Why You Must Act Now

[Martin Brown]

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.

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).

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.

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

> 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.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[David Brown]

On 17/03/2020 17:54, 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?

It's not hard to understand - unfortunately, it is simply wrong. The
median age for people hospitalised from SARS-2 is between 45 and 50. So
if you want to shelter most of those that will need hospitalisation
while letting the rest get the virus and develop immunity, you need to
shelter everyone over the age of about 30. Otherwise there will be too
many hospitalisations for the health service to cope - and people who
would have survived with hospital care, will now die.

Britain's leading muppets seemed to be following your idea here, until
just recently it dawned on them that millions would die as a result.

(As a side note, no one yet knows for sure that having SARS-2 and
recovering from it imparts immunity. It is likely to do so, but there
are certainly no guarantees - some pathogens can re-infect repeatedly.
It's not a good idea to bet the survival of your country on likely guesses.)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 2:11:32 AM UTC+11, 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 you can aggressively protect them until somebody comes up with a vaccine, that argument falls flat.

The calculations I've seen say that you need 60% of the population to have caught the disease and become immune to provide enough herd immunity to stop exponentially expanding infection and protect the other 40%.

About 17% of the US population is over 65, so it might be worth trying, but it does look a trifle impractical.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 1:06:41 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

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

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).

"A February report reveals that the US has about 170,000 ventilators."
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-hospitals-may-be-short-ventilators-as-coronavirus-spreads-2020-3?op=1

Why does the U.K. have so few?

A more sensible question could be "why does the US have so many"?

If you can use a ventilator to keep a dying patient alive for an extra week in intensive care, you can charge their insurer (or their relatives) a great deal of money for that extra week's care.

US medical costs per head are 50% higher then the next most extravagant countries in the list (France, German and the Netherlands, amongst others) and twice what is spent in the UK.

Americans have shorter life expectancies, so the money isn't buying more effective medical care.

You did argue - back when Obamacare was being debated - the the UK didn't look after diabetes patients as well, but that was a sleigh of hand - the UK has a lot less type 2 diabetes (fewer obese people) than the US and type 1 diabetes is a lot harder to manage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Chris Jones]

On 18/03/2020 02:33, Tom Gardner wrote:

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.

They based their on/off decisions on ICU cases, which is necessarily
somewhat delayed from infection numbers, I would expect leading to
overshoot.

I would like someone to simulate a different, fixed on-off-on-off cycle
(to be tried only as a next step after a strict lockdown has already
diminished the number of cases to a small and manageable value):
Step 1: In their terminology "Off" (no/less isolation measures), for
slightly less than the typical time that it takes for a newly-infected
person to become infectious to others, then
Step 2: "On" (lockdown) for a time somewhat longer than the average time
between a person being infected and noticing the first symptoms
(averaged for those who have symptoms).

For example, based on guesses about these times, and rounding to make
the repetition period be a multiple of 1 week, what if:

* People go to work and be allowed out for 4 days, then
* Impose a thorough lock-down for 10 days,
(and repeat this cycle until a vaccine is available)

My reason for suggesting simulating this is that each infectious person
could infect only one generation of new cases in 4 days, and then there
is a decent (perhaps as good as 50%?) chance that each of these new
cases will be detected by their symptoms and be isolated (and their
household members also be isolated) before they get to meet and infect
anyone outside their household. I would not expect it to be anywhere
near perfect but might be better than some other proposed courses of action.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 9:27:25 PM UTC+11, Chris Jones wrote:

On 18/03/2020 02:33, Tom Gardner wrote:
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.

They based their on/off decisions on ICU cases, which is necessarily
somewhat delayed from infection numbers, I would expect leading to
overshoot.

I would like someone to simulate a different, fixed on-off-on-off cycle
(to be tried only as a next step after a strict lockdown has already
diminished the number of cases to a small and manageable value):
Step 1: In their terminology "Off" (no/less isolation measures), for
slightly less than the typical time that it takes for a newly-infected
person to become infectious to others, then
Step 2: "On" (lockdown) for a time somewhat longer than the average time
between a person being infected and noticing the first symptoms
(averaged for those who have symptoms).

