Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 10:47:01 -0400, John wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

I think I'm the only one who's looked at the deaths per population. I've done
the same thing with Virginia and the US using the data from that chart. I'm
thinking of calling my Dr. to see what different flavors of anti-depressants he
can offer.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found, we may not be in for such a
long haul - speaking as an over-75 guy with some minor underlying conditions
(not helped by 39 years of smoking)!

That is the wild card I have not seen mentioned yet and I am
surprised. I guess the people who make the anti smoking, anti vaping
commercials haven't had a chance to assemble their data.
Particularly I am curious about the 20 somethings who died. Six months
ago they were telling us vaping could do that, with similar symptoms.

I was never really that much of a smoker but I did get careless around
particulates and VOCs more than I should have. That couldn't help this
much.

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:09:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 11:12 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of
confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to
other
countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread
of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests per 1000
persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





That is the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active...I
assumed
every girl was infected and always used a condom.Â* :)



So, that means you are no longer se......Â* oh, forget it.Â*Â* :-)


Now that I am older and still sexually active, it is with one woman, and
neither of us have or have had any STDs, so there is no reason to use a
condom. Does that clear it up for you?


Just checking on your status. In your post you said,
".... the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active""

which can be interpreted as meaning you no longer are.

Words and their construction have meanings, you know.

We have heard enough about "Harry the wonder schlong" to believe he
never meant to say that. I just let it go.

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


The NYC subways are running limited services for essential personal
only. The Wash Post reports they are basically empty.




Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:09:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 11:12 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of
confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to
other
countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread
of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests per 1000
persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





That is the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active...I
assumed
every girl was infected and always used a condom.Â* :)



So, that means you are no longer se......Â* oh, forget it.Â*Â* :-)


Now that I am older and still sexually active, it is with one woman, and
neither of us have or have had any STDs, so there is no reason to use a
condom. Does that clear it up for you?


Just checking on your status. In your post you said,
".... the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active""

which can be interpreted as meaning you no longer are.

Words and their construction have meanings, you know.

We have heard enough about "Harry the wonder schlong" to believe he
never meant to say that. I just let it go.



LOL

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:16:57 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 10:23:13 -0400, Justan Ohlphart wrote:

On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the "number
of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to
other countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.




I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success or
failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.

By looking at the actual cases? Sounds reasonable to me. The only way to measure
the success of treatment is to look at confirmed cases.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


Success of treatment is not confirmed cases. But the outcome of
treatment. Cured or dead.

One starts with confirmed cases and then looks at the result. Perhaps I should
have been more clear.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:47:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:08:02 -0400, John wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.

Nobody has actually published the number of available ventilators per
100,000 people in those socialized, rationed care countries but if it
is like MRI machines, they are way behind the curve compared to the
US.
OTOH ventilators might not really be the cash cow an MRI machine is so
who knows? Dead people are tough to collect from.

The 'why' was not the point. According to some, we are way behind those
countries with our health system. The numbers show otherwise.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 7:51 PM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.



Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.

That's what my newly found optimism predicts. I have a sense
that it's a week or so away.





--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


That just helps the herd immunity.

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:16:56 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


We do know that the death rate is 18% for those who have either recovered
or died. He death rate right now is per thousand people. Not those who
have survived or died.

===

Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe the death rate for those who have
died is 100%.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:53:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:01:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:23:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 11:29 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 10:23:13 -0400, Justan Ohlphart wrote:

On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the "number
of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to
other countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success or
failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.


By looking at the actual cases? Sounds reasonable to me. The only way to measure
the success of treatment is to look at confirmed cases.

I agree. I may be wrong or don't understand the logic but mass testing
for the sake of mass testing accomplishes nothing.

Last report I heard was that the USA is testing over 100,000 people a
day now.

What benefit has it served other than to confirm more cases thus
lowering the death rate percentage?

The spread and exponential rate of infections continue and there's
indication it is slowing down or "flattening the curve" at all.

