Up to two thirds of people who die from coronavirus in the next nine months are likely to have died this year from other causes

[b***@gmail.com]

This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)

[Jeff Layman]

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?

We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.

Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

There weren't anyway. You should be able to dig out a BBC radio interview of the statement.

Seriously, if 2/3 of these people are down to their last 9 months, then they haven't been deprived of any significant amount of their life, and this is especially true if their quality of life is low due to pain, mobility or emotional abandonment issues, to name a few. This is not to say these people don't count, but it does say their death is an almost expected event and not a great tragedy. Now extend this to the looming economic crash of global proportions that will lead to quite a lot of tragedy, and try to get a grip on priorities.

Post by Jeff Layman
--
Jeff

[j***@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States

The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

[Flyguy]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard

There are roughly 3 million people who die per year in the US. Even if COVID deaths climb to 100,000, it won't change this number significantly. Obviously, that is NOT why these extraordinary precautions are being taken. The big elephant in the room is the transmissibility of the virus overwhelming the healthcare system - if that breaks down there will be a flood of cases into the general population beyond our ability to control. This could lead to the deaths of millions. Right now, some hospitals in NY are at the breaking point.

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Flyguy

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard

There are roughly 3 million people who die per year in the US. Even if COVID deaths climb to 100,000, it won't change this number significantly. Obviously, that is NOT why these extraordinary precautions are being taken. The big elephant in the room is the transmissibility of the virus overwhelming the healthcare system - if that breaks down there will be a flood of cases into the general population beyond our ability to control. This could lead to the deaths of millions. Right now, some hospitals in NY are at the breaking point.
https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

They're not telling you the health profile of all these people requiring hospitalization. Like are they morbidly obese, or have severe diabetes, various chronic disease of the vital organs. It looks like people of just average good health or better have mild to none in the way of symptoms. And require minimal monitoring by their doctor.

[Rick C]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

We do have efforts to minimize the harm from the flu. It's called a vaccine.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that the flu is a number of different diseases and kill a limited number. This disease is caused by a single virus and we have no idea how many may die from it if we do nothing. It can easily be many millions. Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Why do you refuse to use your common sense about this pandemic?

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far.

What do you expect the final count of flu deaths will be from this season? What do you expect the final count of COVID-19 deaths will be?

[Phil Hobbs]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Rick C]

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

What part of dying from pneumonia is not horrible???

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Rick C

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

What part of dying from pneumonia is not horrible???

The hospital setting puts you in coma. You never see it coming.

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

[Rick C]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Rick C

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

What part of dying from pneumonia is not horrible???

The hospital setting puts you in coma. You never see it coming.

You mean the final part. Up to that point you know you are suffering and can't catch your breath. They put my dad on one of those machines. His mom died of scarring of the lungs, slowly over many months. An uncle died of lung cancer, near the end his emaciated body writhing, trying to get a bit of air past the tumor into his lungs.

All of them gruesome, not something you forget.

You definitely see pneumonia coming. It's only once you are so bad off you don't care about much that they put you out.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Rick C

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Rick C

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

What part of dying from pneumonia is not horrible???

The hospital setting puts you in coma. You never see it coming.

You mean the final part. Up to that point you know you are suffering and can't catch your breath. They put my dad on one of those machines. His mom died of scarring of the lungs, slowly over many months. An uncle died of lung cancer, near the end his emaciated body writhing, trying to get a bit of air past the tumor into his lungs.

No one was talking abut those kinds of death. The corona virus will not make you suffer like that. It roars in like high speed rail and kills you pretty fast.

Post by Rick C
All of them gruesome, not something you forget.
You definitely see pneumonia coming. It's only once you are so bad off you don't care about much that they put you out.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Rick C]

Post by b***@gmail.com
No one was talking abut those kinds of death. The corona virus will not make you suffer like that. It roars in like high speed rail and kills you pretty fast.

What a crock of BS. It takes time to kill you and you know you are possibly dying because you feel horrible. You are talking out of your ass.

It's a horrible way to die and many who don't die suffer and linger on for days and weeks with lasting damage to their lungs. Don't make this out to be a merciful disease. That's BS.

[j***@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Rick C

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

What part of dying from pneumonia is not horrible???

The hospital setting puts you in coma. You never see it coming.

Last time I was in a hospital, there were several strong motivations
to get out, preferably alive.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:39:14 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Rick C

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's
friend." These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.

What part of dying from pneumonia is not horrible???

The hospital setting puts you in coma. You never see it coming.

Last time I was in a hospital, there were several strong motivations
to get out, preferably alive.

They kill a few hundred thousand people a year though accidents and infections.

OMG- did someone say people died?

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard

[Phil Hobbs]

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific
adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and
epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid

Osler, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's

Post by Phil Hobbs
friend."  These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

[bitrex]

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific
adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and
epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

Sir Wilfrid

Osler, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's

Post by Phil Hobbs
friend."  These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

My late father passed from an internal hemorrhage of the bowel, aside
from the initial onset with modern medicine it seemed a rather peaceful
passing. The hospital staff initially thought he might have simply
severe allergies with a bit of blood in the cough (it happened in early
May) Sadly it was not that simple and at his age (91), an operation
unlikely to be recovered from.

As he didn't have a living will it was up to me to make the call as to
what would happen, and I called it. He was conscious but sedated enough
that the doctors considered me to be the authority on that. but didn't
seem able or willing to go one way or another, I never knew exactly what
he wanted. We chatted for quite a while before I made the decision and
at one point he sighed, chuckled and said "well I'm very old and maybe
it's time to pack it up?"

Took that as the cue to go ahead and inform the doctors. best I was
going to get from him in that condition I figured. Other than that on
the day before he passed he was fairly lucid and chatted about a wide
range of stuff and he cracked a few more jokes, as he was prone to do.
And that I 100% should not buy a used powerboat without getting it
checked out! Eventually he went to sleep and the last rites were
performed. and he passed away early the next morning.

If he were here I am sure he would quip something like "I knew my ass
would get me in trouble eventually."

[bitrex]

Post by bitrex

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by Phil Hobbs
Sir Wilfrid

Osler, the famous doctor, called pneumonia "the old man's

Post by Phil Hobbs
friend."  These days it's almost the only way to die that isn't
horrible, except for something sudden like getting hit by a bus or
suffering a massive stroke.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

My late father passed from an internal hemorrhage of the bowel, aside
from the initial onset with modern medicine it seemed a rather peaceful
passing. The hospital staff initially thought he might have simply
severe allergies with a bit of blood in the cough (it happened in early
May) Sadly it was not that simple and at his age (91), an operation
unlikely to be recovered from.
As he didn't have a living will it was up to me to make the call as to
what would happen, and I called it. He was conscious but sedated enough
that the doctors considered me to be the authority on that. but didn't
seem able or willing to go one way or another, I never knew exactly what
he wanted. We chatted for quite a while before I made the decision and
at one point he sighed, chuckled and said "well I'm very old and maybe
it's time to pack it up?"
Took that as the cue to go ahead and inform the doctors. best I was
going to get from him in that condition I figured. Other than that on
the day before he passed he was fairly lucid and chatted about a wide
range of stuff and he cracked a few more jokes, as he was prone to do.
And that I 100% should not buy a used powerboat without getting it
checked out!  Eventually he went to sleep and the last rites were
performed. and he passed away early the next morning.
If he were here I am sure he would quip something like "I knew my ass
would get me in trouble eventually."

The day you've got a bunch of doctors and family members all looking at
you to make calls like that is a day you know what real power feels
like. Is being Mr. Powerful always fun and rewarding? Nah, I wouldn't
characterize my experience of it that way.

[whit3rd]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?

Because there's no immunity from previous strains, this one is a killer, and
the mortality predictions are about the same as for WW II. It's a major change in
YOUR life expectancy if we do nothing.

Don't you feel silly asking that same easy question over and over?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard

[Jeff Layman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
<https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/>:
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

[Rick C]

Post by Jeff Layman
But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Do you know what mutations are in viruses? Do you know how viruses mutate?

ALL viruses mutate. Mutations in viruses are random changes in their RNA/DNA which are incorporated into a new virus as it is made. Most mutations are not good and in fact result in a non-viable virus. End of that genetic code!

But once in a great while a mutation results that does not produce an unviable virus. It continues to infect and grows in number. If that virus is less likely to survive, the other non-mutated viruses multiply faster and the mutated virus eventually is not conveyed and dies out.

Again, every once in a great many mutations a change happens that actually makes the virus more likely to replicate, infect and spread among the population. With time that version of the virus become dominant. This is seldom a more lethal version of the virus because the quicker and more certain the death of the host the less likely the virus is to be conveyed. In fact, the general trend is for viruses to mutate into less lethal forms that can be spread more easily.

[j***@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard

[j***@highlandsniptechnology.com]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.

I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Unfortunately antibodies don't last forever. Right now, their statistics about the number of people infected and mortality are way off. They don't have nearly enough samples, and the samples they do have are skewed toward people requiring hospitalization. And they're declaring COVID-19 as the cause of death in these older people with very severe complicating conditions, such as being on the verge of respiratory failure going into their illness, when they should be declaring cause of death as the lung condition due to complications from corona.

If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Unfortunately antibodies don't last forever. Right now, their statistics about the number of people infected and mortality are way off. They don't have nearly enough samples, and the samples they do have are skewed toward people requiring hospitalization. And they're declaring COVID-19 as the cause of death in these older people with very severe complicating conditions, such as being on the verge of respiratory failure going into their illness, when they should be declaring cause of death as the lung condition due to complications from corona.
If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Unfortunately antibodies don't last forever. Right now, their statistics about the number of people infected and mortality are way off. They don't have nearly enough samples, and the samples they do have are skewed toward people requiring hospitalization. And they're declaring COVID-19 as the cause of death in these older people with very severe complicating conditions, such as being on the verge of respiratory failure going into their illness, when they should be declaring cause of death as the lung condition due to complications from corona.
If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people. Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of. Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

Post by Bill Sloman
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[whit3rd]

(Ithis is true)

Post by Bill Sloman
I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

(but this is nonsense)

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable...

All persons are 'vulnerable' because we're all mortal.
The inequality being expressed is NOT an observation of individual prexisting conditions, however.
It is a reminder that COVID-19 seems to kill 21 per thousand infected, and that (given
the well-known life expectancy from ALL causes of death) one year kills 14 per thousand.

So, 'up to' two-thirds (14/21) of the deaths might be of people who (hypothetically, but not necessarily
related to anythig a doctor can see) would have died within a year.

But that same statistical inequality assures us that at least one-third of the folk who die
from COVID-19 are NOT at death's door before contracting the disease. And, it might
be a lot more than one-third (it could be most).

We have no reasonable expectation from the germ theory of disease to expect that
preexisting conditions are heavily involved, only some notations from concerned doctors
about WHICH, if any, conditions are vital, with the one exception of
youth (under nine years of age, in particular).

[Flyguy]

Post by whit3rd
(Ithis is true)

Post by Bill Sloman
I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

(but this is nonsense)

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable...

All persons are 'vulnerable' because we're all mortal.
The inequality being expressed is NOT an observation of individual prexisting conditions, however.
It is a reminder that COVID-19 seems to kill 21 per thousand infected, and that (given
the well-known life expectancy from ALL causes of death) one year kills 14 per thousand.
So, 'up to' two-thirds (14/21) of the deaths might be of people who (hypothetically, but not necessarily
related to anythig a doctor can see) would have died within a year.
But that same statistical inequality assures us that at least one-third of the folk who die
from COVID-19 are NOT at death's door before contracting the disease. And, it might
be a lot more than one-third (it could be most).
We have no reasonable expectation from the germ theory of disease to expect that
preexisting conditions are heavily involved, only some notations from concerned doctors
about WHICH, if any, conditions are vital, with the one exception of
youth (under nine years of age, in particular).

This whole discussion has not addressed the un-said imperative: are the lives of old people worth saving? After all, they're going to die soon anyway. This is a reasonable question when you are young and (seemingly) invincible, but when you, or one of your loved ones, get into the old category it becomes a hell of a lot more personal. The people that are being faced with this decision right now are doctors and nurses at hospitals being overwhelmed with new, very sick patients. Like a war-time MASH unit, they have to triage these patients to decide which ones to save. Cuomo just said he "doesn't even want to think about that situation." Well, somebody will have to.

[whit3rd]

Post by Flyguy
This whole discussion has not addressed the un-said imperative: are the lives of old people worth saving?

That imperative has been addressed by selling a health insurance plan, or
taxing and offering health coverage to residents. It isn't open for discussion
after the victim becomes needful of care.

Honorable persons don't kick-em-when-they're-down.

[Flyguy]

Post by whit3rd

Post by Flyguy
This whole discussion has not addressed the un-said imperative: are the lives of old people worth saving?

That imperative has been addressed by selling a health insurance plan, or
taxing and offering health coverage to residents. It isn't open for discussion
after the victim becomes needful of care.
Honorable persons don't kick-em-when-they're-down.

A legal contract is not a "moral imperative:"

A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are simply right and often resist further justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience is the basic experience of encountering the right.

[D***@decadence.org]

Post by Flyguy

Post by whit3rd

Post by b***@gmail.com
are the

lives of old people worth saving?

Post by whit3rd
That imperative has been addressed by selling a health insurance plan, or
taxing and offering health coverage to residents. It isn't
open for di

scussion

Post by whit3rd
after the victim becomes needful of care.
Honorable persons don't kick-em-when-they're-down.

A legal contract is not a "moral imperative:"

He never said "moral" imperative, you "STUPID" fuck!

Post by Flyguy
A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that
person to act.

Oh boy! Like we would ever need a primer from you on anything.

Post by Flyguy
It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined
by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure
reason, in its practical aspect.

Damn, boy! You been huntin' stupid shit up online again? You and
practicality are mutually exclusive, dahlink. It's twoo, it's twoo!
You stink, motherfucker!

Post by Flyguy
Not following the moral law was
seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later
thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the
divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of
conscience are simply right and often resist further
justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience
is the basic experience of encountering the right.

Which is why your whore mother should be put in prison. The
severely ass fucked street slut failed us all when she failed to
flush you. And that is as simply right as it gets, FlyShit.

[Flyguy]

Post by D***@decadence.org

Post by Flyguy

Post by whit3rd

Post by b***@gmail.com
are the

lives of old people worth saving?

Post by whit3rd
That imperative has been addressed by selling a health insurance plan, or
taxing and offering health coverage to residents. It isn't
open for di

scussion

Post by whit3rd
after the victim becomes needful of care.
Honorable persons don't kick-em-when-they're-down.

A legal contract is not a "moral imperative:"

He never said "moral" imperative, you "STUPID" fuck!

Post by Flyguy
A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that
person to act.

Oh boy! Like we would ever need a primer from you on anything.

Post by Flyguy
It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined
by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure
reason, in its practical aspect.

Damn, boy! You been huntin' stupid shit up online again? You and
practicality are mutually exclusive, dahlink. It's twoo, it's twoo!
You stink, motherfucker!

Post by Flyguy
Not following the moral law was
seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason. Later
thinkers took the imperative to originate in conscience, as the
divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of
conscience are simply right and often resist further
justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience
is the basic experience of encountering the right.

Which is why your whore mother should be put in prison. The
severely ass fucked street slut failed us all when she failed to
flush you. And that is as simply right as it gets, FlyShit.

Calm down and take your meds, decadent.

[Rick C]

Post by Flyguy

Post by whit3rd
(Ithis is true)

Post by Bill Sloman
I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

(but this is nonsense)

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable...

All persons are 'vulnerable' because we're all mortal.
The inequality being expressed is NOT an observation of individual prexisting conditions, however.
It is a reminder that COVID-19 seems to kill 21 per thousand infected, and that (given
the well-known life expectancy from ALL causes of death) one year kills 14 per thousand.
So, 'up to' two-thirds (14/21) of the deaths might be of people who (hypothetically, but not necessarily
related to anythig a doctor can see) would have died within a year.
But that same statistical inequality assures us that at least one-third of the folk who die
from COVID-19 are NOT at death's door before contracting the disease. And, it might
be a lot more than one-third (it could be most).
We have no reasonable expectation from the germ theory of disease to expect that
preexisting conditions are heavily involved, only some notations from concerned doctors
about WHICH, if any, conditions are vital, with the one exception of
youth (under nine years of age, in particular).

This whole discussion has not addressed the un-said imperative: are the lives of old people worth saving? After all, they're going to die soon anyway. This is a reasonable question when you are young and (seemingly) invincible, but when you, or one of your loved ones, get into the old category it becomes a hell of a lot more personal. The people that are being faced with this decision right now are doctors and nurses at hospitals being overwhelmed with new, very sick patients. Like a war-time MASH unit, they have to triage these patients to decide which ones to save. Cuomo just said he "doesn't even want to think about that situation." Well, somebody will have to.

The problem with using age as a medical parameter is that there is only a loose association with medical condition. I have a friend who is 93. He has no medical issues requiring treatment other than vision. In spite of the average life expectancy of 3 years, there is no reason he won't live to be 100 or more. That live expectancy included many who have serious medical conditions and are being treated for such.

The point is the life expectancy is not a result of age, but of medical condition that happens to correlate with age. He would deserve treatment over someone in their 20's who has illnesses and a less chance of living.

Age is not a medical condition. Averages don't tell you how a patient will fare. Look at medical conditions.

[Rick C]

Post by whit3rd
(Ithis is true)

Post by Bill Sloman
I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

(but this is nonsense)

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable...

All persons are 'vulnerable' because we're all mortal.

We all are vulnerable because when the hospital facilities are overwhelmed it doesn't matter WHY you need them, there won't be enough to go around. It's not like CV patients will be giving second priority. They will weigh every case on its merits and many with other diseases will not receive treatment.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

<snip>

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.

The example was a first world person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.

I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.

The example was a first world person.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage. That woman never even tested positive for the virus and she actually died of heart attack. She looks like one of those anorexic types addicted to hydroxycut:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

Post by Bill Sloman
https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

Post by Bill Sloman
was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.
I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

Post by Bill Sloman
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.

The example was a first world person.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage.

The BBC is about as main stream as main media gets.