For example, based on guesses about these times, and rounding to make
the repetition period be a multiple of 1 week, what if:

* People go to work and be allowed out for 4 days, then
* Impose a thorough lock-down for 10 days,
(and repeat this cycle until a vaccine is available)

My reason for suggesting simulating this is that each infectious person
could infect only one generation of new cases in 4 days, and then there
is a decent (perhaps as good as 50%?) chance that each of these new
cases will be detected by their symptoms and be isolated (and their
household members also be isolated) before they get to meet and infect
anyone outside their household. I would not expect it to be anywhere
near perfect but might be better than some other proposed courses of action.

It might be worth making it more elaborate.

The chance that infected person infects somebody else rises with the time after infection, and peaks at the time they start showing symptoms.

The process of being infected and showing symptoms is a number of cycles of a single virus particle infecting a single cell, taking it over and turning it into a virus factory until it exhausted and bursts, spreading out of new generation of virus particles.

Some the new generation stick around in the original host and infect more cells, while others escape to infect new hosts. the proportions are going to be same all the way through the process - the virus particles have no information about how many other cells they have infected until the immune system response kicks in.

The original host is getting progressively sicker, and their immune system is eventually going to start to churn out anti-bodies and produce fever and so forth.

The number of virus particles generated and shed will rise exponentially until the immune system kicks in, so most of the infections will happen in the last stage of the process.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John S]

On 3/18/2020 8:26 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

Some people like cruises and some people like skiing. Let's also scuttle
skiing resorts/lodges.

 

[John S]

On 3/17/2020 8:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 1:06:41 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 5:48:27 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

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).

"A February report reveals that the US has about 170,000 ventilators."
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-hospitals-may-be-short-ventilators-as-coronavirus-spreads-2020-3?op=1

Why does the U.K. have so few?

A more sensible question could be "why does the US have so many"?

Maybe this will help you understand:

"In total, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
a population of 63.18 million people in an area of 93,628 sq mi (242,495
sq km) vs the United States of America which has population of 309.35
million in an area of 3,805,927 sq mi (9,857,306 sq km)."

Google it.

 

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

It's possible that the infection has already peaked, but with a lot of
asymptomatic young people, and no testing kits, nobody noticed.



--

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"

 

[John S]

On 3/17/2020 3:18 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

> There are almost no intercontinental flights left.

Really?

<https://www.flightradar24.com/-15.44,-65.97/2>

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 8:55:57 AM UTC-4, John S wrote:

On 3/17/2020 3:18 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

There are almost no intercontinental flights left.

Really?

https://www.flightradar24.com/-15.44,-65.97/2

Yeah, that looks a lot like "almost no intercontinental flights"!

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 9:26:26 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

It's possible that the infection has already peaked, but with a lot of
asymptomatic young people, and no testing kits, nobody noticed.

What possible basis do you have for suggesting the infection has already peaked??? You just make up shit to suit your warped mind.

You are a nasty piece of work.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:34:12 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org>
wrote:

On 3/18/2020 8:26 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

Some people like cruises and some people like skiing. Let's also scuttle
skiing resorts/lodges.

You don't see mass outbreaks of disease among skiiers, like you do
among cruisers. Those ships are basically you-cant-get-away petri
dishes, loaded with frail old people and, apparently, dangerous HVAC
and food prep systems. Lots of dense group activity, too.

Open water, and chair lifts, are pretty clean places. Person-to-person
contact with strangers is unusual on a ski slope, and can cost you
your lift ticket.




--

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"

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 18.03.20 um 14:46 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:34:12 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org
ing resorts/lodges.

You don't see mass outbreaks of disease among skiiers, like you do
among cruisers. Those ships are basically you-cant-get-away petri

You don't read the news, do you?

Here in Germany, half of the infections could be traced back
to a couple that visited a carnival session while already
being ill.

Of the rest, most are skiers returned from either south Tyrol
(Italy) or Tyrol ( Austria). The single hot spot was Bad Ischgl
in Tyrol where one Barkeeper was linked to at least 40 cases.

It was first found out in Iceland (!) where they screened passengers
of a flight home and found > 6 people with fewer, all of them
from Bad Ischgl. The Tyrolians were notified but ignored it so they
could get the money for a full week more of the main season.

dishes, loaded with frail old people and, apparently, dangerous HVAC
and food prep systems. Lots of dense group activity, too.

