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!

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?

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 10:18:22 -0400, Justan Ohlphart 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.

The numbers are ALWAYS meaningful to someone who can interpret them.

Until we have everyone in the country tested three or four times a day, Fat
Harry will blame Trump for a 'lack of test kits'. And, as has been said multiple
times, so what? Would it make the fat boy happy if everyone tested positive?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

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!

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 11:12:02 -0400, 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.* 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.*



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


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?

Hee, hee! Even with that bad wrist, eh Krause!!

You are a narcissist of the first order!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

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.

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

On 3/29/2020 11:26 AM, John wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 10:18:22 -0400, Justan Ohlphart 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.

The numbers are ALWAYS meaningful to someone who can interpret them.

Until we have everyone in the country tested three or four times a day, Fat
Harry will blame Trump for a 'lack of test kits'. And, as has been said multiple
times, so what? Would it make the fat boy happy if everyone tested positive?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!




I can just see that. Over 300 million tests, many multiple.

Ridiculous to even think about.

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

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 people getting sick and the rate at which
they do so. Testing for the sake of testing
does nothing.

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

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 11:31:05 -0400, John wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 11:12:02 -0400, 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.* 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.*



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


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?

Hee, hee! Even with that bad wrist, eh Krause!!

You are a narcissist of the first order!
--

===

Huntington, Maryland: Where the men are men and the sheep are scared.

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

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.



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