Post by b***@gmail.com
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

Spiked is rather less relaible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

I'm sure you think you know what happened on the other side of the world.
It wouldn't be wise to trust your medical judgement.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

In other words, immunisation doesn't work. The ignorance is all yours.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

By which you mean I've disagreed with your ignorant half-assed statements.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Nothing seems to inform you.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

Who would that be? In fact what seems to work is rigorous contact tracing and isolating anybody who might have got infected. South Korea got that to work without any lock-down, but lock-down does limit the number of contacts you have to isolate.

Since R0 is dependent on social behaviour, which varies a lot from person to person and from time to time, a single number is a fairly gross simplification, but it's good enough for explaining what going on.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.
I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

Getting vaccinated is the one that works best. Not getting infected is just good but harder to sustain.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.

The example was a first world person.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage.

The BBC is about as main stream as main media gets.

Post by b***@gmail.com
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

Spiked is rather less relaible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

You conveniently ignore the specifics of your example case. I think the latest buzz phrase for that is cognitive dissonance.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

I'm sure you think you know what happened on the other side of the world.
It wouldn't be wise to trust your medical judgement.

This particular doctor was not only working as a clinician but he was managing the entire response in his region. My explanation of cause of death is definitive.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

In other words, immunisation doesn't work. The ignorance is all yours.

Immunization is all about increasing the speed of response to infection. That's how it works. Have you worked through a single textbook of immunology in your entire life? Don't bother answering, I know the answer.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

By which you mean I've disagreed with your ignorant half-assed statements.

LOL- my statements are not opinion.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Nothing seems to inform you.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

Who would that be? In fact what seems to work is rigorous contact tracing and isolating anybody who might have got infected. South Korea got that to work without any lock-down, but lock-down does limit the number of contacts you have to isolate.
Since R0 is dependent on social behaviour, which varies a lot from person to person and from time to time, a single number is a fairly gross simplification, but it's good enough for explaining what going on.

Who gives a damn what's going on. Even the most primitive herd animals, as well as jungle dwelling baboons, to whom your intellect most closely matches at this point, know how to recognize a sick animal and stay clear.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.
I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

Getting vaccinated is the one that works best. Not getting infected is just good but harder to sustain.

You're not going to see a vaccine in your lifetime.

Post by Bill Sloman
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the victims have underlying conditions making them vulnerable to the virus. Then you stupidly assume everyone has a documented health history, and that's certainly not true for third world or people living in poverty, lower income or uninsured, or maybe just stupid people who don't give a damn, in the first world.

The example was a first world person.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709

You cite an unreliable source full of garbage.

The BBC is about as main stream as main media gets.

Post by b***@gmail.com
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/27/chloe-middleton-the-coronavirus-death-that-wasnt/

Spiked is rather less relaible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)

You conveniently ignore the specifics of your example case. I think the latest buzz phrase for that is cognitive dissonance.

In this case it's more like ignoring politically motivated nut cases.

The cognitive dissonance would be all yours, if cognition had much to do with what you post.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/li-wenliang-chinese-doctor-who-sounded-alarm-on-coronavirus-dead-from-disease-at-34/

No telling what the real cause of death was. If he was overworked, which doctors are wont to do in an emergency, especially if he was suffering from extreme sleep deprivation, which is a really effective way to severely depress your immune response, then that would explain quite a lot. He should have known better. If you let any virus get the upper hand, pushing you too far into illness, you can't recover. I suspect that's what happened here.

I'm sure you think you know what happened on the other side of the world.
It wouldn't be wise to trust your medical judgement.

This particular doctor was not only working as a clinician but he was managing the entire response in his region. My explanation of cause of death is definitive.

Definitively imaginary.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
was 34 when he died, and there's been no suggestion of any pre-existing condition there either.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The COVID-19 is merely giving the appearance of higher mortality because it is challenging unvaccinated people.

You aren't vaccinated against anything you can catch.

Actually yes you are. Your ignorance of the fundamentals of immunization tells me you just don;t give a shit.

In other words, immunisation doesn't work. The ignorance is all yours.

Immunization is all about increasing the speed of response to infection. That's how it works. Have you worked through a single textbook of immunology in your entire life? Don't bother answering, I know the answer.

Of course you do. It's the wrong answer, but it's the one you know.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're nothing but an aggravating ignorant mouth who's been wrong about just every single half-assed statement you have made.

By which you mean I've disagreed with your ignorant half-assed statements.

LOL- my statements are not opinion.

Embedded wrong-headed opinions, which you haven't got enough sense to fact check.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Influenza is far more deadly to the unvaccinated as the recent history with new A-strain shows, with U.S death toll reaching 80,000 that we know of.

It seems to have a mortality rate of 0.1%. It kills a lot of people because you have to die of something eventually and you are quite likely to catch some new strain of flu - to which you aren't immune - when you are of an age for that to happen.

F__k you and your damned numbers, idiot. Those crap meta-statistics don't inform anything.

Nothing seems to inform you.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
Corona seems to be competing for that record by being far more infectious.

It is suggested that flu has an R0 of about 1.3, and Covid-19 has an R0 between 2.5 and 3. That's more infectious, but measles has an R0 of about 15.

All that R0 and epidemic spread is a bunch of garbage under the present circumstances. It's just a bunch of misapplied 5th grade math for the most part anyway. It doesn't contribute anything constructive. The poorer nations, who have taken a much more simplified approach to reining in the spread, have been very successful. They don't waste their time on a bunch of government spokespeople parasites citing a bunch of useless stats and forecasts that change by the day.

Who would that be? In fact what seems to work is rigorous contact tracing and isolating anybody who might have got infected. South Korea got that to work without any lock-down, but lock-down does limit the number of contacts you have to isolate.
Since R0 is dependent on social behaviour, which varies a lot from person to person and from time to time, a single number is a fairly gross simplification, but it's good enough for explaining what going on.

Who gives a damn what's going on. Even the most primitive herd animals, as well as jungle dwelling baboons, to whom your intellect most closely matches at this point, know how to recognize a sick animal and stay clear.

The problem with Covid-19 is that you are infectious before you look sick.

The extra non-structural proteins coded into the genome slow down your immune response, so you start spreading the virus before you got enough antibodies for your immune system to kick in and make you look - and feel - sick.

You managed to misunderstand that fact severely enough to think that it was variant of HIV which destroys the immune system (rather slowly) rather than slowing down the immune response.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you're strong enough, and that would be strong as in healthy enough to fend off infection, to survive a bout with the flu, you will almost certainly survive a bout with COVID-19.

If you want to bet your life on Fred Bloggs opinion, get yourself infected.
I wouldn't, but I'm 77, the age group where Covid-19 seems to have a 10% mortality rate.

You'll become infected eventually, so you might look into underlying health habits that make people survivors instead victims.

Getting vaccinated is the one that works best. Not getting infected is just good but harder to sustain.

You're not going to see a vaccine in your lifetime.

As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

[b***@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 10:21:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
.

Post by Bill Sloman
As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

Don't flatter yourself. It takes far, far less than a prophet or medical expert to refute your record ignorance.

Post by Bill Sloman
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

Don't flatter yourself. It takes far, far less than a prophet or medical expert to refute your record ignorance.

You now seem to be getting quite a lot of other stuff wrong as well.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

Don't flatter yourself. It takes far, far less than a prophet or medical expert to refute your record ignorance.

You now seem to be getting quite a lot of other stuff wrong as well.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

How would you know, you have nearly 0% comprehension of anything you see or read on the subject. You don't know how to source information and you lack background knowledge to develop perspective or understand context. You're pretty much what's called hopeless.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

Don't flatter yourself. It takes far, far less than a prophet or medical expert to refute your record ignorance.

You now seem to be getting quite a lot of other stuff wrong as well.

How would you know, you have nearly 0% comprehension of anything you see or read on the subject.

By which you means I don't share your deluded misapprehensions about what they mean.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You don't know how to source information and you lack background knowledge to develop perspective or understand context.

I obviously do know how to source information, but it's hard to find which particular study you choose to misinterpret when you don't tell us where you found it.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're pretty much what's called hopeless.

If you hope that fatuous abuse is going to make me agree with you, think again - or in this particular case, try starting to think about what is actually going on.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

Don't flatter yourself. It takes far, far less than a prophet or medical expert to refute your record ignorance.

You now seem to be getting quite a lot of other stuff wrong as well.

How would you know, you have nearly 0% comprehension of anything you see or read on the subject.

By which you means I don't share your deluded misapprehensions about what they mean.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You don't know how to source information and you lack background knowledge to develop perspective or understand context.

I obviously do know how to source information, but it's hard to find which particular study you choose to misinterpret when you don't tell us where you found it.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're pretty much what's called hopeless.

If you hope that fatuous abuse is going to make me agree with you, think again - or in this particular case, try starting to think about what is actually going on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You're the ignorant sheep who thinks a vaccine will be available any time soon. And the reason why is because you don't have one whit of understanding about the subject.
P.S. I'm not at all concerned about anybody agreeing with me. Why the hell would I care about that?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
As a medical prophet or a medical expert you are equally unconvincing. Try to fool some other audience.

Don't flatter yourself. It takes far, far less than a prophet or medical expert to refute your record ignorance.

You now seem to be getting quite a lot of other stuff wrong as well.

How would you know, you have nearly 0% comprehension of anything you see or read on the subject.

