Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#62
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#63
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#64
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#65
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#66
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#68
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#69
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Great website
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Great trip, great food? | General | |||
One of the great songs, with a great video. | General | |||
Website TEAM ABN AMRO out of the air, but supporter website still on the air | General | |||
Website TEAM ABN AMRO out of the air, but supporter website still on the air | ASA | |||
Great Canal and Great Lake trip site | Cruising |