Why You Must Act Now

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:29:37 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:

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.

Then don't buy expensive boots or lift tickets.

It is about aprčs ski, and aprčs ski is
about heavy drinking and sex.

Gerhard

Well, don't do that. You can get herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea,
hepatitis, and any one of about 40 potentiality cancer-causing
viruses.



--

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 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:24:20 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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.

Most people, especially vigorous young people (who are most of the
skiers) get mild or asymptomatic cases of coronavirus. I've seen a
claim that 85% of cases are never reported. So isolate and try to
treat frail people and let the virus burn out among young healthy
people. That does not seem to be the current popular-panic strategy.

Extended social isolation may well extend the peak into the next flu
season, a double hump like 1918.

I've never caught a disease while on a ski vacation, but then I ski a
lot and don't party much. Anybody who crowds into bars a lot, and
hooks up a lot, is at risk for all sorts of stuff anywhere.

With R0 over 2 or so, the virus will follow the course of all cold and
flu viruses. They end when the herd becomes immune and R0 falls below
unity. Sometimes vaccines help, sometimes they don't.





--

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 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:47:10 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 18/03/2020 15:55, Rick C wrote:
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.


It's also important to remember it is "only" 1 in 1000 chance of dying
if you have access to good hospital treatment. The rate goes up quickly
when the hospitals are full (or understaffed, or underequipped).

And for a sizeable proportion of those who are not likely to die of it,
it can still be very unpleasant - high fever, a lot of pain, lots of
coughing that stops you from sleeping, etc. Yes, most young, healthy
people will get only minor symptoms, but the proportion who will suffer
unpleasantly is a lot higher than anyone would like.

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.


Indeed.

The deaths so far in the USA that are blamed on C19 just passed 100.
That's about 0.3 PPM of the population.

A graph in today's SF Chronicle shows total reported flu cases vs
month for the last 6 years. Last winter was worse than this one. This
flu season double-peaked in January and is now dropping off hard, as
they all do around March.

Some countries claim that their C19 epidemic is pretty much over. If
it is as virulent as is claimed, everyone in a country will catch it
in a couple of months. China had its first official case in November.





--

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 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.

With the old people still aboard? Seems radical.

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"

 

[David Brown]

On 18/03/2020 15:55, Rick C wrote:

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.

It's also important to remember it is "only" 1 in 1000 chance of dying
if you have access to good hospital treatment. The rate goes up quickly
when the hospitals are full (or understaffed, or underequipped).

And for a sizeable proportion of those who are not likely to die of it,
it can still be very unpleasant - high fever, a lot of pain, lots of
coughing that stops you from sleeping, etc. Yes, most young, healthy
people will get only minor symptoms, but the proportion who will suffer
unpleasantly is a lot higher than anyone would like.

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.

Indeed.

 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:29:56 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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."

Probably nobody has it under control. It will probably die out in
summer, like flus usually do.

At the sometimes-claimed spreading rate, everyone has had it already.
It will be interesting to look at the numbers when it's all over. I
suspect that a lot of the data published today is all wrong.



--

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 Wed, 18 Mar 2020 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

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.

With the old people still aboard? Seems radical.

We could save fuel and make them paddle.



--

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 Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:37:35 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:47:10 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 18/03/2020 15:55, Rick C wrote:
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.


It's also important to remember it is "only" 1 in 1000 chance of dying
if you have access to good hospital treatment. The rate goes up quickly
when the hospitals are full (or understaffed, or underequipped).

And for a sizeable proportion of those who are not likely to die of it,
it can still be very unpleasant - high fever, a lot of pain, lots of
coughing that stops you from sleeping, etc. Yes, most young, healthy
people will get only minor symptoms, but the proportion who will suffer
unpleasantly is a lot higher than anyone would like.

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.


Indeed.

The deaths so far in the USA that are blamed on C19 just passed 100.
That's about 0.3 PPM of the population.

It is so classic Larkin to look at very limited existing data and ignore the trend. Larkin talks about the 100 US deaths from Coronavirus without considering that before we can do anything to limit the disease there will be another 1000... in just 13 days.

Some countries claim that their C19 epidemic is pretty much over. If
it is as virulent as is claimed, everyone in a country will catch it
in a couple of months. China had its first official case in November.

Which countries are saying that??? China is the furthest off their peak with new cases dropping from thousands per day to less than 20.

Larkin is famous here for saying any number of absurd things, but his comments on Coronavirus top the list. Unfortunately he will be proven wrong very quickly and is not likely to ever live it down. No, that part is wrong. He will never be embarrassed by the stupid things he says. That's one thing he has in common with the President, a total inability to consider his mistakes or to even consider that he made mistakes.

--

Rick C.

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

 

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

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.

Our approach seems superbly competent to me -- we banned travel.

Wouldn't blocking the incoming stream seem a more rational, more
strategic actual /intervention/ than running around tracing the
horses' hoof-prints after they've arrived and left the barn?

Testing seems an irrelevant quibble to me, mostly.

'If you've come back from a dicey place, at a minimum be considerate
and watch yourself carefully for a couple weeks' accomplishes a lot
more than bulk testing.

And isn't it the case that places with plenty of testing (in your
eye), weren't saved by it?

In fact, aren't Britons presently advised *not* to be tested, but rather
to self-quarantine if they feel ill, and only seek medical attention
if their symptoms become serious? That is, hasn't the U.K. itself
abandoned the 'test everyone' approach?

<quote>Patients with mild symptoms - such as a new continuous cough or
a high temperature above 37.8C should self-isolate at home for at least
seven days, according to the latest advice issued by Public Health
England.

People are being advised not to ring NHS 111 to report their symptoms
unless they are worried. They should also not go to their GP, or A&E.</quote>
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51048366

That seems an entirely reasonable, efficacious, efficient strategy.

I don't see that testing was bungled in the U.S., or that it could've
made any difference.

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

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/03/2020 14:55, Rick C wrote:

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.

It is an acceptable risk when set against the prospect of destroying the
global economy for a decade or more and still having the pandemic occur.

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.

It is about 5x more dangerous than childbirth in the developed world.
#19 in the table below

https://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php

Or about twice as dangerous for fatalities as measles. It is without
doubt a serious disease but not *so* serious that we should destroy the
global economy in a futile attempt to stop the now inevitable pandemic.

People are very very bad at assessing individual risks.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:15:09 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/03/2020 14:55, Rick C wrote:
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.

It is an acceptable risk when set against the prospect of destroying the
global economy for a decade or more and still having the pandemic occur.

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.

It is about 5x more dangerous than childbirth in the developed world.
#19 in the table below

https://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php

Or about twice as dangerous for fatalities as measles. It is without
doubt a serious disease but not *so* serious that we should destroy the
global economy in a futile attempt to stop the now inevitable pandemic.

People are very very bad at assessing individual risks.

Measles is interesting. In an unprotected population, R0 is about 15.
Before vaccines, basically every kid got it.





--

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 Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 1:15:14 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/03/2020 14:55, Rick C wrote:
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.

It is an acceptable risk when set against the prospect of destroying the
global economy for a decade or more and still having the pandemic occur.

Clearly proper isolation does the job as shown in China right now. They have a new infection rate of around 10 per day and still dropping. Clearly adequate isolation works.

What makes you think the economy will be any less "destroyed" if we let the virus run rampant? You simply don't have any data to support your view. There is no reason to believe this disease can't be eradicated preventing the death of 5% of the world population.

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.

It is about 5x more dangerous than childbirth in the developed world.
#19 in the table below

https://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php

Or about twice as dangerous for fatalities as measles. It is without
doubt a serious disease but not *so* serious that we should destroy the
global economy in a futile attempt to stop the now inevitable pandemic.

Measles *is* treated as a highly contagious, dangerous disease which it is. The difference is we can easily contain measles and prevent it from infecting the world.


> People are very very bad at assessing individual risks.

Yes, some people are.

The economy is crap no matter what. Part of the reason is because people aren't willing to put themselves and their loved ones at unnecessary risk because a few people like you and Elon Musk like pumping the economy.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Uwe Bonnes]

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
....

Clearly proper isolation does the job as shown in China right now.
They have a new infection rate of around 10 per day and still
dropping. Clearly adequate isolation works.

That would mean that the virus is erased. What happenes when in the
future people travelling again with reintroduce it.

--
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 1623569 ------- Fax. 06151 1623305 ---------

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 11:47:16 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 18/03/2020 15:55, Rick C wrote:
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.


It's also important to remember it is "only" 1 in 1000 chance of dying
if you have access to good hospital treatment. The rate goes up quickly
when the hospitals are full (or understaffed, or underequipped).

And for a sizeable proportion of those who are not likely to die of it,
it can still be very unpleasant - high fever, a lot of pain, lots of
coughing that stops you from sleeping, etc. Yes, most young, healthy
people will get only minor symptoms, but the proportion who will suffer
unpleasantly is a lot higher than anyone would like.

I had something a few weeks ago when there were maybe 110 cases in the US. It came on fast with coughing and serious chills, I mean in bed, under the covers and still shivering chills. I had only minor thought it was COVID-19. I'm still pretty sure it wasn't, but rather the flu. It concerns me that I may have been carrying this to friends in the day before I felt sick. Before that I was isolated pretty much.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

We got 3-D cartoon CAD now. It would be easy to animate for folks
with those advance video editing packages and ALL the news agencies
have top grade iterations of that very thing.

It will be interesting to see how this virus changes the way we live even after it is dealt with. I think this is going to be a watershed event in all our lives. The trouble is in a few decades it will largely be forgotten in many ways just as the pandemic of 1918 was. We know it happened, but didn't take the lesson seriously enough to try to be prepared even with the precursors we've seen, SARS, Swine flu, etc.

--

Rick C.

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

 

Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote in
news:hdf7hcFntqvU1@mid.individual.net:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Clearly proper isolation does the job as shown in China right now.
They have a new infection rate of around 10 per day and still
dropping. Clearly adequate isolation works.

That would mean that the virus is erased. What happenes when in the
future people travelling again with reintroduce it.

It comes and it goes...


It ebbs and it flows...

Our atmosphere is a slurry, and that is especially true in closed
spaces with sub adequate air handling, and more true in direct
proximty to an infected person. And THEN it gets on surfaces and has
a short lifespan there, unless it gets touched by a person whom then
subsequently touches other skin or mucus mebranes introducing it to
the body.
But I thought it resides strictly in the lungs so that tells me
that it is not surface contact, but aeresol suspension that is the
transmission mode.

So fuck 10 people or less, and all that declaration crap.

Why they think putting a number on it is better than actually
putting up educational seminars is beyond me. Any number is too
many. I was in the grocery yesterday and there were more than ten
there. Means nothing because if even only one, but the ten that just
left had three and they coughed and sneezed before they left.

We got 3-D cartoon CAD now. It would be easy to animate for folks
with those advance video editing packages and ALL the news agencies
have top grade iterations of that very thing.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:26adeb43-f901-4246-9d81-edd49137b861@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 11:47:16 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 18/03/2020 15:55, Rick C wrote:
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.


It's also important to remember it is "only" 1 in 1000 chance of
dying if you have access to good hospital treatment. The rate
goes up quickly

when the hospitals are full (or understaffed, or underequipped).

And for a sizeable proportion of those who are not likely to die
of it,

it can still be very unpleasant - high fever, a lot of pain, lots
of coughing that stops you from sleeping, etc. Yes, most young,
healthy people will get only minor symptoms, but the proportion
who will suffer

unpleasantly is a lot higher than anyone would like.

I had something a few weeks ago when there were maybe 110 cases in
the US. It came on fast with coughing and serious chills, I mean
in bed, under the covers and still shivering chills. I had only
minor thought it was COVID-19. I'm still pretty sure it wasn't,
but rather the flu. It concerns me that I may have been carrying
this to friends in the day before I felt sick. Before that I was
isolated pretty much.