By which you means I don't share your deluded misapprehensions about what they mean.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You don't know how to source information and you lack background knowledge to develop perspective or understand context.

I obviously do know how to source information, but it's hard to find which particular study you choose to misinterpret when you don't tell us where you found it.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're pretty much what's called hopeless.

If you hope that fatuous abuse is going to make me agree with you, think again - or in this particular case, try starting to think about what is actually going on.

You're the ignorant sheep who thinks a vaccine will be available any time soon.

That rather misrepresents my position, though granting your grasp of all the other texts you misrepresent, it's probably just further evidence that your brain is on the skids.
What I said was that there are quite a few people around using new and innovative ways of trying to create a vaccine. I've explicitly said that I don't expect most of them to succeed, and all of them could fail.
Your claim seems to be that all of them are bound to fail, which is probably excessively pessimistic - along with a lot of the other twaddle you post.

Apparently you're too dumb to separate the methodology of vaccine development and safety testing. Technology has nothing to do with the testing, it hinges on trial participants and human biology, and can't be rushed.

Post by b***@gmail.com
And the reason why is because you don't have one whit of understanding about the subject.

I understand enough to know that your claim that the next pandemic was bound to be a corona virus infection had to be utter nonsense, and when you dug out a paper that you thought supported that position it actually said there was no way of knowing which particular zoonose was gong to create next epidemic.

I made no such claim, and I did not offer the paper to support such a claim. There is no history of global corona pandemic, whereas there is ample history of avian flu global epidemics. Influenza is an avian flu btw.

Post by b***@gmail.com
P.S. I'm not at all concerned about anybody agreeing with me. Why the hell would I care about that?

Any more than you care that most of what you post is total nonsense?

Everything appears as nonsense to a mindless addle brain such as yourself. You can't make sense of anything.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

<snip>

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
If you hope that fatuous abuse is going to make me agree with you, think again - or in this particular case, try starting to think about what is actually going on.

You're the ignorant sheep who thinks a vaccine will be available any time soon.

That rather misrepresents my position, though granting your grasp of all the other texts you misrepresent, it's probably just further evidence that your brain is on the skids.
What I said was that there are quite a few people around using new and innovative ways of trying to create a vaccine. I've explicitly said that I don't expect most of them to succeed, and all of them could fail.
Your claim seems to be that all of them are bound to fail, which is probably excessively pessimistic - along with a lot of the other twaddle you post.

Apparently you're too dumb to separate the methodology of vaccine development and safety testing. Technology has nothing to do with the testing, it hinges on trial participants and human biology, and can't be rushed.

That depends a bit on what the vaccine contains and what it is intended to do.

If all the vaccine is intended to do is to get the body to produce antibodies to the corona virus spike protein, testing is a whole lot easier than it is with - say - attentuated viruses, or a vaccine against a multi-strain virus like the dengue virus cluster.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
And the reason why is because you don't have one whit of understanding about the subject.

I don't share what you imagine to be your understanding, which isn't quite the same thing.

Post by b***@gmail.com

I understand enough to know that your claim that the next pandemic was bound to be a corona virus infection had to be utter nonsense, and when you dug out a paper that you thought supported that position it actually said there was no way of knowing which particular zoonose was gong to create next epidemic.

I made no such claim,

Actually you did.

Post by b***@gmail.com
and I did not offer the paper to support such a claim.

That wasn't the way it struck me.

Post by b***@gmail.com
There is no history of global corona pandemic,

SARS might not have made it to pandemic status, nor MERS, but SARS did look like an incipient epidemic for a while.

Post by b***@gmail.com
whereas there is ample history of avian flu global epidemics. Influenza is an avian flu btw.

What's that got to do with corona virus epidemics?

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
P.S. I'm not at all concerned about anybody agreeing with me. Why the hell would I care about that?

Any more than you care that most of what you post is total nonsense?

Everything appears as nonsense to a mindless addle brain such as yourself. You can't make sense of anything.

I'm afraid the addled brain here is yours. Where did the irrelevant comment about avian flu epidemics come from? Have you suddenly decided that the avian flu virus is a corona virus? You won't get a Nobel prize for hypothesising that.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
If you hope that fatuous abuse is going to make me agree with you, think again - or in this particular case, try starting to think about what is actually going on.

You're the ignorant sheep who thinks a vaccine will be available any time soon.

That rather misrepresents my position, though granting your grasp of all the other texts you misrepresent, it's probably just further evidence that your brain is on the skids.
What I said was that there are quite a few people around using new and innovative ways of trying to create a vaccine. I've explicitly said that I don't expect most of them to succeed, and all of them could fail.
Your claim seems to be that all of them are bound to fail, which is probably excessively pessimistic - along with a lot of the other twaddle you post.

Apparently you're too dumb to separate the methodology of vaccine development and safety testing. Technology has nothing to do with the testing, it hinges on trial participants and human biology, and can't be rushed.

That depends a bit on what the vaccine contains and what it is intended to do.
If all the vaccine is intended to do is to get the body to produce antibodies to the corona virus spike protein, testing is a whole lot easier than it is with - say - attentuated viruses, or a vaccine against a multi-strain virus like the dengue virus cluster.

Who the hell would use an attenuated virus. All they have to do is introduce the "spike protein" into the blood and voila- you have "an" antibody. There's no such thing as "the" antibody, there all kinds of different types.

You're so clueless you completely miss what testing is about. Of course you want to induce an immune response that eliminates the virus. But you don't want a response that attacks/damages self. Do you or anyone else know enough about every single cellular membrane surface set to say that can't happen? I doubt it.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
And the reason why is because you don't have one whit of understanding about the subject.

I don't share what you imagine to be your understanding, which isn't quite the same thing.

You're the one on the imagination trip. I'm personally astounded at your simple mindedness.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

I understand enough to know that your claim that the next pandemic was bound to be a corona virus infection had to be utter nonsense, and when you dug out a paper that you thought supported that position it actually said there was no way of knowing which particular zoonose was gong to create next epidemic.

I made no such claim,

Actually you did.

Post by b***@gmail.com
and I did not offer the paper to support such a claim.

That wasn't the way it struck me.

Post by b***@gmail.com
There is no history of global corona pandemic,

SARS might not have made it to pandemic status, nor MERS, but SARS did look like an incipient epidemic for a while.

It killed off its victims too fast to spread. It killed them off so fast there was no one left on which to test drugs or a vaccine.

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
whereas there is ample history of avian flu global epidemics. Influenza is an avian flu btw.

What's that got to do with corona virus epidemics?

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
P.S. I'm not at all concerned about anybody agreeing with me. Why the hell would I care about that?

Any more than you care that most of what you post is total nonsense?

Everything appears as nonsense to a mindless addle brain such as yourself. You can't make sense of anything.

I'm afraid the addled brain here is yours. Where did the irrelevant comment about avian flu epidemics come from? Have you suddenly decided that the avian flu virus is a corona virus? You won't get a Nobel prize for hypothesising that.

You're more addled than Biden. Get yourself checked out.

Post by Bill Sloman
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
<snip>

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman
If you hope that fatuous abuse is going to make me agree with you, think again - or in this particular case, try starting to think about what is actually going on.

You're the ignorant sheep who thinks a vaccine will be available any time soon.

That rather misrepresents my position, though granting your grasp of all the other texts you misrepresent, it's probably just further evidence that your brain is on the skids.
What I said was that there are quite a few people around using new and innovative ways of trying to create a vaccine. I've explicitly said that I don't expect most of them to succeed, and all of them could fail.
Your claim seems to be that all of them are bound to fail, which is probably excessively pessimistic - along with a lot of the other twaddle you post.

Apparently you're too dumb to separate the methodology of vaccine development and safety testing. Technology has nothing to do with the testing, it hinges on trial participants and human biology, and can't be rushed.

That depends a bit on what the vaccine contains and what it is intended to do.
If all the vaccine is intended to do is to get the body to produce antibodies to the corona virus spike protein, testing is a whole lot easier than it is with - say - attentuated viruses, or a vaccine against a multi-strain virus like the dengue virus cluster.

Who the hell would use an attenuated virus. All they have to do is introduce the "spike protein" into the blood and voila- you have "an" antibody. There's no such thing as "the" antibody, there all kinds of different types.

The point was that you were generalising across all vaccines, as if the problems involved in development and safety testing were exactly the same for all of them. And it's perfectly obvious that there are lots of different antibodies, but a vaccine is designed to generate exactly one that is specific to the disease you want to immunise against.

Post by b***@gmail.com
You're so clueless you completely miss what testing is about. Of course you want to induce an immune response that eliminates the virus. But you don't want a response that attacks/damages self.

Obviously. But that isn't a problem that comes up often, if at all.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Do you or anyone else know enough about every single cellular membrane surface set to say that can't happen? I doubt it.

There are a lot of vaccines around. They don't seem to be a significant source of autoimmune diseases.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
And the reason why is because you don't have one whit of understanding about the subject.

I don't share what you imagine to be your understanding, which isn't quite the same thing.

You're the one on the imagination trip. I'm personally astounded at your simple mindedness.

Because I don't share your fatuous misunderstandings?

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com

I understand enough to know that your claim that the next pandemic was bound to be a corona virus infection had to be utter nonsense, and when you dug out a paper that you thought supported that position it actually said there was no way of knowing which particular zoonose was gong to create next epidemic.

