TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 38 of 94 FirstFirst ... 38131823283334353637383940414243485358636873788388 ... LastLast
Results 926 to 950 of 2348

Thread: ☣ Coronavirus ☣

  1. #926
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Last edited by Renzatic; 25th Mar 2020 at 03:53.

  2. #927
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Oh, and if you think I'm exaggerating when I state that this virus could claim more lives than all our recent wars, here's the tally of all US deaths in the most memorable wars of the last 100 years.

    World War I: 115,000 dead
    World War II: 400,000 dead
    Korean War: 35,000 dead
    Vietnam: 60,000 dead
    Desert Storm: 300 dead
    Iraq II: 5,000 dead
    Afganistan: 3000 dead

    Total: 618,000 dead Americans.

    Projected Coronavirus death toll if we drop the quarantine, and let it infect ~20% of the population, and it ends up killing 1-3.5% of those numbers: 600,000 to 2,100,000

    ...so it's either matches, or claims 4x the amount of Americans who died in all the big foreign wars of the last 100 years, depending on how the dice roll.
    No tests (on the bodies), no coronadeaths -> IT'S A FAKE GUYS, OPEN YOUR DAMN EYESS55555!!!1111111

  3. #928
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    You are not getting a viral pneumonia AND the killer interstitial reaction of your own body? You'll get a nice&classic encephalitis or nephropathy thanks to the synergy with the (life-saving) drugs.
    You keep posting this stuff.

    Are you a scientist with some authority on this? If not, please don't post this stuff. Some of your assertions are quite un-scientific and I don't really see the point unless you are imparting real and useful information. You posts about ACE for example - is this proven yet? Afaik it's just one of many, many theories and it sounds woooo scaaaaary so it gets hyped by the usual hype-crew.

    You input otherwise is great, so please don't be part of the hype-crew.

  4. #929
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Jafaville New Zealand
    OK finished shift 3/5 today at my local supermarket. It was... Nice. Restrictions on the number of people allowed in at any time meant people were not rushing around. We had lots of TP on site, bread was in stock and the freezers had food as well. We got into lockdown just over an hour from this post.

    Luckily right now, I'm classed as essential so I can walk out and down the road to my local bus stop.

  5. #930
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    You keep posting this stuff.

    Are you a scientist with some authority on this? If not, please don't post this stuff. Some of your assertions are quite un-scientific and I don't really see the point unless you are imparting real and useful information. You posts about ACE for example - is this proven yet? Afaik it's just one of many, many theories and it sounds woooo scaaaaary so it gets hyped by the usual hype-crew.

    You input otherwise is great, so please don't be part of the hype-crew.
    You can find everywhere this info

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0323101354.htm

  6. #931
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Jafaville New Zealand
    New Zealand is officially in lockdown for at least 4 weeks.

  7. #932
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_doe_nz View Post
    New Zealand is officially in lockdown for at least 4 weeks.
    And it's good.

  8. #933
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.

  9. #934
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Remember the numbers you see now are about 2 weeks delayed from when people got it. When the lockdown starts means the cases starting from two weeks back will still be coming in. The peak and drop will actually start from then, but you'll see the largest increase in cases discovered in the two weeks after it starts, and then you see the peak and drop from that two weeks later over the next however many weeks. I've seen some graphs out there show how it looks. Basically you take the sharp parabola, copy it, and move it back in the grid 2 weeks, and then you can imagine how the overlap looks (the left one being case start dates, the right one case discovery dates).

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Welp. Sounds like they're going to get hammered.
    (They being Japan.)
    Something doesn't add up. I'm ready to believe the government is fudging the numbers and even labeling corona deaths as pneumonia. I researched their response to Fukushima where they fudged numbers like the number of displaced with clever re-definitions, and the official government line is pneumonia deaths will be reported, as usual, in the government's triannual report on it three years from now, which is definitely a fishy reply. But, while my imagination may be failing me (it's happened before), I can't imagine they could hide overruns in hospitals, or masses of very sick people being turned away or taken in and the families wonder "What's happening to my granddad and great aunt Yumiko once they got into the hospital? They sure looked like they had it", or the burials, etc., not at the scale it's supposed to be at if it were following the pattern of other countries.
    Last edited by demagogue; 25th Mar 2020 at 08:03.

  10. #935
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Hmm... don't the serious cases take a lot longer than 2 weeks, though? Not like the ICUs are just going to get unclogged just like that.

  11. #936
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Jafaville New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Hmm... don't the serious cases take a lot longer than 2 weeks, though?
    That would depend on the person and the variables involved wouldn't it?

  12. #937
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Sure, but it's the serious cases in combination with the lack of resources that cause the most deaths.

  13. #938
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
    In Bergamo/Lombardy deaths are NOT growing. Still they happen.
    I hope to see 100/150 deaths per day this saturnday/sunday.

  14. #939
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Up here in Wisconsin our Governor Tony Evers issued a statement yesterday ordering 'Wisconsinites to stay at home, (and stating that he) will close non-essential businesses' and I say KUDOS, SIR!!! Recent studies have already shown that when there is a 'stay at home' order in place (and people adhere to that order), the number of cases of the CV-19 virus has started to drop in those areas. So I earnestly and honestly hope more governors conscientiously ignore that fat, orange dumb fuck in the White House and put the safety and health of the residents of their respective states first and foremost.

    https://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...er/2897821001/

    Meanwhile, we have the Talibangelicals who seem to think that prayer is a cure-all. God save us from fools and madmen. And from Bible-thumpers, ffs. *smh*

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/colleges-...223007720.html

  15. #940
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Hmm... don't the serious cases take a lot longer than 2 weeks, though? Not like the ICUs are just going to get unclogged just like that.
    I mean the person goes to the hospital about 2 weeks after they've contracted the illness where it's actually counted. They could be in the hospital longer, but I'm talking about the number in the statistic of "new cases today". Put another way: the number you see in the statistic for "today" is actually the number of cases contracted about "two weeks ago". You won't see the actual number of cases contracted "today" until two weeks from now. It could be a little longer or shorter depending on the individual. But the point is, you should expect the number of "new cases" to jump significantly in the two weeks after a lockdown starts.