Shelter in place for another two weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDey6iUv0JQ

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 2:28:00 PM UTC-4, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Clearly proper isolation does the job as shown in China right now.
They have a new infection rate of around 10 per day and still
dropping. Clearly adequate isolation works.

That would mean that the virus is erased. What happenes when in the
future people travelling again with reintroduce it.

Sure, if you eradicate it in your country and other countries have not, you can't allow travel with those countries. This is no different than any other disease. When Ebola breaks out travel with those areas becomes restricted. If we discovered smallpox roaming the earth again, travel restrictions would be put in place.

We know how to contain infectious agents. It is possible. With this disease it will be harder than most other diseases, but it is not impossible and China has clearly shown that.

I would expect that China wishes to get a good enough handle on this disease that they can literally isolate all infected individuals before they end the lock down. They are close to doing that.

A few weeks ago I started watching a comedy about doctors who are also cops fighting a man-made viral plague. Not so funny in real life.

--

Rick C.

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

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:02ff86fc-b7e0-4ac1-a303-b383c8b53c7e@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 2:49:35 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

We got 3-D cartoon CAD now. It would be easy to animate for
folks
with those advance video editing packages and ALL the news
agencies have top grade iterations of that very thing.

It will be interesting to see how this virus changes the way we
live even after it is dealt with.

I agree. I just returned from the store. I see things like
singular magazine dispensers and "you touch it, you buy it" coming
into effect. No more little retard mag browsers. Subscriptions
should actually go up.

I think this is going to be a
watershed event in all our lives.

I have been wanting to do a thing like Popular Mechanics did in
their back page. Tip of the month thing.

I want to do a "best practices for bachelors" thing.

Everything from the right way to do dishes, to the right choice for
cooking certain things. Like if one has gas, then gas is typically
cheaper than a microwave for some things.

"Working by candlelight" I have a really good LED flashlight that
I turn on at half power and stand it up pointed at the white ceiling.
It lights up the whole room at night so I can work without usin' up
the juice, and it is way cheaper charging that every day that using
even a 7W LED lamp.

The trouble is in a few decades
it will largely be forgotten in many ways just as the pandemic of
1918 was.

Nope. I see huge business opportunities for folks like Proctor and
Gamble.

Just like there are slip covers on oral thermometers, there will be
things for individuals like individual joint holders so we can still
pass a joint around...

Oh wait..

You know what... you are right... we're doomed.

We know it happened, but didn't take the lesson
seriously enough

We had WAY less medical knowledge back then. Just barely had
orange mold Penicillin IIRC.

We are orders of magnitude more advanced now.

I can tell you what got lost in America and slowly around the
world. Lack of etiquette and etiquette training.

The great economic boom after WWII cause us to get casual about a
lot more than proper hand and speech behavior.

to try to be prepared even with the precursors
we've seen, SARS, Swine flu, etc.

Remember "Civil Defense"?

I have downloaded old poster images that showed several branches
all set up in case of a crisis situation where governance might be
overwhelmed. They shittcanned that, took any self imposed control
out of our hands and those whom now have ot have done very near
NOTHING. I saw some Ross Perot style placards yesterday. Un-
fucking-believable!

The entire world's leaders should all have prepared behavioral
seminar speeches to both direct and calm folks.

Sorry, but this "don't touch your face" crud is total bullshit.
The transmission mode for this is aeresol, not surface mobile.

Folks' lungs get it, and not via their bloodstream.

 

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 2:28:00 PM UTC-4, Uwe Bonnes wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Clearly proper isolation does the job as shown in China right now.
They have a new infection rate of around 10 per day and still
dropping. Clearly adequate isolation works.

That would mean that the virus is erased. What happenes when in the
future people travelling again with reintroduce it.

--
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de

Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 1623569 ------- Fax. 06151 1623305 ---------

There are a number of possible treatments being discussed, e.g.,
existing anti-virals:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/one-more-treatment.php

and old-line anti-malarials the Chinese found effective against
COVID-19:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/four-notes-on-covid-19.php
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/what-price-chloroquine.php

Cheers,
James Arthur