I made no such claim,

Actually you did.

Post by b***@gmail.com
and I did not offer the paper to support such a claim.

That wasn't the way it struck me.

Post by b***@gmail.com
There is no history of global corona pandemic,

SARS might not have made it to pandemic status, nor MERS, but SARS did look like an incipient epidemic for a while.

It killed off its victims too fast to spread. It killed them off so fast there was no one left on which to test drugs or a vaccine.

MERS kills about 35% f the people it infects. SARS killed about 7%. That leaves quite few survivors.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
whereas there is ample history of avian flu global epidemics. Influenza is an avian flu btw.

What's that got to do with corona virus epidemics?

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by b***@gmail.com
P.S. I'm not at all concerned about anybody agreeing with me. Why the hell would I care about that?

Any more than you care that most of what you post is total nonsense?

Everything appears as nonsense to a mindless addle brain such as yourself. You can't make sense of anything.

I'm afraid the addled brain here is yours. Where did the irrelevant comment about avian flu epidemics come from? Have you suddenly decided that the avian flu virus is a corona virus? You won't get a Nobel prize for hypothesising that.

You're more addled than Biden. Get yourself checked out.

Biden isn't addled. He does make a lot of speech errors, but he has been doing that all his life.

You, on the other hand, used to make sense. Now you don't. You probably ought to talk to you doctor. There's nothing to be done about Alzheimer's, but my mother's cognitive decline seems to have started when she stopped eating enough, and she didn't get any worse after we had to put her in a nursing home where she got fed properly. She had a BMI of 17 when she went in and got back up to 19 - not great but not starving - for her five years in the place.

[Martin Brown]

Post by b***@gmail.com

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 6:42:25 AM UTC+11,

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you can survive influenza, you can survive COVID-19.

I wonder what makes Fred Bloggs think that? When previously
healthly 20-to-30 year-olds end up dying of Covid-19 it seems to be
an exceptionally fatuous claim, even for him.

There are no such previously healthy people in that age range dying
from corona. Statistics are still being compiled, but almost all the

You might want to consider the large number of perfectly healthy medics
that the disease has already killed in Italy then. It has killed a
couple of medics in the UK and two perfectly healthy teenagers as well.

It works roughly like your entire annual risk of dying compressed into a
week of coronavirus according to the analysis by David Spiegelhalter

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-covid-represent-4539118e1196

[Phil Hobbs]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)

Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.

Good health to you both.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Michael Terrell]

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)
Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.
Good health to you both.

This is the current statistics for my county:

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

[Rick C]

Post by Michael Terrell

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)
Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.
Good health to you both.

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

If you look around the country, most counties are like this or have even fewer infections. That is not to say they won't see higher infection levels, just that they will peak later.

A web site that displays prediction curves for infection at the state level show NY peaking this week and VA peaking the end of this month or early in May. VA has a lot of rural counties with literally 2 infections currently while NY state has NY city with a quarter of all infections in the country.

I don't know for sure, but it seems NYC has a lot of disregard for the stat-at-home concept. When the USNS Comfort sailed up the Hudson River crowds gathered to view it. Really? "Crowds"??? I guess we know why NYC is infection central.

They also haven't closed the subway yet. I can't think of a better breeding ground.

[Flyguy]

Post by Rick C

Post by Michael Terrell

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)
Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.
Good health to you both.

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

If you look around the country, most counties are like this or have even fewer infections. That is not to say they won't see higher infection levels, just that they will peak later.
A web site that displays prediction curves for infection at the state level show NY peaking this week and VA peaking the end of this month or early in May. VA has a lot of rural counties with literally 2 infections currently while NY state has NY city with a quarter of all infections in the country.
I don't know for sure, but it seems NYC has a lot of disregard for the stat-at-home concept. When the USNS Comfort sailed up the Hudson River crowds gathered to view it. Really? "Crowds"??? I guess we know why NYC is infection central.
They also haven't closed the subway yet. I can't think of a better breeding ground.

Mass transit is really what separates NYC and NJ from the rest of the country in regards to vastly different COVID infection rates.

[Rick C]

Post by Flyguy

Post by Rick C

Post by Michael Terrell

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)
Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.
Good health to you both.

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

If you look around the country, most counties are like this or have even fewer infections. That is not to say they won't see higher infection levels, just that they will peak later.
A web site that displays prediction curves for infection at the state level show NY peaking this week and VA peaking the end of this month or early in May. VA has a lot of rural counties with literally 2 infections currently while NY state has NY city with a quarter of all infections in the country.
I don't know for sure, but it seems NYC has a lot of disregard for the stat-at-home concept. When the USNS Comfort sailed up the Hudson River crowds gathered to view it. Really? "Crowds"??? I guess we know why NYC is infection central.
They also haven't closed the subway yet. I can't think of a better breeding ground.

Mass transit is really what separates NYC and NJ from the rest of the country in regards to vastly different COVID infection rates.

Please explain and also trim your posts from time to time. I get tired of cleaning up your messes both in posting and in thinking.

DC, the SF bay area and other locations have mass transit. What is special about NYC?

I fully acknowledge the subway is a breeding ground for diseases. But that doesn't explain the infection rate in NYC compared to other cities. Paris is a good example.

So please explain what you mean and also please trim once in a while, eh?

[Flyguy]

Post by Rick C

Post by Flyguy

Post by Rick C

Post by Michael Terrell

Post by Phil Hobbs

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

Some viruses cause people to lose their senses of taste and smell. It's
pretty rare in general, but seems to be much more common with the Wu
'flu. (Some folks are calling it Flu Manchu, which is funny but blames
the wrong part of the country.)
Our world traveller had that for a week or so at the beginning of March,
while staying with us. So maybe we've had it too.
Good health to you both.

Total Cases: 23
Residents: 22
Residents Not in Florida: 0
Non-Residents: 1
Demographics of Cases
Age Range: 19 to 88
Men: 8
Women: 15
Conditions and Care
Deaths: 0
Hospitalizations: 2

If you look around the country, most counties are like this or have even fewer infections. That is not to say they won't see higher infection levels, just that they will peak later.
A web site that displays prediction curves for infection at the state level show NY peaking this week and VA peaking the end of this month or early in May. VA has a lot of rural counties with literally 2 infections currently while NY state has NY city with a quarter of all infections in the country.
I don't know for sure, but it seems NYC has a lot of disregard for the stat-at-home concept. When the USNS Comfort sailed up the Hudson River crowds gathered to view it. Really? "Crowds"??? I guess we know why NYC is infection central.
They also haven't closed the subway yet. I can't think of a better breeding ground.

Mass transit is really what separates NYC and NJ from the rest of the country in regards to vastly different COVID infection rates.

Please explain and also trim your posts from time to time. I get tired of cleaning up your messes both in posting and in thinking.
DC, the SF bay area and other locations have mass transit. What is special about NYC?
I fully acknowledge the subway is a breeding ground for diseases. But that doesn't explain the infection rate in NYC compared to other cities. Paris is a good example.
So please explain what you mean and also please trim once in a while, eh?
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

LOL! YOU didn't clean it up either! I'll try to do better...

What separates NYC from the others is the volume of traffic. NYC has average daily ridership of 5.5 MILLION, SF has 324 THOUSAND.

http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/
https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership

[Bill Sloman]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:01:24 -0700 (PDT),

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

Mo and I may have it. Faint sore throat, very mild headache, slight
temperature, a little tickle in the upper chest. Yes, very mild and
long lasting. But there are lots of other viruses this winter, so C19
is improbable.
I'm dying (not literally yet) to see some good general-population
antibody studies.

In the fatuous hope of getting support for your fatuous "everybody has already had a mild case of Covid-19" theory.

Dream on.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

So Fred claims to live in Hubei Province. The first reported patient started getting treated there on the 1st December (though it took a while for people to realise that it was new disease).

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

So Fred claims to live in Hubei Province. The first reported patient started getting treated there on the 1st December (though it took a while for people to realise that it was new disease).

Disease spreads begins in fits and starts. It does not start to trend smoothly until you have an already large infected population. The COVID-19 was already infecting well in advance of November-December 2019 time frame. And it was in U.S. probably in September 2019 or earlier. The public health authorities will never acknowledge that because it belies their total lack of surveillance capability in that regard. Something they have been warned about for the past 30 years that I am personally aware of, and never did anything about.
The U.S is a case history in total absence of preparedness in addition to the ultimate incompetence in organizing themselves once the disaster was upon them.

Post by Bill Sloman
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This thing came through my area in early December. I rate the symptoms as mild to moderate, and not as bad as influenza but longer lasting.

So Fred claims to live in Hubei Province. The first reported patient started getting treated there on the 1st December (though it took a while for people to realise that it was new disease).

Disease spreads begins in fits and starts. It does not start to trend smoothly until you have an already large infected population. The COVID-19 was already infecting well in advance of November-December 2019 time frame.

Obviously. Patient zero got it from somewhere. It would be neat if he got it from a bat, but it's just a likely that it got from somebody who had got a mild case from a bat.

Go back any further and you'd have had more sick people in Wuhan in December that were actually observed.

Post by b***@gmail.com
And it was in U.S. probably in September 2019 or earlier.

