new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 91 of 283
Oh, I agree ... it's scrambled all right.
I like some of what he does with the data ... for example, calculating per capita instead of raw amounts
Also, attempting to find the first and second derivative. I don't know if he's so mathematically naive that he doesn't reaize what he was doing - or he obscures the math so the reader doesn't get lost, but that's his point.
But then he veers into SECOND-land... posting points that are so self contradictory (also, contradictory to observe fact) that he undercuts his own argument. For example, he makes a point that the virus is not spread by aerosolized droplets (a contention directly disputed by many studies including the Chinese bus study) but also that "young people" aren't able to "bring the virus home" and that it is virtually impossible to catch the virus even when you're living with someone who's sick ...but if all of that is true, why did SO MANY old people in Italy get sick and die?? What were they doing ... licking public handrails and doorknobs? Most of the time, what he posts is so off-the-wall biased that it hardly deserves discussion.
But he DOES bring up the need for more testing. And your posts, KIKI, have brought home the problem with lack of mandatory, centralized reporting. Because while local testing can guide local decisions, the lack of a centralized repository of data makes it EXTREMELY difficult to track and understand the simplest things like ... who is at risk? Do we need a lockdown? What treatment options seem to work better? ... that it negates the advantage of decentralized response (When a centralized government makes all of the decisions, it can fuck up globally. But a decentralized approach allows different regions to attempt different options, not only allowing for a potentially beter "fit" for regional conditions but also freedom to experiment a bit with alternate emphasis on testing, isolation, and treatment. But that advantage is lost unless different states can see and evaluate the results of what other states have done. Hence, the need for required reporting. People ... doctors, medical directors and so forth ... shouldn't have to have their minions picking thru local newspapers to find out what's up.)
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's shortages ... shortages of test kits, and of masks, gowns, and gloves to safely do the testing; and an unwillingness to risk medical people by doing unsafe testing when they are, and will be, needed elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if was also long turn-around-times because the US doesn't have high-volume testing capabilities. Many different laboratories are all siloed with their own different mix of equipment and instrumentation geared towards flexible but EXTREMELY low-volume 'specialty testing'.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
How can the testing situation become so incredibly FUBARED? Is it overwhelming demand? Inability to prioritize testing? Kits that don't work? Desire NOT to see the results? Concern that the testing situation is mixing the worried well with the truly sick?
Isn't it a little late to wait until someone is hospitalized until they're tested? If they have Covid-19, shouldn't they be put into a negative pressure isolation unit immediately??
WTF do you think is going on?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
I think it's hilarious that we've got probably thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of facilities that are on the ready to give a urinalysis and almost immediate results to future employers about us working class sheep to make sure that we're not smoking weed, but nobody can seem to get testing for something that's actually a problem done.
Maybe in light of the fact that weed is being legalized for recreational use in more and more places across the country, we should start considering re-purposing those facilities.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Oh jeez, now you sound just like WISHY. SHE'S willing to sacrifie millions ... billions ... on her altar of "liberty" and so, apparently, are you. No wonder you argue so much: you're very much the same.
SIX: Unlike people who have immediately gone from viewing the government by its own nature as an enemy of the people to their savior when they get panicked, just like our Forefathers warned us against, I will never, EVER waver on that issue.
SIGNYM: And that means that you're ideologically-possessed.
I'm not one to say that government is ALWAYS the solution. OTOH I wouldn't say that government is NEVER the solution either. That's the difference between you and me: You don't allow reality to intrude on your ideology, which is pretty much what I've been saying all along. That, and you're pretty self-centered.
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
SIX: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
No. Your numbers are bad. For 15 Million people to die, you're basing them on 4.6% of people getting the virus dying if we all got infected, when it's much more likely to be only. .1%.
Kiki's numbers at 1.4% are also bad, but at least they're in the ballpark of the Johns Hopkins current ratios. I don't know how she's getting the numbers wrong since it looks like she's getting the info from the same place as I am. Maybe it's time to buy a new calculator.
But yours aren't even based in reality from what I can see.
So, technically, if we went based off of the current percentage of 1.271%, you would be right by saying that I'm willing to sacrafice millions of people for Liberty. Because that would be roughly 4,131,000 people if we all got it.
But that's not what I'm saying. That percentage is going to go down... assuming they actually want it to go down and ensure that testing ramps up instead of shutting down.
But do they really want them to go down?
I dunno. I could see why they wouldn't. Even at the severly inflated number of 1.271%, that's a potential for over 4 Million people to die. Cut that in half by Friday with good testing practices making their way across the country and even 2 Million still sounds scary.
But the problem now is... Nobody wants to hear that the DOW and the entire economy got destroyed over nothing. Nobody wants to hear that their entire lives have changed over nothing. Nobody wants to hear that they lost their jobs and their kids were pulled out of school for 2 months for nothing.
