new
persistent cough or temp >37.8 and you and your family should self
isolate for 7 days - and not go to a GP or hospital unless you get
significantly worse.

That is too little, too late. By the time you show symptoms, you
have likely been infecting people for the better part of a week.

UK was doing that with reverse contact tracing and held the baseline
down for more than a month. But the thing that makes it almost
impossible is that something like half of all those infected show little
or no symptoms but are still shedding virus. That is based on the
preliminary statistics from the Diamond Princess cruise liner. The only
decent sized exposed population to be fully screened so far.

That was my point. In the early stages of the pandemic the testing
should be much more aggressive in order to identify as many patients
for quarantine as possible. Once it gets past the stage where the
large numbers of infections make it impractical to test widely
nothing can be done about that first week of being infectious other
than social distancing. In China social distancing is the law and
enforced by authorities. Here it is voluntary and much less
effective.

UK has just passed that point (at least in London) and so the government
has panicked and applied a lock down to the entire country. There have
only been a total of 6 confirmed cases to date in my very rural county.

That's the danger of this disease. Starting with 6 cases still will show exponential growth unless something is done to limit the spread. So in 9 days you have 60 and in 18 days you have 600, etc. Only two things limit this growth. One is that people figure it out and maintain isolation. The other is that so many people are infected that the exponential curve ends. That would be around 8 weeks into the infection starting with 6 people.

Yesterday somebody from the town 4 miles in one direction died in
the hospital 4 miles in the other direction.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. What is the context?

I think he is saying that it is now very close to home. Not just an
abstract concept for him now. I'm involved in the planning for my
village to ensure that the now quaranteened elderly can get shopping
delivered to their door. There are a lot of them in rural Yorkshire.
Young people cannot afford to live here any more.

The food issue is on my mind. In January I had no transportation and so was in "self-quarantine". Very rural here with no delivery of anything. I ate most of the old canned goods and nearly everything from my freezer. I also lost 10 lbs. Then in Feb I was sick with something for over 2 weeks. I don't think it was CV19, rather the flu perhaps. This time I had stocked up again, but ran out of my staples. Now I am looking at running out of staples again and I just don't know if I need to start opening cans of beans or just go to the store.

This is going to be long and painful. I have no idea what I am
going to do with myself over the next few weeks. That is
assuming I don't catch this bug.

The assumption here is that "everybody" (i.e. 60-80% depending on
who you listen to) will catch it sooner or later. In the absence of
other information, that seems likely.

It would seem you didn't read the link Win posted. China currently
has a cumulative infection level that is far, far below 80% and it is
rising very, very slowly, slower than in the US or the UK. So
clearly widespread infection is not inevitable. But it takes extreme
measures to deal with it.

Those extreme measures will only work though whilst they remain extreme.
The moment you allow social contacts again the thing will take off.

You can smother a fire but unless you completely extinguish it then it
will come back again the moment you lift up the fire blanket.

Who do you listen to?

I can usually find the reports that the government is citing although in
this instance the actual Imperial College research is still not out.

Don't know about the UK, but the government in the US doesn't actually do a good job of getting the point across. They are big on using measured tones rather than conveying information.

The two things that drove it home to me was Win's link...

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

Great graphs and very clear explanations.

The other thing was just using the data at

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

and taking the slope of the line on the log plot. That clearly shows an 8-9 day for the number of infected to grow 10x. Extend the graph and the results are inescapable. Once I did that I started texting my close friends. Seems the rest of the world (well, my world) is coming to the same conclusion.

I am impressed that companies are starting to shut down and let workers stay home. I guess they realize they will need workers when this is over.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 17/03/20 14:51, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 14:18, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 17/03/20 09:46, Martin Brown wrote:
I can't find the latest Imperial college report that so spooked the
government last night that they went into panic measures

Perhaps?
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?referringSource=articleShare

Thanks. Someone sent me a link to it directly earlier today.

The one thing that strikes me about their simulation is that comparing "do
nothing" peak in June to their best scenario merely delays the inevitable by 5
months and creates an even higher spike in mid-November:
  Fig 3(A&B) green line in the above.

Indeed.

I also note Fig 4, where an on-off-on-off set of measures is
simulated for 2 years to see how it can modify the weekly
admittance to ICU. Neither the ICU peak's interval nor the
peak height changes much, which is rather depressing. It
isn't clear (to me) how much the overall death rate and
herd immunity change in that time.