Brought over by bats piggy-backing on flying pigs. The disease gets noticed because it makes about 20% of the people who get it seriously or critically ill in way that looks odd to doctors, and it's pretty infectious.

If you had it in the US in September, you'd have noticed. They managed to notice when ot got to Iran, where hypochondriacs are thinner on the ground.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The public health authorities will never acknowledge that because it belies their total lack of surveillance capability in that regard.

That's one of the less plausible hypotheses you've come up with.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Something they have been warned about for the past 30 years that I am personally aware of, and never did anything about.

Not strictly true. You've claimed that they were warned about corona viruses, but when you came up with an example of the kind of warning you meant, it listed a whole grab-bag of possible zoonoses, and siad that the was no way of predicting which one would cause the next epidemic.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The U.S is a case history in total absence of preparedness in addition to the ultimate incompetence in organizing themselves once the disaster was upon them.

They've done remarkably badly. China had beaten the disease in Wuhan before it got away in the US and the US now has 188,647 cases - more twice as many as China has had, with about a quarter of the population to infect, and there were 24742 new cases there on the 31st March, when China peaked at about a tenth of that.

Trump hasn't got much of attention span and his administrative team is picked for their skills as sycophants, but it's still a remarkably poor performance.

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2020-03-30 16:58, ***@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. [...]

Yes, but do you realize why?

Jeroen Belleman

[D***@decadence.org]

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. [...]

Yes, but do you realize why?
Jeroen Belleman

All the hosts are all dead.

The thrill is gone...

Gone away...

Aliens send viruses just before an attack.

So the real attacker are the flies. After we die, their maggots
feast for a long time. They sent the virus.

It is like wounding instead of killing an enemy. The resources
committed to saving the wounded cripples the abiliity to respond to
the actual attack when it comes.

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:23:29 +0200, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. [...]

Yes, but do you realize why?
Jeroen Belleman

Sure. There are lots of explanations around.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:23:29 +0200, Jeroen Belleman

Post by Jeroen Belleman
[...]

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. [...]

Yes, but do you realize why?

Sure. There are lots of explanations around.

None of which you understand. In fact they are all the same explanation, but John Larkin doesn't understand any of the expositions well enough to realise it.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:21:55 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:34:19 +0100, Jeff Layman

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down. Are you saying we shouldn't blame the drunk
drivers because the patients were going to die anyway?
We are all going to die, so it seems we shouldn't be concerned about how
it happens if we don't reach our expected natural individual lifespan.
Of course, the newspaper article was shortened, so we don't know exactly
what was said or if there were any caveats.

What if the average number of people are killed this year by colds and
flu, but we gave this virus a name and a lot of testing and a lot of
publicity? Why don't we launch a similar massive effort to save lives
every year, from every virus?
We have 2300 corona19-blamed deaths in the USA so far. We have 20-50K
flu deaths so far. For the average old person dying of complications
of a cold or flu, we probably don't do a PCR analysis of what the
virus was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic#United_States
The data collected on colds and flu is shockingly bad, considering
that a lot of people die.

The statistic for deaths due to all causes each and every day in U.S. is 6,600. The corona deaths don't even register compared to that. It's just another cause of death.

But if you do not do enough to stop transmission, the cases will rise to
way over that figure. From
"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would have
resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths globally this
year."

The great 1918 flu infected about half the world population. The bad
2009 pandemic, maybe 15%.

Post by Jeff Layman
And that isn't the only point. Viruses mutate (and we know that this
coronavirus has already mutated - it must have done to infect humans).
If it does mutate again to a more infectious and deadly form, the death
rate then will make the current prediction figures look puny by comparison.

Pandemic viruses usually, not always, mutate to be milder. There are
dozens of cold and flu viruses around this season. Any of them could
mutate to be worse.

But if you get sicker faster, you spend less time wandering around infecting other people, and the virus gets propagated less effectively.

John Larkin really doesn't understand the implications of the theory of evolution.

[j***@gmail.com]

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

Some estimate the Florida is already underwater due to global warming. I think some of the stupid MFs still estimate that despite the facts, they are that ignorant.

[j***@highlandsniptechnology.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.
Some estimate the Florida is already underwater due to global warming. I think some of the stupid MFs still estimate that despite the facts, they are that ignorant.

There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.

[whit3rd]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.

Meaningless unless you propose a different number, and have logic to connect it
to known data. Criticism ought to be knowledge-BUILDING, not just nebulous
characterizations.

[j***@highlandsniptechnology.com]

Post by whit3rd

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.

Meaningless unless you propose a different number, and have logic to connect it
to known data. Criticism ought to be knowledge-BUILDING, not just nebulous
characterizations.

Look at the JHU site. Cases have already peaked in most of Europe and
are really leveling in the USA.

There are about 6K hospitals in the USA that admit about 36M patients
a year. We're running about 600 deaths a day blamed on this virus.
BUILD from that.

[Rick C]

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com

Post by whit3rd

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
There is a see-you-and-raise-you game being played. The death
estimates are what's growing exponentially. And the press drools over
the worst ones they can find.

Meaningless unless you propose a different number, and have logic to connect it
to known data. Criticism ought to be knowledge-BUILDING, not just nebulous
characterizations.

Look at the JHU site. Cases have already peaked in most of Europe and
are really leveling in the USA.

Sorry, you fucked up that one. The rate of new cases is approaching a leveling. For the number of cases to level off requires a much more pronounced change in the infection rate.

I was just telling a friend yesterday that I was concerned that "less knowledgeable" people would take a leveling off of the new infection rate to indicate we can relax. The US infection rate has not yet leveled off and needs to be REDUCED by a large amount. In China they didn't consider relaxing restrictions until the new infection rate was at zero for several days in the affected areas. Other parts of the country are still in lock down.

Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
There are about 6K hospitals in the USA that admit about 36M patients
a year. We're running about 600 deaths a day blamed on this virus.
BUILD from that.

Please apply that thinking to New York City. Many other cities in the US are in the early stages of the same thing. BUILD from THAT!

[whit3rd]

Post by j***@gmail.com

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

Yeah, but 7 billion is only NEAR all the people on the planet (7.8 billion), and it's closer to the truth than
6 billion would have been. The number is probably correct enough for planning purposes.
You do realize, the exponential growth rate can easily reach that figure (unless already-got-over-it
individuals become so prevalent that they block contact of the 'few' infectious folk with
the 'unaffected' remnant of the population.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by whit3rd

Post by j***@gmail.com

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

Yeah, but 7 billion is only NEAR all the people on the planet (7.8 billion), and it's closer to the truth than
6 billion would have been. The number is probably correct enough for planning purposes.
You do realize, the exponential growth rate can easily reach that figure (unless already-got-over-it individuals become so prevalent that they block contact of the 'few' infectious folk with the 'unaffected' remnant of the population.

Apparently once 60% of the population (4.7 billion peole) have had Covid-19, herd immunity is high to stop it propagating as an epidemic - somebody was pontificating about it on our TV last night.

Getting there would kill close to 50 million people, which isn't a great idea.

[Jeff Layman]

Post by j***@gmail.com

"We estimate that in the absence of interventions, COVID-19 would >have resulted in 7.0 billion infections and 40 million deaths >globally this year."

So much for their credibility. That is ALL the people on the planet and the odds of EVERYONE getting infected are extremely remote.

The odd are that the vast majority of people will become infected if
they come into contact with others who are infected. That's the way
infections work.

There are only two groups who will not become infected - those who
remain totally isolated from the rest of the population (think of those
in Antarctica, for example, and those in other extremely remote areas
who see no others for months at a time - maybe some Amazon tribes, etc).
The other group will be those who are naturally resistant to the
infection. Quite probably there will be a few - those whose genes are
sufficiently different from everyone else to prevent the virus replicating.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific
adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and
epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down.

That might be kinder than using our advanced technology to keep them
alive just to suffer in a situation where recovery is impossible and
pain relief doesn't really work. We don't treat our pets so cruelly.

He is not alone in suggesting that the present strategy to save obvious
lives now may lead to an even greater loss of life later due to the
damage inflicted on the economy. A professor of risk management at
Bristol university has modelled this and he reckons that if UK GDP falls
by more than 6.5% it will kill more people than the virus. I'm not
entirely convinced by his argument but it is a distinct possibility.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1260175/coronavirus-uk-warning-economic-crisis-death-toll-covid-19-latest-update

Click on the picture to get the radio commentary. It was on BBC R4 about
1pm last Friday if you want to get the full interview. His paper isn't
published yet and I don't know where to find economics preprints.

Only the Depress (so named for its sky is falling apocalypse headlines)
has picked up on this particular story BBC online hasn't. MSN has:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/why-economic-crash-could-cost-more-lives-than-coronavirus/ar-BB11GWfH

I think he may well have a valid point. Another right wing commentator
in the UK who I seldom agree with and is in the very at risk population
put it slightly differently. His point was that keeping baby boomers
alive for a few more months or years by mortgaging the future of the
next generation is selfish and unfair. Politicians tend to be old.
(very few normal young people in the UK can buy a home today unless
their parents are seriously rich - house prices are beyond their reach)

The mess in India caused by the ill thought out implementation of a
national lock down will probably cause more mass casualties than the
virus. The mass migration of the poor will also spread the virus out of
the cities into remote rural areas ill prepared to deal with a pandemic.