===


One of the reasons for the exponential growth is the long incubation
period, about 15 days, where people are not yet showing symptoms but
are communicating the disease. Mandatory testing, especially at
travel checkpoints, could help to slow the spread. It could also be
helpful for healthcare workers and first responders. As a group they
are very vunerable, and the more quickly they are detected and
isolated, the less chance of them passing it along.


I understand. However, we are in a serious and major exponential
spread of this virus with many areas of the country yet to begin.

I think it would be more prudent at this point in time to encourage
or even enforce if necessary the recommendations of the CDC and other
professionals. As Doc Fauci recommends: Assume you are infected
and limit your travel and exposure to others accordingly.

We can crunch numbers later.

===

Even if all travel outside the home is banned and quarantines are
strictly enforced, there is still the issue with first responders,
health care professionals and delivery people. I think the new test
that Abbott labs has developed could help a lot with that. Supposedly
it can give results in less than 15 minutes, short enough that
critical workers could be tested every day at the beginning of their
shift.

That gets complicated. I am the care giver for my FIL. I have to go
over there regularly. I guess I could tell the cop he has to do it.
What about going to the grocery store? Go get your drugs? Go get a
part to fix your water?

I am sure as a CE I would have a card. Somebody has to keep 9-11, the
cop's lap top (host) and the ATMs going.

Great website
 

wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:16:56 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


We do know that the death rate is 18% for those who have either recovered
or died. He death rate right now is per thousand people. Not those who
have survived or died.

===

Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe the death rate for those who have
died is 100%.


It is. But I included recovered. Which makes a scary statistic. But
excludes those who recovered without medical care.

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:54:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/29/2020 7:51 PM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.



Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.

That's what my newly found optimism predicts. I have a sense
that it's a week or so away.

If you're right, I'll buy you a beer.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:58:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


That just helps the herd immunity.

Is that bad?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:42:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:16:56 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


We do know that the death rate is 18% for those who have either recovered
or died. He death rate right now is per thousand people. Not those who
have survived or died.

===

Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe the death rate for those who have
died is 100%.

I couldn't figure that one out either, so I bypassed it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:49:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:53:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:01:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:23:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 11:29 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 10:23:13 -0400, Justan Ohlphart wrote:

On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the "number
of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to
other countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success or
failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.


By looking at the actual cases? Sounds reasonable to me. The only way to measure
the success of treatment is to look at confirmed cases.

I agree. I may be wrong or don't understand the logic but mass testing
for the sake of mass testing accomplishes nothing.

Last report I heard was that the USA is testing over 100,000 people a
day now.

What benefit has it served other than to confirm more cases thus
lowering the death rate percentage?

The spread and exponential rate of infections continue and there's
indication it is slowing down or "flattening the curve" at all.

===


One of the reasons for the exponential growth is the long incubation
period, about 15 days, where people are not yet showing symptoms but
are communicating the disease. Mandatory testing, especially at
travel checkpoints, could help to slow the spread. It could also be
helpful for healthcare workers and first responders. As a group they
are very vunerable, and the more quickly they are detected and
isolated, the less chance of them passing it along.


I understand. However, we are in a serious and major exponential
spread of this virus with many areas of the country yet to begin.

I think it would be more prudent at this point in time to encourage
or even enforce if necessary the recommendations of the CDC and other
professionals. As Doc Fauci recommends: Assume you are infected
and limit your travel and exposure to others accordingly.

We can crunch numbers later.

===

Even if all travel outside the home is banned and quarantines are
strictly enforced, there is still the issue with first responders,
health care professionals and delivery people. I think the new test
that Abbott labs has developed could help a lot with that. Supposedly
it can give results in less than 15 minutes, short enough that
critical workers could be tested every day at the beginning of their
shift.

That gets complicated. I am the care giver for my FIL. I have to go
over there regularly. I guess I could tell the cop he has to do it.
What about going to the grocery store? Go get your drugs? Go get a
part to fix your water?

I am sure as a CE I would have a card. Somebody has to keep 9-11, the
cop's lap top (host) and the ATMs going.

I don't believe all travel outside the home has been banned anywhere, although
the cops are stopping folks and asking where they're going.

