Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:52:09 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
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-covi
d-19.php
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/what-price-chloroq
uine.php
Cheers,
James Arthur
I wonder if this is a winter flu. It's almost April.
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
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:
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 deaths so far in the USA that are blamed on C19 just passed 100.
That's about 0.3 PPM of the population.
Most people, especially vigorous young people (who are most of the
skiers) get mild or asymptomatic cases of coronavirus.
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 9:37:35 AM UTC-7, 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:
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 deaths so far in the USA that are blamed on C19 just passed 100.
That's about 0.3 PPM of the population.
Clearly, that's NOT a relevant number. When/if critical-care treatment reaches full
capacity, that changes (worsens) the equation, and we're causing major upheavals to keep
the case load manageable because the rate of respirator treatments determines
when our medical response goes nonlinear (collapses, saturates, fails to
respond). The current death toll, important as it is, does NOT tell the story.
Every infection, when most of the population is unaffected, is a seed for exponential
growth if we drop the restrictions. We need to know that the affected population NOW
will not exceed critical-care facilities in a week or so (when the cases are more well-developed),
and we need to know that the case growth is not faster than our tooling-up
to handle a future peak.
There was a lady on TV news today claiming the young may not be as
"in the clear" as previously thought.
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Most people, especially vigorous young people (who are most of the
skiers) get mild or asymptomatic cases of coronavirus.
There was a lady on TV news today claiming the young may not be as "in the clear" as previously thought.
I didn't catch her name, but she's speaking at the Presidential briefings all the time. I assume she heads some agency, or works for Johns-Hopkins, or something.
She said the early data coming out of Korea and China may not have been sufficient to show younger folks were at lower risk, and then went on to detail that we've had plenty of cases involving younger adults.
Make of it what you will.
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. Itâs one person coming in from China, and
we have it under control. Itâs going to be just fine."
Probably nobody has it under control. It will probably die out in
summer, like flu epidemics usually do.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:18:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 9:37:35 AM UTC-7, 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:
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 deaths so far in the USA that are blamed on C19 just passed 100.
That's about 0.3 PPM of the population.
Clearly, that's NOT a relevant number. When/if critical-care treatment reaches full
capacity, that changes (worsens) the equation, and we're causing major upheavals to keep
the case load manageable because the rate of respirator treatments determines
when our medical response goes nonlinear (collapses, saturates, fails to
respond). The current death toll, important as it is, does NOT tell the story.
Every infection, when most of the population is unaffected, is a seed for exponential
growth if we drop the restrictions. We need to know that the affected population NOW
will not exceed critical-care facilities in a week or so (when the cases are more well-developed),
and we need to know that the case growth is not faster than our tooling-up
to handle a future peak.
Most US communities currently have no restrictions, so are presumably
growing cases exponentially. Do you think their medical facilities
will be overloaded in a week or so from now?
The case load here in SF is higher than most of the USA. SF General
(the hospital that Zuckerberg bought for his wife, and where I spent 3
days in ICU) currently has two C19 cases, 10 ventilators in use, and
over 50 more available.
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.
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 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.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:18:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
Every infection, when most of the population is unaffected, is a seed for exponential
growth if we drop the restrictions. We need to know that the affected population NOW
will not exceed critical-care facilities in a week or so ...
Most US communities currently have no restrictions, so are presumably
growing cases exponentially. Do you think their medical facilities
will be overloaded in a week or so from now?
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:33:45 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Most people, especially vigorous young people (who are most of the
skiers) get mild or asymptomatic cases of coronavirus.
There was a lady on TV news today claiming the young may not be as "in the clear" as previously thought.
I didn't catch her name, but she's speaking at the Presidential briefings all the time. I assume she heads some agency, or works for Johns-Hopkins, or something.
She said the early data coming out of Korea and China may not have been sufficient to show younger folks were at lower risk, and then went on to detail that we've had plenty of cases involving younger adults.
Make of it what you will.
We've probably had many, many more cases among kids and young adults
than are known.
Symptoms are usually mild or even nil. It would be
interesting to do antibody tests on a lot of people, to see who has
had it. It's impressive how little data we have on this thing that we
will spend a trillion dollars on.
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:
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?
'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.
There was a lady on TV news today claiming the young may not be as "in the clear" as previously thought.
I didn't catch her name, but she's speaking at the Presidential briefings all the time. I assume she heads some agency, or works for Johns-Hopkins, or something.
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 11:08:27 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:18:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
Every infection, when most of the population is unaffected, is a seed for exponential
growth if we drop the restrictions. We need to know that the affected population NOW
will not exceed critical-care facilities in a week or so ...
Most US communities currently have no restrictions, so are presumably
growing cases exponentially. Do you think their medical facilities
will be overloaded in a week or so from now?
What are you smoking? Schools and universities closed last week, along with public libraries, and this week restaurants are shuttered. Every 'community' with an international airport most certainly DOES have restrictions. Small communities like ski resorts can slip past the precautions, do you think?
Ask Italy how that theory worked out.
Hopefully, these restrictions are effective enough, but the numbers matter, and we need a safety margin because sometimes folk like John Larkin shade their numbers or other facts. These inconvenient (costly, disastrous, stressful) changes are not really a solution, they just buy time.
As I read all the posts it seems most people are "getting it" even if a little late (I include myself in that group). There are a few who focus on silly things like if the hand cleaning dispenser at Walmart is a token effort or actually important. Then there is Larkin who seems to be in complete denial about this raging pandemic. All anyone has to do is simply sit down with the numbers and look at the log graph of infection in the US or any other country (except for the few who seem to know how to deal with this). For the last two weeks in the US it has formed a straight line. Extrapolating that line clearly shows what will happen if nothing is done.
I suppose people can be in denial by thinking the limited efforts being taken so far will stop the disease, but they won't. We still have loads of people going to work and going to restaurants where they aren't closed. I suppose people can be in denial thinking this disease isn't all that serious, but it is. Even if the mortality rate is only 1%, that's a huge number of people.
We have just a few more days and I don't mean weeks, I mean DAYS to get our act together and shut down this country so that the transmission stops, NOW.
Three of the largest employers in the US, the automakers, are shutting their factories!!! Aren't there enough clues around for everyone to figure it out yet that this is serious???
Do we need to repeat the mistakes they made in China and reach the point where we can't even bring people to the hospital and have to put them in makeshift "hospitals" with no treatment because there is no room?
Or will we figure this out before we reach that point? We need leadership and we don't have it. If we had a real leader rather than the Real Estate Mogul in Chief we likely would have had decisive action weeks ago and not have to wait for state Governors to lead the federal government.
I was hoping to get through Trump's presidency without any real harm being done. I guess I can give up on that hope.
On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 5:44:05 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:18:42 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:
Every infection, when most of the population is unaffected, is a seed for exponential
growth if we drop the restrictions. We need to know that the affected population NOW
will not exceed critical-care facilities in a week or so ...
Most US communities currently have no restrictions, so are presumably
growing cases exponentially. Do you think their medical facilities
will be overloaded in a week or so from now?
What are you smoking? Schools and universities closed last week, along with
public libraries, and this week restaurants are shuttered. Every 'community'
with an international airport most certainly DOES have restrictions. Small
communities like ski resorts can slip past the precautions, do you think?
Ask Italy how that theory worked out.
Hopefully, these restrictions are effective enough, but the numbers matter, and we need a
safety margin because sometimes folk like John Larkin shade their numbers
or other facts. These inconvenient (costly, disastrous, stressful) changes
are not really a solution, they just buy time.