But it does look like either you survive infection or
your life depends on a vaccine becoming available.

Have to wait and see what sort of rabbit Rishi Sunak can pull out of his hat
tonight. He's my MP and an impressive guy but I don't envy him the job in hand
(or for that matter the new head of the Bank of England).

Mine is the "fragrant" Liam Fox.

I imagine people around Cummings and his ilk are thinking
unthinkable thoughts like
- short term:
- reduced bed blocking
- more inheritance tax income
- long term:
- reduced pension payments
- reduced care payments
- reduced pressure on the NHS
- more houses becoming available, reducing the pressure to
build more
- more stamp tax income as people move
- a hard brexit ain't our fault
- lots of opportunities to bury bad news
- city/government isn't to blame for the (overdue)
stock market "correction"

Me a cynic? Shurely shome mishtake.

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:46:58 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

USA could well get into crisis sooner since the CDC pandemic response
team was largely destroyed in one of Trumps earlier anti-science purges.

Our foreign friends often fail to understand that our government is
a system of independent states with their own health departments, each
able to react and respond. Unlike our smaller European friends, we're
not bound by one central agency, nor one central bureaucracy.

Actually it is much like the EU where each nation state has it's own powers but must bow to the overlord of the EU on certain specific matters.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:28:33 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 10:32:57 AM UTC-4, legg wrote:
On 15 Mar 2020 19:26:36 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now - Tomas Pueyo

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-
f4d3d9cd99ca

reposting, with apologies . .

The Lancet published a recalculation of the case fatality
rate, taking the delay between 'diagnosed' and death into
account, as of March 1st. This looked to have stabilized at
about 6%, vs the 1-2% being generally spouted before March 15.
It's now 3.5%.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2820%2930195-X/fulltext

The CFR of SARS rose from 3% to 10%, as all the data came in,
without similar delays being considered in the mean time.

By age, in China, up to Feb 11:

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-CFR-by-age-in-China-1-800x526.png

With underlying health conditions:

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/03/Coronavirus-CFR-by-health-condition-in-China.png

Seasonal flu fatality rates are generally an order of magnitude lower.

RL

Don't go by any of that, these figures are changing by the minute. The epidemiologists now estimate that less than 14% of the infected people developed symptoms serious enough to seek testing or treatment. This means they weren't included in the mortality statistics, making everything about 1/6 of what they have been reporting.

Yeah, but if people don't know they have the disease and aren't counted, then it's a bit like the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear. They don't really matter because they don't show up in any statistic.

Who cares about the exact numbers??? The point is lots of people will die of this disease. There are things we can do to help minimize that and we are starting to do them. Let's focus on helping each other, ok?

Or you can worry about the hand sanitizer dispenser at your local Walmart.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:39:05 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 15:13, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:48:27 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 17:46, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 1:15:53 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner
wrote:

The counter-point would be that there's no point in testing
for something if the answer won't change subsequent actions.
Better to concentrate limited efforts where the effort might
change subsequent actions.

I don't like that, but it is rational.

It sounds rational, but the devil is in the details. What does
it

The one where the UK is getting it totally wrong at the moment is
that they have said any family member with symptoms entire family
must self isolate. This sounds OK at first glance *BUT* many medics
marry other medics so you lose two trained staff each time one of
them gets sick and if they do have coronavirus you really need to
test for it.

Testing for this virus is not like connecting your oscilloscope to a
circuit. First it takes over a day to get a result. Then there is a
non-trivial false negative result rate. Then there is the delay in
being infected and testing positive or showing symptoms. Considering

The test being used in ROW are not as crap as the USA ones.

Don't kid yourself. Every medical test has false positives and false negatives. It's just a matter of amount.

that medics will be dealing with a lot of people it makes sense to me
that anyone with a reasonable possibility of being infected should go
into quarantine at least initially.

Yes. But once they have had the infection tested positive and recovered
they are effectively immune to it and so can work freely without PPE in
the hostile environment.

1) Not really because they don't know for certain that you are immune.

2) Not really because the PPE also helps to prevent transmission between patients. Remember that not everyone coming into a medical care scenario will have this disease.

That makes it very important to know whether or
not they really have had the Covid infection or not. Health workers with
a natural immunity will be invaluable during the peak period of stress.

Not so much as I explained above.

UK policy has changed to not testing anyone who isn't really poorly and
admitted to hospital (so that the medics know what PPE to wear). Medics
with symptoms are no longer being tested for Covid-19 but sent home and
told to self isolate - along with their entire family.

You mean they are treated like everyone else?

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 08:11:23 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

Cheers,
James Arthur

San Francisco and surrounding counties are on shelter-in-place
lockdown for at least three weeks. That includes Silicon Valley -
Apple, Google, Facebook, Salesforce, Twitter, Intel, LTC, all that. It
must be costing billions a day. SF has allocated 10 MILLION! dollars
to compensate people without sick leave; that might cover half an hour
of off time.

Lots of small businesses are going to fail. All sorts of people will
be in financial distress.

Driving is now illegal except for necessities. Looking down the hill
onto Bosworth Avenue, traffic is down a little. This is going to save
more lives from traffic accidents than from virus deaths.

All the ski areas are closed too; otherwise I'd be up there piling
days on my season pass. This will be a giant hit on the Tahoe economy
too.

When this enforced separation is ended, it will be interesting to see
what the infection rate is. Maybe we will just peak later than the
rest of the country.

I'm going to drive to work later today; I'll probably be alone there.
According to the ordinance, that's legal for several reasons. I've got
to drag the dumpsters in and Dropbox about a terabyte of stuff for
people to use at home. The Brat and I are going to lay out a 10-layer
board together; she loves to lay out boards.

What's a human life worth? That should be quantified as public policy.
I've heard of cases that value a life from $3000 (stop signs, guard
rails) to billions (possible carcinogens).



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its way
through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects the
most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to understand?


Stop making sense. It's unpopular.

Sorrrrrie. I know, I'll hoard toilet paper instead!

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its way
through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects the
most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to understand?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

tirsdag den 17. marts 2020 kl. 15.01.24 UTC+1 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:46:58 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

USA could well get into crisis sooner since the CDC pandemic response
team was largely destroyed in one of Trumps earlier anti-science purges.

Our foreign friends often fail to understand that our government is
a system of independent states with their own health departments, each
able to react and respond. Unlike our smaller European friends, we're
not bound by one central agency, nor one central bureaucracy.

please tell, what central agency or central bureaucracy on health does
the EU have?

 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its way
through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects the
most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to understand?

Cheers,
James Arthur

Stop making sense. It's unpopular.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:54:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its way
through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects the
most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to understand?

I understood it the first time. It's a poorly thought out idea. You are suggesting that we sacrifice a portion of the population to provide herd immunity to the rest. Are you willing to roll the dice by being infected and possibly dying?

Please don't be tediously uninformed and dull about this.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:53:34 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

tirsdag den 17. marts 2020 kl. 15.01.24 UTC+1 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:46:58 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

USA could well get into crisis sooner since the CDC pandemic response
team was largely destroyed in one of Trumps earlier anti-science purges.

Our foreign friends often fail to understand that our government is
a system of independent states with their own health departments, each
able to react and respond. Unlike our smaller European friends, we're
not bound by one central agency, nor one central bureaucracy.

please tell, what central agency or central bureaucracy on health does
the EU have?

I meant the United States don't rely on a single central government
the way, say, the U.K. might. The U.K.'s Dept. of Health should
be compared to roughly a single state in the U.S., e.g. California's
Dept. of Public Health.

I didn't mean that Europe relies on a central health agency in Brussels
analogous to our CDC. I was pointing out the unrealism of such a model,
and the error of Martin's expecting our CDC to perform like the
administration of (or perform the functions of) the health authority
over some diminutive fraction of Europe.

In short, there's a federal role here, but states (like European
countries) can take care of themselves, and lack of central
government ain't the problem here or in Europe. I mean, do we really
need Big Brother's own lips to tell us from Brussels (or Washington)
to wash our hands and not touch our faces, or could a state agency
do that just as well?

Where I live people were doing that weeks ago, having informed
themselves, without having to be told by anyone.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Martin Brown]

On 17/03/2020 16:53, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

tirsdag den 17. marts 2020 kl. 15.01.24 UTC+1 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:46:58 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

USA could well get into crisis sooner since the CDC pandemic response
team was largely destroyed in one of Trumps earlier anti-science purges.

Our foreign friends often fail to understand that our government is
a system of independent states with their own health departments, each
able to react and respond. Unlike our smaller European friends, we're
not bound by one central agency, nor one central bureaucracy.

please tell, what central agency or central bureaucracy on health does
the EU have?