In France, folks are being stopped if they are carrying only one baguette. They
are supposed to buy a few days worth at a time to cut down on the outside trips.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200326...virus-lockdown
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On 3/30/2020 7:50 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:54:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/29/2020 7:51 PM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.



Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.

That's what my newly found optimism predicts. I have a sense
that it's a week or so away.

If you're right, I'll buy you a beer.


Thanks but all beer does for me now is to make me burp.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:58:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


That just helps the herd immunity.

Is that bad?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


Nope, but means a long time battle to fix the herd.

Great website
 

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:35:02 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:58:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


That just helps the herd immunity.

Is that bad?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


Nope, but means a long time battle to fix the herd.

I'm not thinking of fixing the whole herd, just me for starters!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 12:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:23 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in
comparison to other countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier
flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known
cases in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many
"unknown" cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the
tests in every community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.




I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success
or failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.



By the number of peopleÂ* getting sick and the rate at which
they do so.Â* Testing for the sake of testing
does nothin

Identifying carriers who have no symptoms and culling them from the herd
might be a significant benefit to the city of New York and other places
that have high population density.
--
Pity Fat Harry. His ability to produce rational thought on his own, no
longer exists, if it ever did at all.

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 10:48 AM, John wrote:
On 29 Mar 2020 13:30:32 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the "number of
confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to other
countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the spread
of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests per 1000
persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter? The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths. That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right. He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





That is the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active...I assumed
every girl was infected and always used a condom. :)

Gosh, I'll bet that added up to what...$2.00?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Depends on how many times he reused the same condom.

--
Pity Fat Harry. His ability to produce rational thought on his own, no
longer exists, if it ever did at all.

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 11:12 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 9:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of
confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to
other
countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread
of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests per 1000
persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





That is the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active...I
assumed
every girl was infected and always used a condom.Â* :)



So, that means you are no longer se......Â* oh, forget it.Â*Â* :-)


Now that I am older and still sexually active, it is with one woman, and
neither of us have or have had any STDs, so there is no reason to use a
condom. Does that clear it up for you?

Who is the woman.

--
Pity Fat Harry. His ability to produce rational thought on his own, no
longer exists, if it ever did at all.

Great website
 

On 3/30/2020 2:51 PM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 12:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:23 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in
comparison to other countries or previous confirmed cases of
earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known
cases in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many
"unknown" cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the
tests in every community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.




I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success
or failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.



By the number of peopleÂ* getting sick and the rate at which
they do so.Â* Testing for the sake of testing
does nothin

Identifying carriers who have no symptoms and culling them from the herd
might be a significant benefit to the city of New York and other places
that have high population density.


I see your point. My problem with the emphasis on testing before was
because it was an inefficient method and took too long to get results
in the middle of a virus growing exponentially. As a result they were
limiting testing to only those who *had* symptoms.

With the recent announcement of fast testing, like the Abbott Labs
system that can be used in a doctor's office or at the hospital
and results are known in 5-15 minutes, mass testing makes more
sense.

In the meantime, everyone should all assume they are infected and
act accordingly.




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:11:18 -0400, John wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:35:02 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:58:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


That just helps the herd immunity.

Is that bad?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


Nope, but means a long time battle to fix the herd.

I'm not thinking of fixing the whole herd, just me for starters!
--

===

A herd of one, interesting concept.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Great website
 

Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 12:14 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 10:23 AM, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
On 3/29/2020 9:09 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.Â* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.Â* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.Â* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.Â* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the
"number of confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in
comparison to other countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier
flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the
spread of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests
per 1000 persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known
cases in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many
"unknown" cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the
tests in every community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter?Â* The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths.Â* That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right.Â* He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.




I hate to disagree with you but how else can you measure the success
or failure of measures to isolate, control, treat, or prevent the virus.



By the number of peopleÂ* getting sick and the rate at which
they do so.Â* Testing for the sake of testing
does nothin

Identifying carriers who have no symptoms and culling them from the herd
might be a significant benefit to the city of New York and other places
that have high population density.

We can not cull the mental cases legally.