[Rick C]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific
adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and
epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down.

That might be kinder than using our advanced technology to keep them
alive just to suffer in a situation where recovery is impossible and
pain relief doesn't really work. We don't treat our pets so cruelly.
He is not alone in suggesting that the present strategy to save obvious
lives now may lead to an even greater loss of life later due to the
damage inflicted on the economy. A professor of risk management at
Bristol university has modelled this and he reckons that if UK GDP falls
by more than 6.5% it will kill more people than the virus. I'm not
entirely convinced by his argument but it is a distinct possibility.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1260175/coronavirus-uk-warning-economic-crisis-death-toll-covid-19-latest-update
Click on the picture to get the radio commentary. It was on BBC R4 about
1pm last Friday if you want to get the full interview. His paper isn't
published yet and I don't know where to find economics preprints.
Only the Depress (so named for its sky is falling apocalypse headlines)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/why-economic-crash-could-cost-more-lives-than-coronavirus/ar-BB11GWfH
I think he may well have a valid point. Another right wing commentator
in the UK who I seldom agree with and is in the very at risk population
put it slightly differently. His point was that keeping baby boomers
alive for a few more months or years by mortgaging the future of the
next generation is selfish and unfair. Politicians tend to be old.
(very few normal young people in the UK can buy a home today unless
their parents are seriously rich - house prices are beyond their reach)
The mess in India caused by the ill thought out implementation of a
national lock down will probably cause more mass casualties than the
virus. The mass migration of the poor will also spread the virus out of
the cities into remote rural areas ill prepared to deal with a pandemic.

Yes, these are the sorts of conclusions that are drawn by overly simplistic thinking and a disregard for the facts.

In other words, "IDIOT!"

[Martin Brown]

Post by Rick C

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Jeff Layman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific
adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and
epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

So what? Take a thousand patients with terminal cancer and less than 6
months to live. Stand them in the middle of the road and let 10 drunk
drivers run them down.

That might be kinder than using our advanced technology to keep them
alive just to suffer in a situation where recovery is impossible and
pain relief doesn't really work. We don't treat our pets so cruelly.
He is not alone in suggesting that the present strategy to save obvious
lives now may lead to an even greater loss of life later due to the
damage inflicted on the economy. A professor of risk management at
Bristol university has modelled this and he reckons that if UK GDP falls
by more than 6.5% it will kill more people than the virus. I'm not
entirely convinced by his argument but it is a distinct possibility.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1260175/coronavirus-uk-warning-economic-crisis-death-toll-covid-19-latest-update
Click on the picture to get the radio commentary. It was on BBC R4 about
1pm last Friday if you want to get the full interview. His paper isn't
published yet and I don't know where to find economics preprints.
Only the Depress (so named for its sky is falling apocalypse headlines)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/why-economic-crash-could-cost-more-lives-than-coronavirus/ar-BB11GWfH
I think he may well have a valid point. Another right wing commentator
in the UK who I seldom agree with and is in the very at risk population
put it slightly differently. His point was that keeping baby boomers
alive for a few more months or years by mortgaging the future of the
next generation is selfish and unfair. Politicians tend to be old.
(very few normal young people in the UK can buy a home today unless
their parents are seriously rich - house prices are beyond their reach)
The mess in India caused by the ill thought out implementation of a
national lock down will probably cause more mass casualties than the
virus. The mass migration of the poor will also spread the virus out of
the cities into remote rural areas ill prepared to deal with a pandemic.

Yes, these are the sorts of conclusions that are drawn by overly simplistic thinking and a disregard for the facts.

Actually they are the sort of conclusions that people who properly
understand risk management come to after considering *ALL* of the facts.

Post by Rick C
In other words, "IDIOT!"

Nature is the final arbiter in these things.

[whit3rd]

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

That's just clickbait. He's firing off random hypotheses suitable for testing (so this
is just an outlier among possibilities), not reporting what he can infer from data.

In short, he's NOT staking his reputation on this as a prediction.

Reality check: if the disease has 3% mortality, that implies one in fifty of the people who catch it
'would have died this year'. That's inconsistent with normal human lifespan.
This is the sort of thing you'd not get from an epidemiologist first, but from an insurance actuary.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by whit3rd

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

That's just clickbait. He's firing off random hypotheses suitable for testing (so this
is just an outlier among possibilities), not reporting what he can infer from data.
In short, he's NOT staking his reputation on this as a prediction.
Reality check: if the disease has 3% mortality, that implies one in fifty of the people who catch it
'would have died this year'. That's inconsistent with normal human lifespan.
This is the sort of thing you'd not get from an epidemiologist first, but from an insurance actuary.

He's the one doing the infectious spread and mortality modeling for the UK government. His original projection of 200,000 deaths there has since been revised downward to 20,000. Such is the wildly exponential nature of that work. He's an official government science adviser there, so he must have something going for him.

[Phil Allison]

whit3rd the witless lunatic wrote:

---------------------------

Post by whit3rd

Post by b***@gmail.com
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/

That's just clickbait.

**Like hell it it.

Post by whit3rd
He's firing off random hypotheses suitable for testing

** He is a leading expert and is making more sense than anyone else.

Post by whit3rd
In short, he's NOT staking his reputation on this as a prediction.

** No need to exists, as the game keeps changing on a daily basis.

Post by whit3rd
Reality check: if the disease has 3% mortality, that implies one in fifty of the people who catch it 'would have died this year'.
That's inconsistent with normal human lifespan.

** The death rate figure I see is more like 2% - implying 1.3%

Very consistent as it equates to 76 years.


..... Phil

[whit3rd]

Post by whit3rd

Post by whit3rd
That's just clickbait.

He's firing off random hypotheses suitable for testing
** He is a leading expert and is making more sense than anyone else.

But, in science authority goes to OBSERVATIONS, and he's just
making estimates (as requested by his sponsors) with a variety
of assumptions. Nothing else explains the large range of his current and previous numbers.

Post by whit3rd

Post by whit3rd
Reality check: if the disease has 3% mortality, that implies one in fifty of the people who catch it 'would have died this year'.
That's inconsistent with normal human lifespan.

** The death rate figure I see is more like 2% - implying 1.3%
Very consistent as it equates to 76 years.

No, it is NOT consistent; accidental death and many kinds of ailment are NOT
complicated by an additional corona virus. It would be consistent if all death
were due to lung capacity problems AND if the corona virus mortality were
entirely additive with lung capacity problems. Neither of those are established.

The 'vital capacity' or 'constitution' theories of disease are not entirely
wrong, but the germ theory is the usual winner. The suggestion of
'it mainly kills dying folk' is akin to arrogant dismissal based on the
'constitution' theory of weakness causing disease.

I'm always suspicious of arrogant dismissal. Science, not spin, impresses me.

[Phil Allison]

The biggest WITLESS FUCKHEAD here poseted:

-----------------------------------------

Post by whit3rd

Post by Phil Allison
** He is a leading expert and is making more sense than anyone else.

But, in science

** Fools like YOU have no idea what science is.

Post by whit3rd

Post by Phil Allison
** The death rate figure I see is more like 2% - implying 1.3%
Very consistent as it equates to 76 years.

No, it is NOT consistent;

**Exactly consistent with the usual human deaths rate in advance countries.

Which contradicts your false claim.

Post by whit3rd
I'm always suspicious of arrogant dismissal.

** ROTFL.

What exactly does this FUCKING ASS imagine he is doing right now ??



..... Phil

[whit3rd]

Post by Phil Allison
-----------------------------------------
That's just clickbait

Post by whit3rd

Post by Phil Allison
** The death rate figure I see is more like 2% - implying 1.3%
Very consistent as it equates to 76 years.

No, it is NOT consistent

**Exactly consistent with the usual human deaths rate in advance countries.

True, and you know what THAT means. It means that the mortality probability of COVID-19
ALONE, combined with normal human lifespan, suggests a limit, of about 2/3 of the
fatalities, of how many of the victims would have died in the next year.

Put in different words, "up to 2/3..." is the same as "no less than 1/3 of the
fatalities due to COVID-19 are of healthy individuals " (who wouldn't have been
expected to die in the next 12 months).


The title of the article was heavily slanted to suggest... well, to suggest blaming the victims
Cheap shot, that. It's an arrogant dismissal type of cheap shot, and I'm not happy with it.

Why aren't you angry at the clickbait, too?

[Phil Allison]

The biggest WITLESS FUCKHEAD here posted:

---------------------------------------


** Listen FUCKHEAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are just another brain dead TROLL !!

IMO you ought to be in a home for the mentally retarded.

It's terrifying to think an UTTER IMBECILE like you is on the loose.

FFS, FOAD.



..... Phil

[Rick C]

Post by Phil Allison
---------------------------------------
** Listen FUCKHEAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are just another brain dead TROLL !!
IMO you ought to be in a home for the mentally retarded.
It's terrifying to think an UTTER IMBECILE like you is on the loose.
FFS, FOAD.
..... Phil

LOL, the classic Phil. Now in a convenient six pack!

[D***@decadence.org]

Post by Phil Allison
---------------------------------------
** Listen FUCKHEAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are just another brain dead TROLL !!
IMO you ought to be in a home for the mentally retarded.
It's terrifying to think an UTTER IMBECILE like you is on the

loose.

Post by Phil Allison
FFS, FOAD.
..... Phil

You are worse than Earl Strickland. But at least he knows how to
shoot.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)

It's reported in the UK Daily Telegraph, which is an up-market source of right-wing rubbish.

I suppose that fact that two thirds of Covid-19 victims might have died from some other cause within a year is supposed to be comforting for the other third, who wouldn't have.

The fact that the guy is an epidemiologist doesn't make his extremely speculative predictions about the age-composition of the potential victims all that interesting.

It's not going to help the UK get their Covid-19 epidemic under control

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

There were only 2546 new cases on the 28th March, which is down from 2885 on the 27th March, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, as Italy demonstrates.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)

It's reported in the UK Daily Telegraph, which is an up-market source of right-wing rubbish.
I suppose that fact that two thirds of Covid-19 victims might have died from some other cause within a year is supposed to be comforting for the other third, who wouldn't have.
The fact that the guy is an epidemiologist doesn't make his extremely speculative predictions about the age-composition of the potential victims all that interesting.
It's not going to help the UK get their Covid-19 epidemic under control
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
There were only 2546 new cases on the 28th March, which is down from 2885 on the 27th March, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, as Italy demonstrates.

The same criteria is going to be used to ration ventilators in overwhelmed hospitals right now.

What criterion is that?

<snipped Fred getting hysterical about the fact that hospitals prioritise the candidates for treatment with scarce resources. It's called triage, and it's been around since doctors had treatments that worked.>

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)

It's reported in the UK Daily Telegraph, which is an up-market source of right-wing rubbish.
I suppose that fact that two thirds of Covid-19 victims might have died from some other cause within a year is supposed to be comforting for the other third, who wouldn't have.
The fact that the guy is an epidemiologist doesn't make his extremely speculative predictions about the age-composition of the potential victims all that interesting.
It's not going to help the UK get their Covid-19 epidemic under control
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
There were only 2546 new cases on the 28th March, which is down from 2885 on the 27th March, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, as Italy demonstrates.

The same criteria is going to be used to ration ventilators in overwhelmed hospitals right now.

What criterion is that?
<snipped Fred getting hysterical about the fact that hospitals prioritise the candidates for treatment with scarce resources. It's called triage, and it's been around since doctors had treatments that worked.>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's not what triage is. Triage relates to ranking the incoming in accordance with urgency of treatment.

tri·age
/trēˈäZH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(in medical use) the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties.

Rationing resources is not triage. Making a decision as to whether a person is a waste of scarce resource is not triage.

[Bill Sloman]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by b***@gmail.com
This according the British epidemiologist and government scientific adviser with a lifetime of experience studying deadly disease and epidemics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/25/two-thirds-patients-die-coronavirus-would-have-died-year-anyway/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)

It's reported in the UK Daily Telegraph, which is an up-market source of right-wing rubbish.
I suppose that fact that two thirds of Covid-19 victims might have died from some other cause within a year is supposed to be comforting for the other third, who wouldn't have.
The fact that the guy is an epidemiologist doesn't make his extremely speculative predictions about the age-composition of the potential victims all that interesting.
It's not going to help the UK get their Covid-19 epidemic under control
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
There were only 2546 new cases on the 28th March, which is down from 2885 on the 27th March, but one swallow doesn't make a summer, as Italy demonstrates.

The same criteria is going to be used to ration ventilators in overwhelmed hospitals right now.

What criterion is that?
<snipped Fred getting hysterical about the fact that hospitals prioritise the candidates for treatment with scarce resources. It's called triage, and it's been around since doctors had treatments that worked.>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's not what triage is. Triage relates to ranking the incoming in accordance with urgency of treatment.
tri·age
/trēˈäZH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(in medical use) the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties.

Order of treatment is rationing a scarce resource - doctors available to start treating a particular patient.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Rationing resources is not triage.

If the doctors available to treat patients are seen as a resource, then triage is exactly that.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Making a decision as to whether a person is a waste of scarce resource is not triage.

If there's only so much resource available - less than than required to treat every patient who would get an advantage from it - triage does involve making life and death decisions.

Ignoring the fact that the doctors available are a resource which has to be rationed is a fine way of obscuring what's going on, but still utterly idiotic.

[Martin Brown]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

The same criteria is going to be used to ration ventilators in overwhelmed hospitals right now.

What criterion is that?
<snipped Fred getting hysterical about the fact that hospitals prioritise the candidates for treatment with scarce resources. It's called triage, and it's been around since doctors had treatments that worked.>

That's not what triage is. Triage relates to ranking the incoming in accordance with urgency of treatment.
tri·age
/trēˈäZH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(in medical use) the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties.
Rationing resources is not triage. Making a decision as to whether a person is a waste of scarce resource is not triage.

Triage is originally a military term which roughly categorises
casualties according to the severity of their injuries:

Will survive anyway
Will survive if treated promptly
Will die anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage#History

It was one of the positive outcomes of the Napoleonic Wars.

One UK medical practice has got into trouble today by sending people for
whom resuscitation makes no sense Do Not Resuscitate forms to fill in.
It is a brutal truth that for those frail over 70's with underlying
health conditions the chances of rescuss working are slim -a t most 10%.

Telling people that is a little insensitive but is also realistic. The
TV soaps where more than 80% recover cause unreasonable expectations.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Bill Sloman

The same criteria is going to be used to ration ventilators in overwhelmed hospitals right now.

What criterion is that?
<snipped Fred getting hysterical about the fact that hospitals prioritise the candidates for treatment with scarce resources. It's called triage, and it's been around since doctors had treatments that worked.>

That's not what triage is. Triage relates to ranking the incoming in accordance with urgency of treatment.
tri·age
/trēˈäZH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
(in medical use) the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties.
Rationing resources is not triage. Making a decision as to whether a person is a waste of scarce resource is not triage.

Triage is originally a military term which roughly categorises
Will survive anyway
Will survive if treated promptly
Will die anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage#History
It was one of the positive outcomes of the Napoleonic Wars.
One UK medical practice has got into trouble today by sending people for
whom resuscitation makes no sense Do Not Resuscitate forms to fill in.
It is a brutal truth that for those frail over 70's with underlying
health conditions the chances of rescuss working are slim -a t most 10%.
Telling people that is a little insensitive but is also realistic. The
TV soaps where more than 80% recover cause unreasonable expectations.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown

People just went bonkers over this leaked resource allocation plan from Michigan:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/27/health/michigan-henry-ford-letter-coronavirus/index.html

It involves a lot more than triage as it's traditionally understood, especially the part about removing people from ongoing treatment.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/27/health/michigan-henry-ford-letter-coronavirus/index.html

[j***@gmail.com]

I just read that a few old people have survived it. Two of them over 100 years old, one with COPD.

I attribute it partly to the fact that they have immune systems not poked by 100 vaccines at birth. I am not anti-vax but I think they go too far. In fact there are data that strongly suggest that too many vaccines bring on more allergies. Allergies are an improper (we think...) immune system response to (hopefully) harmless stimuli.

At 10 years old you were born in 1920, maybe 1921. the infant mortality rate had been cut down considerable from levels the century before. However they only got maybe 4 vaccines. So it was probably more attributable to better postnatal care and procedures. some were still born on kitchen tables, a friend of mine, his Father was born in a speakeasy. In neither case was good post partum care available. They didn't need so much prenatal care because the food was better and they were generally healthier. But still the laws of nature are that not all survive.

[John Larkin]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I just read that a few old people have survived it. Two of them over 100 years old, one with COPD.
I attribute it partly to the fact that they have immune systems not poked by 100 vaccines at birth. I am not anti-vax but I think they go too far. In fact there are data that strongly suggest that too many vaccines bring on more allergies. Allergies are an improper (we think...) immune system response to (hopefully) harmless stimuli.
At 10 years old you were born in 1920, maybe 1921. the infant mortality rate had been cut down considerable from levels the century before. However they only got maybe 4 vaccines. So it was probably more attributable to better postnatal care and procedures. some were still born on kitchen tables, a friend of mine, his Father was born in a speakeasy. In neither case was good post partum care available. They didn't need so much prenatal care because the food was better and they were generally healthier. But still the laws of nature are that not all survive.

I was born (not conceived) in the back of my uncle's 1936 Ford. He
resented my bleeding all over the seat.

[Rick C]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I just read that a few old people have survived it. Two of them over 100 years old, one with COPD.
I attribute it partly to the fact that they have immune systems not poked by 100 vaccines at birth. I am not anti-vax but I think they go too far. In fact there are data that strongly suggest that too many vaccines bring on more allergies. Allergies are an improper (we think...) immune system response to (hopefully) harmless stimuli.
At 10 years old you were born in 1920, maybe 1921. the infant mortality rate had been cut down considerable from levels the century before. However they only got maybe 4 vaccines. So it was probably more attributable to better postnatal care and procedures. some were still born on kitchen tables, a friend of mine, his Father was born in a speakeasy. In neither case was good post partum care available. They didn't need so much prenatal care because the food was better and they were generally healthier. But still the laws of nature are that not all survive.

You are talking about people born at a time of less postpartum care, but also a much higher infant mortality.

Nothing you've said makes any sense. In particular that "a few old people survived it". Even among the very old the mortality rate is not 100% or anywhere near it.