Mostly high level groups that ensure that best practice is disseminated
widely and helps to survey and review new threats and treatments. eg

https://ec.europa.eu/health/state/summary_en
and
http://www.euro.who.int/en/about-us/partners/observatory

They also ensure that EHIC cards are honoured in all EU countries which
means any EU national can get treated in any of the other EU states.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:32:23 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Sorrrrrie. I know, I'll hoard toilet paper instead!

Where are you going to get the paper to hoard? Tell me NOW!!!

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:50:15 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:32:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its way
through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects the
most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to understand?


Stop making sense. It's unpopular.

Sorrrrrie. I know, I'll hoard toilet paper instead!

Cheers,
James Arthur

The best way to react to Ricky is to ignore him. He's cheap, nasty,
and doesn't know much about electronics.

I may not know as much as you do about transistors, but I know about many other things that you seem to know nothing about and are happy to learn wrong information. Your total lack of critical thinking is amazing.

I find it funny that you think addressing me like you are one of my aunts is some sort of insult. Ok, aunt Johnnie.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:32:14 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably correct
from a purely technical point of view but politically unacceptable to
have to tell the population that possibly 1% of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way through
our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be immune in just
a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But maybe
aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the infection, is
actually putting our vulnerable population at increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its way
through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects the
most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to understand?


Stop making sense. It's unpopular.

Sorrrrrie. I know, I'll hoard toilet paper instead!

Cheers,
James Arthur

The best way to react to Ricky is to ignore him. He's cheap, nasty,
and doesn't know much about electronics.

Sloman and Always Wrong too.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 4:18:45 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 17:20, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:54:13 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-4,
dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 10:52:04 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
wrote:

The original slowly build herd immunity strategy was probably
correct from a purely technical point of view but politically
unacceptable to have to tell the population that possibly 1%
of them were going to die.

If we sheltered our oldsters whilst the WuFlu made its way
through our invulnerable youngsters, 80% of the herd could be
immune in just a few weeks.

We're kind of doing the first part already by default. But
maybe aggressively protecting those who can tolerate the
infection, is actually putting our vulnerable population at
increased risk.

If we actually had a population of "invulnerable youngsters" that
would be a good idea. Unfortunately when you base your idea on a
faulty premise the result is also faulty.

You're being tediously literal and dull.

If we shelter the most-vulnerable whilst the pandemic works its
way through the rest of us, we create a herd immunity that protects
the most-vulnerable. Is that so controversial or hard to
understand?

I understood it the first time. It's a poorly thought out idea. You

It is at present the only option that stands a decent chance of working.

By your opinion only. It seems the UK was considering such a move and realized what a bad idea it is.

Something like half the people off the cruise liner who tested positive
for Covid-19 showed little or no symptoms of the disease. A fair number
of the elderly with pre-existing medical conditions were very seriously
ill. We can only realistically control the shape of the infection curve
now - you cannot put the genie back in the bottle (or Pandora's box).

None of this has any bearing on the issue.

are suggesting that we sacrifice a portion of the population to
provide herd immunity to the rest. Are you willing to roll the dice
by being infected and possibly dying?

The UK was going to follow that approach based on the best available
scientific advice until yesterday when they chickened out. The least
worst option under the present constraints is to accept that something
like 1% of the population - mostly elderly with pre-existing health
conditions are going to die very soon. We can delay that by about six
months with Herculean efforts and totally destroying the world economy
but that doesn't look like a particularly rational approach to me.

The graph showing that it was only delayed was if they have lockdown for a few months and then remove it completely. Not a realistic scenario. A lockdown removal would be gradual and if signs of the infection ramping up appear it should be reinstituted. This will at least prevent a total overrun of the medical system.

If you look at the simulations that the new UK government policy is
based on we live like medieval Puritan hermits for 6 months and then it
all goes pear shaped in mid-November. I don't see that as much of an
improvement over managing the infection rate during the summer. YMMV

Read it again. The info I looked at was for a limited time lockdown with a total removal.

Please don't be tediously uninformed and dull about this.

This is a critical moment and the consequences of bad populist decisions
made now will reverberate for years to come. I am amazed that the 2020
Olympics in Japan have not yet been called off. They are presently
running a sumo tournament in Osaka with zero audience attendance. At
least one rishiki has been dropped out for suspected Covid-19 infection.

There are almost no intercontinental flights left.

So??? Your thinking seems to be all over the map.

--

Rick C.

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