Great website
 

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:55:46 -0400, Justan Ohlphart wrote:

On 3/29/2020 10:48 AM, John wrote:
On 29 Mar 2020 13:30:32 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 3/29/20 8:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the
spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks.* How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th.* I then generated a chart for the fun of
it.* It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show.* It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.




Until the testing is near-universal, the value of knowing the "number of
confirmed cases" is virtually nothing, especially in comparison to other
countries or previous confirmed cases of earlier flu-like diseases.

How many tests per state would one need to know the extent of the spread
of the virus? Would you want to consider the number of tests per 1000
persons in a state? What are your parameters?

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


All true but again, what does it matter? The testing produces a
number used to determine percentages of deaths. That's all it does.

Thus far, testing has done absolutely *nothing* to control the spread
of the virus.

I think doc Fauci has it right. He says we should assume that
*everyone* is infected and to act accordingly.





That is the rule I used when I was a teen and sexually active...I assumed
every girl was infected and always used a condom. :)

Gosh, I'll bet that added up to what...$2.00?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Depends on how many times he reused the same condom.

LOL!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:49:49 -0400, John wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:47:33 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:08:02 -0400, John wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.

Nobody has actually published the number of available ventilators per
100,000 people in those socialized, rationed care countries but if it
is like MRI machines, they are way behind the curve compared to the
US.
OTOH ventilators might not really be the cash cow an MRI machine is so
who knows? Dead people are tough to collect from.

The 'why' was not the point. According to some, we are way behind those
countries with our health system. The numbers show otherwise.

I get through the day believing we will show the world how to beat
this ****. I can't live my live being scared. I have seen far more
progress since it became our problem than anything the rest of the
world came up with except hide. If you didn't look at anything but the
15 minute test you see what I mean.

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:51:17 -0400, John wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:55:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:36:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/29/2020 8:08 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 07:01:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:


Here's a great website for both general world
wide statistics and those related specifically
to the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.worldometers.info/

That's where the comparisons of deaths per 1M population came from:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Note that we're still doing better than those countries with the spectacular
health systems, according to our resident liberal.


I am still bothered with all the emphasis placed on the percentage
of deaths per population though.

It's a simple, mathematical statistical measurement that "feels good"
but meanwhile the virus is spreading across the country.

I suppose it's a reflection of a superior healthcare system
in that fewer people die as a percentage of the population
but meanwhile the "experts" are saying that NY won't "peak"
for another 3 to 4 weeks. How they get that estimate is
beyond me and it doesn't reflect other parts of the country
that are targets for the virus but haven't even begun to
see the exponential rates of increase.

It is simply because social distancing is a lot easier out in the
country than it is in New York. In Manhattan, each person only has
less than 400 feet to spread out, throughout their entire time there.
That gets a whole lot smaller when you include the bridge and tunnel
crowd who then take the virus to the boroughs and Jersey.
Hell, the subway is still running and all of the transport across and
under the rivers is too. That may be the worst case scenario for the
spread of any disease.


Last night, using the historical data from the website you
provided a couple of weeks ago, I created a spreadsheet
of the number of confirmed cases and deaths in Massachusetts
for the month of March, starting with March 1st and ending
with March 28th. I then generated a chart for the fun of
it. It reflected the same exponential rate that the
national CDC graphs show. It was discouraging, so I
deleted it.

Unless a proven and effective treatment is found (not a vaccine)
I fear we are in for the long, long haul with this.

A vaccine is really the only hope beyond herd immunity coming from the
people who survive it.

Or an effective treatment, which could help people survive it.

For sure.

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 23:42:29 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 20:16:56 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

This morning I saw a chart that stated there were 121,000+ known cases
in the USA, based upon an unstated number of tests. How many "unknown"
cases? Who knows? No one knows. How available are the tests in every
community? Who knows? No one knows. Et cetera.


We do know that the death rate is 18% for those who have either recovered
or died. He death rate right now is per thousand people. Not those who
have survived or died.

===

Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe the death rate for those who have
died is 100%.

As Biden said "People are dying who never died before".