Open water, and chair lifts, are pretty clean places. Person-to-person
contact with strangers is unusual on a ski slope, and can cost you
your lift ticket.

Skiing is not about skiing. It is about après ski, and après ski is
about heavy drinking and sex.

Gerhard

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/03/2020 13:46, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Open water, and chair lifts, are pretty clean places. Person-to-person
contact with strangers is unusual on a ski slope, and can cost you
your lift ticket.

Almost all of the initial cases in the UK were people who had been on
skiing holidays in France and the North of Italy. It isn't out on the
slopes that you catch it but the apres ski in the evenings.

UK patient three infected about half a dozen people in two countries
before he showed symptoms. He caught it at a conference in Singapore:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51425702

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

onsdag den 18. marts 2020 kl. 14.46.43 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:34:12 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 3/18/2020 8:26 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

Some people like cruises and some people like skiing. Let's also scuttle
skiing resorts/lodges.

You don't see mass outbreaks of disease among skiiers, like you do
among cruisers. Those ships are basically you-cant-get-away petri
dishes, loaded with frail old people and, apparently, dangerous HVAC
and food prep systems. Lots of dense group activity, too.

Open water, and chair lifts, are pretty clean places. Person-to-person
contact with strangers is unusual on a ski slope, and can cost you
your lift ticket.

afaict much of how it started to spread across the EU was people bringing it
back from ski vacation

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/03/2020 13:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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:

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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

It's possible that the infection has already peaked, but with a lot of
asymptomatic young people, and no testing kits, nobody noticed.

In the USA where the test kits are complete crap and there have been
fewer tests done than in the UK you have no idea how it is spreading. I
think you will notice though when healthcare implodes under the strain.

There hasn't been enough time yet for it to be a full pandemic. We know
what that *will* look like since Italy is well up the curve. The USA
thanks to Trumps utter incompetence is now on the same trajectory.

The recent crush at US immigration pretty much guarantees a 10-100 fold
transmission of any cases that were in those very crowded conditions.

In the UK it is circulating freely in London now but in the remote rural
North where I live there have only been 8 confirmed cases so far and all
of them were people who had been on holiday skiing in Northern Italy or
their close contacts. Contact tracing was working OK for a while.

The guy who published the scary report than panicked our government into
trashing the economy on Monday night is presently ill with it and self
isolating. It didn't stop him doing a Skype interview with BBC Radio 4's
Today Programme this morning. The threat to healthy fit individuals is
not all that great but the threat to the infirm elderly is massive.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/03/20 15:26, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I've seen a
claim that 85% of cases are never reported.

I've seen claims like "... we have it totally under
control. It’s one person coming in from China, and
we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine."

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 10:24:25 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

The threat to healthy fit individuals is
not all that great but the threat to the infirm elderly is massive.

I like the way people dismiss the 1 in 1000 threat of dying as "not all that great" just because it is next to the 1 in 100 threat of dying of others.

This is a serious disease no matter how you look at it. But you do need to have your eyes open when looking at it.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 9:46:43 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:34:12 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org
wrote:

On 3/18/2020 8:26 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:18:39 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

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).

Old people like cruises, which were already notorious for spreading
diseases. Best thing to do is tow all the hideous cruise ships out to
sea and scuttle them.

Some people like cruises and some people like skiing. Let's also scuttle
skiing resorts/lodges.

You don't see mass outbreaks of disease among skiiers, like you do
among cruisers. Those ships are basically you-cant-get-away petri
dishes, loaded with frail old people and, apparently, dangerous HVAC
and food prep systems. Lots of dense group activity, too.

Open water, and chair lifts, are pretty clean places. Person-to-person
contact with strangers is unusual on a ski slope, and can cost you
your lift ticket.

This level of deliberate ignorance in a single person is truly amazing. Anyone who has ever been skiing knows the crowding that occurs in the areas where you rent and/or set up your equipment and in the bar/restaurants or the overnight accommodations. Yes, ski resorts are excellent places to transmit diseases.

Some people are just truly pathetic. This isn't about thinking. It's a deliberate effort to not think, but rather to support an opinion that is based on emotion.

--

Rick C.

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