Without data, we'll never truly know, and the sheep will believe the Legacy Media talking heads pushing their CovidGate nonsense numbers, because there won't be any numbers out there saying otherwise.
But test everybody and get that number down to .1% and somebody has a lot to answer for.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SIX, I told you how I got my figure. I took the USA population profile and multipliedit by the Chinese case fatality rate, which so far is the only comprehensive rate categorized by age, and then multiplied THAT by 0.8 because I figure not everyone will get infected (and at that percent, we've achieved "herd immuity" anyhow). I assumed that it would all happen in one year. BTW, I heard a better figure on how long it would take to get to 80% infected, and that's two years, not one year, so that becomes 7.5 million in one year.
So quite possibly the Chinese case fatality rate overstated because they were constrained by lack of testing, so they don't know the TRUE rate. That's very possible
Let's use another figure, and that's at the number of people keeling over in a day in Italy ... which, as of yesterday was 800 (292,000 annualized) and still seems to be going up. Since Italy has entered a lockdown, presumably the daily death toll will reduce in a couple of weeks, and since I'm looking at the results of "do nothing" approach I'm going to use the maximum daily death toll which is 800 so far. Assuing that they keep ripping along at that rate (by doing nothing) for two years, until they achieve herd immunity in two years, they will have lost slighlty less than 1% (0.97%) of their population of approx 60 million.
In the USA, with a population of 327 million, that translates to 3,180,000 in two years, or about 1.6 million per year.
All right. Let's assume the USA's population isn't as old as Italy's*. Let's assume that OUR death rate is half of theirs. By "doing nothing" there will be 1.6 million dead in two years, or 800,000 per year. (*Altho I think our YOUNGER population is overall sicker: fatter, more diabetic, more homeless etc than Italy's so our YOUNGER population might die faster than theirs.)
I think, no matter how I look at these numbers, the total death toll in the USA from "doing nothing" is "hundreds of thousands to millions", not "thousands to tens of thousands".
I'll bet SOMEBODY has better figures than me. Maybe the Royal College of London's reportwould be a good place to start.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#STAYTHEFUCKHOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Those 2 categories of tests are completely different technologies.
I think it's hilarious that we've got probably thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of facilities that are on the ready to give a urinalysis and almost immediate results to future employers about us working class sheep to make sure that we're not smoking weed, but nobody can seem to get testing for something that's actually a problem done.
But let me give you some history on drug testing, and you'll see one example of how our medical system is so fucked up.
Back in the day, doctors and hospitals got reimbursed for whatever they did for patients, whether patients needed it or not, and whether they actually did it or not. Pay-for-service medicine was a gravy train and a lot of people were riding on it with unneeded expensive treatments, surgeries etc, and sometimes just outright fraud. Then somebody decided to limit reimbursement per-diagnosis. So the government figured out that the average heart-failure case (for example) would 'require' only so many days in the hospital, and that it would pay for only so many days in the hospital, no matter what. There were a lot of pitfalls with that scheme, among them that it couldn't - and therefore didn't - account for co-morbid conditions that might exacerbate each other, like diabetes, peripheral artery disease, and gangrene all at the same time. You got reimbursed for only one condition . BTW that has led to a LOT of what's called 'upcoding' which means that a simple dizzy spell might be called chronic labyrinthitis in order to be reimbursed at a higher rate, and that in turn has scrambled many a patient record. But I digress ...
Those limits - DRGs, diagnosis related groups - turned medicine from a profit center to a loss center.
So how to make money ... it was discovered that laboratories could be turned into big-money profit centers with - TA DA !! - DRUG TESTING !!
So in large part due to republican-pushed anti-drug measures, and the eager lobbying of the medical field, high-volume drug testing was born. And, ever eager to make a buck, American private business soon started investing in non-hospital testing facilities to get in on the riches.
And that's why you have so many places eager to run those high-volume drug tests.
Quote:Because, again, those 2 categories of tests are completely different technologies.
Maybe in light of the fact that weed is being legalized for recreational use in more and more places across the country, we should start considering re-purposing those facilities.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
And there was no money to be made from it, so it was never developed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can only post that by completely writing off Wuhan and those hard-hit regions in Italy.
when it's much more likely to be only. .1%.
SARS-COV-2 is NOT LIKE 'the' flu. Wuhan, and Italy, have seen many, many flu seasons. But they've never seen anything like SARS-COV-2. They haven't needed to build multiple overnight hospitals just to manage the number of sick people. They haven't needed to use army convoys just to carry off the many thousands of dead. And unlike 'the' flu, it took SARS-COV-2 to carry off that many people - 4,000+ in one month alone in those Italian regions.
And that means that SARS-COV-2 is NOT LIKE 'THE' FLU. A simple comparison of obvious facts between SARS-COV-2 and a flu season will show you that.
BTW - I keep my posts short and highlight important stuff because you're a very careless reader.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, March 22, 2020 4:44 PM
China 81,054 +46
Italy 59,138 +5,560
USA 32,356 +8,149
Spain 28,603 +3,107
Germany 24,852 +2,488
Iran 21,638 +1,028
France 16,018 +1,559
S. Korea 8,897 +98
Saturday, March 21, 2020 1:20 PM
China 81,008 +41
Italy 53,578 +6,557
Spain 25,374 +3,803
USA 22,132 +2,749
Germany 21,854 +2,006
Iran 20,610 +966
France 12,612 ===(not reported yet)
S. Korea 8,799 +147
Switzerland 6,371 +756
Friday, March 20, 2020 2:16 PM
China 80,967 +39
Italy 47,021 +5,986
Spain 20,412 +2,335
Germany 19,711 ===(not reported yet)
Iran 19,644 +1,237
USA 16,545 +2,756
France 10,995 ===(not reported yet)
S. Korea 8,652 +87
Switzerland 5,369 +1,147
Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:13 PM
China 80,928 +34
Italy 35,713 === (not reported)
Iran 18,407 +1,046
Spain 17,395 +2,626
Germany 14,544 +2,217
USA 11,329 +2,070 161 +11
France 9,134 === (not reported)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm just roughly tracking these figures because the urls are constantly updated, and you can't to go back in time and retrieve previous numbers.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa-coronavirus/
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda75
94740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
As of March 22, 2020 at 20:27 GMT
32356 / 414
32,081 / 404
Quote:
As of March 21, 2020 at 17:10 GMT
22132 / 282
19,931 / 275
Quote:
As of March 20, 2020 at 18:05 GMT
16545 / 225
14,631 / 210
Quote:
As of March 19, 2020 at 16:59 GMT
11234 / 161
10,755/ 154
Quote:
As of March 18, 2020 at 17:36 GMT
7678 / 117
7,324 / 115
Quote:
As of March 17, 2020 at 18:11 GMT
5723 / 97
5,702 / 94
Quote:
As of March 16, 2020 at 19:34 GMT
4252 / 75
4,138 / 71
Quote:
As of March 15, 2020 at 13:45 GMT
3083 / 60
2,952 / 57
Quote:
As of March 14, 2020 at 20:20 GMT
2499 / 55
2,572 / 51
Quote:
As of March 13, 2020 at 15:55 GMT
1832 / 41
1,268 / 33
Quote:
As of March 12, 2020 at 18:15 GMT
1412 / 40
1,323 / 38
Quote:
As of March 11, 2020 at 12:10 GMT
1015 / 31
1,039 / 29
Quote:
As of March 10, 2020 at 18:30 GMT
787 / 28
804 / 28
Quote:
As of March 09, 2020
566
565
Quote:
As of March 08, 2020
464
466
Quote:
As of March 07, 2020
373
376
A factor of X60 may be applicable.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/
Sunday, March 22, 2020 4:57 PM
cases 351
deaths 4
===> March 21, 2020 LACounty eliminates testing on some potential COVID-19 patients.
Quote:
Saturday, March 21, 2020 1:08 PM
cases 292
deaths 2
Quote:
Friday, March 20, 2020 2:13 PM
cases 231
deaths 2
Quote:
Wednesday, March 18, 2020 2:27 PM
cases 144
deaths 1
Quote:
Tuesday, March 17, 2020 2:37 PM
cases 94
deaths 1
Quote:
Monday, March 16, 2020 3:41 PM
cases 69
deaths 1
Quote:
Sunday, March 15, 2020 9:52 AM
cases 53
deaths 1
11 new COVID-19 cases confirmed in Los Angeles County; total now at 53
According to the public health department eight of those #COVID19 cases are likely due to community transmission. Two people with #CoronaVirus cases are hospitalized. https://t.co/S4PvlMx7At
Quote:
Saturday, March 14, 2020 4:27 PM
cases 40
deaths 1
Quote:
Friday, March 13, 2020 2:57 PM
cases 32
deaths 1
Quote:
Thursday, March 12, 2020 2:36 PM
cases 28
deaths 1
A factor of X60 may be applicable.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We'll see in 14 days how this works out.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/New-Release-2020.aspx
Note: The following numbers reflect information received from local health jurisdictions as of 2 p.m. PDT March 20. More current numbers may be available from local health jurisdictions.
March 22, 2020
1,468 / 27
===> March 21, 2020 LACounty eliminates testing on some potential COVID-19 patients.
March 21, 2020
1,224 / 23
March 20, 2020 1006 / 19
-> stay at home March 19, 2020 (PM)
March 19, 2020 675 / 16
March 18, 2020 288 / 5
March 13, 2020 247 / 5
March 12, 2020 53 / 1
March 2, 2020 43 / 0
February 28, 2020 10 / 0
February 26, 2020 9 / 0
February 2, 2020 6 / 0
January 31, 2020 3 / 0
January 26, 2020 2 / 0
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME