new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China by 1KIKI

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Thursday, September 5, 2024 19:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 132030
PAGE 19 of 57

Sunday, March 22, 2020 8:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, I agree ... it's scrambled all right.

I like some of what he does with the data ... for example, calculating per capita instead of raw amounts

Also, attempting to find the first and second derivative. I don't know if he's so mathematically naive that he doesn't reaize what he was doing - or he obscures the math so the reader doesn't get lost, but that's his point.

But then he veers into SECOND-land... posting points that are so self contradictory (also, contradictory to observe fact) that he undercuts his own argument. For example, he makes a point that the virus is not spread by aerosolized droplets (a contention directly disputed by many studies including the Chinese bus study) but also that "young people" aren't able to "bring the virus home" and that it is virtually impossible to catch the virus even when you're living with someone who's sick ...but if all of that is true, why did SO MANY old people in Italy get sick and die?? What were they doing ... licking public handrails and doorknobs? Most of the time, what he posts is so off-the-wall biased that it hardly deserves discussion.

But he DOES bring up the need for more testing. And your posts, KIKI, have brought home the problem with lack of mandatory, centralized reporting. Because while local testing can guide local decisions, the lack of a centralized repository of data makes it EXTREMELY difficult to track and understand the simplest things like ... who is at risk? Do we need a lockdown? What treatment options seem to work better? ... that it negates the advantage of decentralized response (When a centralized government makes all of the decisions, it can fuck up globally. But a decentralized approach allows different regions to attempt different options, not only allowing for a potentially beter "fit" for regional conditions but also freedom to experiment a bit with alternate emphasis on testing, isolation, and treatment. But that advantage is lost unless different states can see and evaluate the results of what other states have done. Hence, the need for required reporting. People ... doctors, medical directors and so forth ... shouldn't have to have their minions picking thru local newspapers to find out what's up.)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#STAYTHEFUCKHOME

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 22, 2020 9:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
How can the testing situation become so incredibly FUBARED? Is it overwhelming demand? Inability to prioritize testing? Kits that don't work? Desire NOT to see the results? Concern that the testing situation is mixing the worried well with the truly sick?

Isn't it a little late to wait until someone is hospitalized until they're tested? If they have Covid-19, shouldn't they be put into a negative pressure isolation unit immediately??

WTF do you think is going on?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
It's shortages ... shortages of test kits, and of masks, gowns, and gloves to safely do the testing; and an unwillingness to risk medical people by doing unsafe testing when they are, and will be, needed elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if was also long turn-around-times because the US doesn't have high-volume testing capabilities. Many different laboratories are all siloed with their own different mix of equipment and instrumentation geared towards flexible but EXTREMELY low-volume 'specialty testing'.

I think it's hilarious that we've got probably thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of facilities that are on the ready to give a urinalysis and almost immediate results to future employers about us working class sheep to make sure that we're not smoking weed, but nobody can seem to get testing for something that's actually a problem done.

Maybe in light of the fact that weed is being legalized for recreational use in more and more places across the country, we should start considering re-purposing those facilities.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 22, 2020 9:59 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:
SIX: Unlike people who have immediately gone from viewing the government by its own nature as an enemy of the people to their savior when they get panicked, just like our Forefathers warned us against, I will never, EVER waver on that issue.

SIGNYM: And that means that you're ideologically-possessed.
I'm not one to say that government is ALWAYS the solution. OTOH I wouldn't say that government is NEVER the solution either. That's the difference between you and me: You don't allow reality to intrude on your ideology, which is pretty much what I've been saying all along. That, and you're pretty self-centered.
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME

SIX: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Oh jeez, now you sound just like WISHY. SHE'S willing to sacrifie millions ... billions ... on her altar of "liberty" and so, apparently, are you. No wonder you argue so much: you're very much the same.

No. Your numbers are bad. For 15 Million people to die, you're basing them on 4.6% of people getting the virus dying if we all got infected, when it's much more likely to be only. .1%.

Kiki's numbers at 1.4% are also bad, but at least they're in the ballpark of the Johns Hopkins current ratios. I don't know how she's getting the numbers wrong since it looks like she's getting the info from the same place as I am. Maybe it's time to buy a new calculator.

But yours aren't even based in reality from what I can see.

So, technically, if we went based off of the current percentage of 1.271%, you would be right by saying that I'm willing to sacrafice millions of people for Liberty. Because that would be roughly 4,131,000 people if we all got it.

But that's not what I'm saying. That percentage is going to go down... assuming they actually want it to go down and ensure that testing ramps up instead of shutting down.

But do they really want them to go down?

I dunno. I could see why they wouldn't. Even at the severly inflated number of 1.271%, that's a potential for over 4 Million people to die. Cut that in half by Friday with good testing practices making their way across the country and even 2 Million still sounds scary.

But the problem now is... Nobody wants to hear that the DOW and the entire economy got destroyed over nothing. Nobody wants to hear that their entire lives have changed over nothing. Nobody wants to hear that they lost their jobs and their kids were pulled out of school for 2 months for nothing.

Without data, we'll never truly know, and the sheep will believe the Legacy Media talking heads pushing their CovidGate nonsense numbers, because there won't be any numbers out there saying otherwise.

But test everybody and get that number down to .1% and somebody has a lot to answer for.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SIX, I told you how I got my figure. I took the USA population profile and multipliedit by the Chinese case fatality rate, which so far is the only comprehensive rate categorized by age, and then multiplied THAT by 0.8 because I figure not everyone will get infected (and at that percent, we've achieved "herd immuity" anyhow). I assumed that it would all happen in one year. BTW, I heard a better figure on how long it would take to get to 80% infected, and that's two years, not one year, so that becomes 7.5 million in one year.

So quite possibly the Chinese case fatality rate overstated because they were constrained by lack of testing, so they don't know the TRUE rate. That's very possible

Let's use another figure, and that's at the number of people keeling over in a day in Italy ... which, as of yesterday was 800 (292,000 annualized) and still seems to be going up. Since Italy has entered a lockdown, presumably the daily death toll will reduce in a couple of weeks, and since I'm looking at the results of "do nothing" approach I'm going to use the maximum daily death toll which is 800 so far. Assuing that they keep ripping along at that rate (by doing nothing) for two years, until they achieve herd immunity in two years, they will have lost slighlty less than 1% (0.97%) of their population of approx 60 million.

In the USA, with a population of 327 million, that translates to 3,180,000 in two years, or about 1.6 million per year.

All right. Let's assume the USA's population isn't as old as Italy's*. Let's assume that OUR death rate is half of theirs. By "doing nothing" there will be 1.6 million dead in two years, or 800,000 per year. (*Altho I think our YOUNGER population is overall sicker: fatter, more diabetic, more homeless etc than Italy's so our YOUNGER population might die faster than theirs.)

I think, no matter how I look at these numbers, the total death toll in the USA from "doing nothing" is "hundreds of thousands to millions", not "thousands to tens of thousands".

I'll bet SOMEBODY has better figures than me. Maybe the Royal College of London's reportwould be a good place to start.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#STAYTHEFUCKHOME

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM