Great website
 

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

https://www.worldometers.info/

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

Great website
 

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.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

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.



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

Great website
 

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.

Great website
 

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.




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

Great website
 

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? 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. :-)

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

Great website
 

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.

--
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 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.

--
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 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* :-)

That's the way I read it.

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

Great website
 

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)!
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

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!

Great website
 

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?

Great website
 

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!

Great website
 

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!

Great website
 

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!

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?


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

Great website
 

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

Great website
 

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

Great website
 

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

Great website
 

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

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.* 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?


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.

===

I think it was an "off hand" remark.

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

Great website
 

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.

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

Great website
 

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.



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

Great website
 

Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
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? “

Harry I had a high school coach who once told the locker room jocks “ those who talk the most do the least�

Interesting that you’re the only one who mentioned their own sexcapades

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:16:47 -0400, wrote:

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.

LOL!! (Seriously!)
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

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.

I think you left out the word 'no'.

What's interesting about the graph on the dashboard is how the height of the bar
graph doesn't change much. Makes things look not so bad, until you notice the
changes in the scale on the vertical axis. Remember not so long ago the scale
went up only to 100,000. Let's see where it is in a week.

https://nssac.bii.virginia.edu/covid-19/dashboard/
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:49:52 -0400, 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'd bet the health workers and responders are getting tested.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:41:57 -0400, 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.* 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?


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.

===

I think it was an "off hand" remark.

I wonder if he pencil holes his targets 'off hand'?
--

Freedom Isn't Free!

Great website
 

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.

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

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 1:53 PM, 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.



I certainly agree with that. What I am struggling with is the purpose
and emphasis on testing *everybody*. But, that's me.



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

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 1:49 PM, John 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.

I think you left out the word 'no'.

What's interesting about the graph on the dashboard is how the height of the bar
graph doesn't change much. Makes things look not so bad, until you notice the
changes in the scale on the vertical axis. Remember not so long ago the scale
went up only to 100,000. Let's see where it is in a week.

https://nssac.bii.virginia.edu/covid-19/dashboard/

You're right I left out "no". Should be "there's no indication it is
slowing down ..."

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

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:49:14 -0400, John wrote:

What's interesting about the graph on the dashboard is how the height of the bar
graph doesn't change much. Makes things look not so bad, until you notice the
changes in the scale on the vertical axis. Remember not so long ago the scale
went up only to 100,000. Let's see where it is in a week.

https://nssac.bii.virginia.edu/covid-19/dashboard/
--


===

Dr Fauci is predicting millions of cases in the US and 100 to 200K
deaths. I don't see any reason to doubt him but apparently some of
our favorite nut jobs have taken offense. I wonder how much longer
Trump will let him go off leash.

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

Great website
 

On 3/29/2020 3:22 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:49:14 -0400, John wrote:

What's interesting about the graph on the dashboard is how the height of the bar
graph doesn't change much. Makes things look not so bad, until you notice the
changes in the scale on the vertical axis. Remember not so long ago the scale
went up only to 100,000. Let's see where it is in a week.

https://nssac.bii.virginia.edu/covid-19/dashboard/
--


===

Dr Fauci is predicting millions of cases in the US and 100 to 200K
deaths. I don't see any reason to doubt him but apparently some of
our favorite nut jobs have taken offense. I wonder how much longer
Trump will let him go off leash.



I saw him say that on CNN. He's not hopeful of an early solution
unless people start heeding the CDC recommendations.

I don't think he's the type of guy who would say it just to
scare people. He says it because he believes it.



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

Great website
 

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/


Interesting statistic showing recovered/released vs deaths. 18%. A lot
higher than the death rate vs sick.

Great website
 

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.


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.

Great website
 

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.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


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

Great website
 

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.

Great website
 

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.

Great website
 

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 08:52:22 -0400, 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.

I even question the flu numbers. They may know all of the ones who
were treated by a doctor or hospital but the vast majority just curl
up with a bottle of Nyquil and wait it out at home.

Great website
 

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.

It is still like a Gallup poll or the Nielsen ratings. You are making
assumptions based on a small subset of the population and your result
is only as good as the people you choose to sample. (or the ones who
are presented to you in this case). It is very likely to be skewed
towards the weakest (health wise) parts of society. When someone gets
sick and has a spontaneous recovery, they are not counted.