    The duration "two weeks" comes from when they polled people testing positive the date their symptoms started, which (when you add the latency from contraction to symptoms) tended to be 2 weeks, or so the article I read on it claimed the data it was showing in the graph said.
    Last edited by demagogue; 25th Mar 2020 at 08:30.

  16. #941
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    That is just one (scientific) paper. And the title is "paper suggest that ... may increase risks".
    I think SubJeff's point is that a lot of all the new-found information has not been checked yet. No real peer-reviews. No follow-up research yet. No other research that confirms the first research yet. In other words: these are all still just research-topics, nothing certain, no proof, just hunches, directions where to go next to find solutions.

    I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else). And that taking these early clues as the full truth irritates him. I can understand that. So all we need to do is point at new clues and new research, and be aware it's not the truth yet. Just clues, hunches, directions, possibilities.

  17. #942
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
    And remember that in lockdown families are getting SICK.

  18. #943
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    That is just one (scientific) paper. And the title is "paper suggest that ... may increase risks".
    I think SubJeff's point is that a lot of all the new-found information has not been checked yet. No real peer-reviews. No follow-up research yet. No other research that confirms the first research yet. In other words: these are all still just research-topics, nothing certain, no proof, just hunches, directions where to go next to find solutions.

    I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else). And that taking these early clues as the full truth irritates him. I can understand that. So all we need to do is point at new clues and new research, and be aware it's not the truth yet. Just clues, hunches, directions, possibilities.
    Do you want some other meat?

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021...LTIKRtBlz3BpA8
    Last edited by lowenz; 25th Mar 2020 at 08:41.

  19. #944
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Today our parliament got briefed by our research institutions. One notable fact was: since we started doing "social distancing", and recently a more serious form of lockdown, the spreading slowed down significantly. 2-3 weeks ago, every infected person would infect 2 other persons. That number is now down to where each infected person infects on average only 1 other person. Good news. And as our lockdown/isolation keeps getting thighter every few days, this number should go down still.

  20. #945
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    "I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else)" -> Zombe is of course a researcher/medic.

    SubJeff is the classic (GOOD) skeptic.

  21. #946
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.

    Compare it to Trump. This week he has suggested that covid-19 can be cured with Chloroquine. "The results look good, they look very good". Trump claims the drug has already been tested, all the side-effects are known (and harmless), etc. The fact is that doctors and researchers are still look at Chloroquine to see if it is effective, how effective it is, what the side-effects are, etc, etc. Again, research versus proven reality. It turns out he's way way too positive, and nobody for sure knows if Chloroquine is gonna be really helpful or not.

    I don't wanna pick a fight with you. I really don't. But SubJeff has a point that some of the stuff you link to is still research, not proven science yet.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 25th Mar 2020 at 09:00.

  22. #947
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    If you've been around, you'll know SubJeff is an anesthesiologist because he's talked about it before. Needless to say, it's the kind of work where one needs to be dead sure what the science says because people's lives and health depend on it. So even if this specifically is out of his field, he'll probably have good instincts about the difference between "researchers are seeing some interesting findings and are still discussing it, but nobody professional is about to put it into practice until another three to five years of testing or whatever", and hard established science based on which doctors make life-affecting decisions.

    In that respect, though, the stakes should be lower for this thread because nobody should be taking advice from anything said anywhere on here about an actual health decision they face to begin with. Go see a doctor.

  23. #948
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
    As I wrote, it was reported this morning in NL that after the social distancing (and now partial lockdown), the R0 (R nought) in NL went down from 2 to 1. That means that before, every infected person would infect 2 others. And now every infected person infects only 1 other person.

  24. #949
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Maupertuis
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.
    As a physicist, I've learned that most pop physics is trash. Maybe one in ten peer-reviewed physics articles are junk, but they're often controversial and interesting junk, and they thus get boosted by science journalists more than other papers. If you come across an academic paper via a journalistic outlet, its likelihood of being junk is much higher than normal.

    Unless you're a researcher in the field, you simply cannot evaluate the quality of a paper in another field. Thus, a good rule of thumb is to rely only on textbooks and review papers when citing results from unfamiliar scientific fields.

  25. #950
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I mean the person goes to the hospital about 2 weeks after they've contracted the illness where it's actually counted. They could be in the hospital longer, but I'm talking about the number in the statistic of "new cases today". Put another way: the number you see in the statistic for "today" is actually the number of cases contracted about "two weeks ago". You won't see the actual number of cases contracted "today" until two weeks from now. It could be a little longer or shorter depending on the individual. But the point is, you should expect the number of "new cases" to jump significantly in the two weeks after a lockdown starts.

    The duration "two weeks" comes from when they polled people testing positive the date their symptoms started, which (when you add the latency from contraction to symptoms) tended to be 2 weeks, or so the article I read on it claimed the data it was showing in the graph said.
    New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?

Page 38 of 94 FirstFirst ... 38131823283334353637383940414243485358636873788388 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •