Hope for the best prepare for the worst.How are you prepping for the covid-19 virus.

[Rapid_Amble]

You're a lost cause. DNR

Cognitive dissonance hurts so it’s understandable that you lash out and flail, with nothing to back up your beliefs. No worries.

The surgeon general states today they are no longer using the models because the models are crap.

Who knows what that really means since the death counts are crap because according to the AMA, CDC and Dr Birx everybody who dies these days is dying of the coronavirus.

Maybe they’ll at least use actual ICU occupancy data.

 

[Jetboy]

In the beginning, better safe than sorry makes a lot of sense.

The longer this has gone on, the more evidence there is that the response is arbitrary and overwhelmingly unnecessary.

Is it possible that the response is working? That the low number of cases and deaths is because of the response, not in spite of it. The better it works the less it appears necessary.

 

[Rapid_Amble]

Due to lack of deaths, the models were off by 25 million or so, the governor of CA is contemplating reopening the state for business.

Gov. Newsom says plan to reopen West Coast to be announced Tuesday | KRON4

 

[thennen]

Is it possible that the response is working? That the low number of cases and deaths is because of the response, not in spite of it. The better it works the less it appears necessary.

Yes. You can never prove lives saved after the fact. You can’t point to the group of people who should have died. You can never accurately say “we saved 50,000 lives”. If mitigation ends up being effective, it simply looks like over-reaction to those who are against the mitigation measures. And besides, the alternative (no mitigation) doesn’t result in fewer deaths, does it?

 

[Dan.3]

IÂ’m curious - do you have anyone in your life, be they family, friend, respected co-worker, whom you love, and who is in poor or compromised health?

If so, and they contract this disease and die from it, are you planning to tell all the mourners that they did this to themselves?

Absolutely! I have an uncle I am close with who smokes like a chimney, drinks heavy, not too active, has heart disease and is 60. He himself has admitted he is a dead man walking. It will be sad if he passes but is well aware of the situation his lifestyle has put him in. Doesn't blame anyone else for it. We have told him, he will live his life how he wants to and when its his time to go, its his time. Simple fact is, we cant live forever.

Being in the medical field, I see the BILLIONS wasted on people who just sit around smoking, and eating themselves to death. If it gets to the point where a choice has to be made, people in the hypertension, smoking, and type 2 diabetes categories should be given lowest priority to healthcare access. And I have said it before, that I have no issues with society picking up the slack for those with underlying conditions that are out of someones control such as cancer survivors, immune disorders, etc. Those types of people should isolate themselves and we should be able to provide resources for them if needed. This virus is real and can kill them.

Fact is, the death rate for people who do not have a preexisting condition is less than 1%.

This virus is very survivable. Coronavirus: 101-year-old British man survives after two-week fight

 

[Rapid_Amble]

Is it possible that the response is working? That the low number of cases and deaths is because of the response, not in spite of it. The better it works the less it appears necessary.

It’s possible but is it likely? This virus started in November and went round the world until mid-March. That’s the entire meaty part of respiratory virus season.

The actual rate of penetration of the virus into each country and the actual morbidity rates will never be known.

What’s come out in pockets, but not in mainstream news, is that about 90% of people who died were elderly plus already had severe health issues, and plenty of people had the virus but were fine.

 

[Rapid_Amble]

10k people lined up at a food bank the other day in TX

Thousands line up at Texas food bank as jobless workers struggle to feed their families

The cure is killing the patient.

 

[thennen]

Absolutely! I have an uncle I am close with who smokes like a chimney, drinks heavy, not too active, has heart disease and is 60. He himself has admitted he is a dead man walking. It will be sad if he passes but is well aware of the situation his lifestyle has put him in. Doesn't blame anyone else for it. We have told him, he will live his life how he wants to and when its his time to go, its his time. Simple fact is, we cant live forever.

Being in the medical field, I see the BILLIONS wasted on people who just sit around smoking, and eating themselves to death. If it gets to the point where a choice has to be made, people in the hypertension, smoking, and type 2 diabetes categories should be given lowest priority to healthcare access. And I have said it before, that I have no issues with society picking up the slack for those with underlying conditions that are out of someones control such as cancer survivors, immune disorders, etc. Those types of people should isolate themselves and we should be able to provide resources for them if needed. This virus is real and can kill them.

Fact is, the death rate for people who do not have a preexisting condition is less than 1%.

This virus is very survivable. Coronavirus: 101-year-old British man survives after two-week fight

Understood. I’m not in the medical field, and I can see the billions of dollars, too. It’s not a secret. But if you would really say to those mourning their loss that the death was simply the reward of a poorly-chosen lifestyle, you have much thicker skin than I.

 

[KSJ088]

Need to Boycott Smithfield Pork Products.Buy American Owned Products :usa2:
At Smithfield Foods' slaughterhouse, China brings home U.S. bacon - Reuters

 

[Jetboy]

Let's say hypothetically the formula is something like

Number Infected = [Number Infected the period before * a constant ^(infection rate * time)].

And let's further assume that the infection rate drops over time with a linear relationship to the number of infected that have been infected for more than 3 weeks (assume immune people don't spread it).

And let's also assume that the mortality rate is 1% if the number infected growth is less than 1%, but 10% if growth is greater than 1%.

If all of those are true - there's no meaningful way anyone can tell intuitively whether the current restrictions are necessary or not. If they're keeping growth rate less than 1%, you'd say it's unnecessary because the model was wrong. But if the infection rate creeps past an inflection point the entire model output radically changes - and lots of people die. We don't know how much interaction will cross that point. And we can't easily guess and check to find it because the feedback loop is delayed by a couple weeks and small changes can drive large results. It's also a moving target. The point where the formula flips from a nearly linear growth to highly exponential changes over time. So what might have been a total quarantine necessary on day one might be something different on day 45 and something different again on day 90.

It is a practically impossible task to model. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to understand virus spread and the variable mortality rates depending on rate of spread. Right now - that information suggests that the current protocol is working. How many lives is it worth to test for the optimal level social interaction? Who's willing to invest their parents in the experiment?

 

[ElectroBoy]

Due to lack of deaths, the models were off by 25 million or so, the governor of CA is contemplating reopening the state for business.

Gov. Newsom says plan to reopen West Coast to be announced Tuesday | KRON4

This is amazing. With no help from the federal govt the 3 governors of CA, OR, WA have developed a plan to cooperate and reopen their states to business and keep their citizens safe. Next week we will get the details.

This is great news. But you gotta be snarky. Did you even read and comprehend this?
The West Coast leads the rest of the country once again.

 

[VB.TRD.Pro]

Cognitive dissonance hurts so it’s understandable that you lash out and flail, with nothing to back up your beliefs. No worries.

The surgeon general states today they are no longer using the models because the models are crap.

Who knows what that really means since the death counts are crap because according to the AMA, CDC and Dr Birx everybody who dies these days is dying of the coronavirus.

Maybe they’ll at least use actual ICU occupancy data.

It only hurts when idiocy is trying to prevail.

The latter part about ICU occupancy... The PROACTIVE measures are working. Look up the definition of proactive. May help you understand the actions better. Data means nothing if you don't understand the basic fundamentals behind it.

 

[KSJ088]

This is amazing. With no help from the federal govt the 3 governors of CA, OR, WA have developed a plan to cooperate and reopen their states to business and keep their citizens safe. Next week we will get the details.

This is great news. But you gotta be snarky. Did you even read and comprehend this?
The West Coast leads the rest of the country once again.

In what respect does the left coast liberals lead AGAIN?? Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters?:noidea::lol::jaw:uke:

 

[Rapid_Amble]

Let's say hypothetically the formula is something like

Number Infected = [Number Infected the period before * a constant ^(infection rate * time)].

And let's further assume that the infection rate drops over time with a linear relationship to the number of infected that have been infected for more than 3 weeks (assume immune people don't spread it).

And let's also assume that the mortality rate is 1% if the number infected growth is less than 1%, but 10% if growth is greater than 1%.

If all of those are true - there's no meaningful way anyone can tell intuitively whether the current restrictions are necessary or not. If they're keeping growth rate less than 1%, you'd say it's unnecessary because the model was wrong. But if the infection rate creeps past an inflection point the entire model output radically changes - and lots of people die. We don't know how much interaction will cross that point. And we can't easily guess and check to find it because the feedback loop is delayed by a couple weeks and small changes can drive large results. It's also a moving target. The point where the formula flips from a nearly linear growth to highly exponential changes over time. So what might have been a total quarantine necessary on day one might be something different on day 45 and something different again on day 90.

It is a practically impossible task to model. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to understand virus spread and the variable mortality rates depending on rate of spread. Right now - that information suggests that the current protocol is working. How many lives is it worth to test for the optimal level social interaction? Who's willing to invest their parents in the experiment?

IMHO you’re skipping past a critical, foundational element - a hypothesis, or null hypothesis, that can be tested. For example, validate the null hypothesis that the virus had saturated its markets by mid-March and was already winding down, before random authoritarian initiatives kicked in.

 

[Rapid_Amble]

In what respect does the left coast liberals lead AGAIN?? Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters?:noidea::lol::jaw:uke:

Feinstein tried paving the way to give $5 billion in taxpayer funds to Iran while 10k Texans lined up at a food bank.

 

[Rapid_Amble]

It only hurts when idiocy is trying to prevail.

The latter part about ICU occupancy... The PROACTIVE measures are working. Look up the definition of proactive. May help you understand the actions better. Data means nothing if you don't understand the basic fundamentals behind it.

Who knows what you’re talking about anymore.

What fundamentals do you mean? You’ve been voicing your opinion, nothing else. Your opinions aren’t my “fundamentals,” perhaps that’s why you’re frustrated.

 

[Jetboy]

IMHO you’re skipping past a critical, foundational element - a hypothesis, or null hypothesis, that can be tested. For example, validate the null hypothesis that the virus had saturated its markets by mid-March.

Do you think that everyone has already been exposed? Yet for some reason only certain hot spots have had reactions?

(And yet in every country that has enacted social restrictions the curve moved from exponential growth toward a linear growth rate - just dumb luck that it's happened so consistently? fooled by randomness?)

 

[Rapid_Amble]

Do you think that everyone has already been exposed? Yet for some reason only certain hot spots have had reactions?

Everyone, no. There’s a >0% probability that “many” people were exposed lol.

How many people get infected with the flu each year? CDC estimates a wide range - no one really knows because it’s never measured, only guesstimated. Same with other coronaviruses, except the CDC doesn’t even guesstimate those.

Wouldn’t it depend on several variables starting with how many people traveled to/from Wuhan in Nov-Dec, where they went and the densities of those places, who they came into contact with, etc.

The curve mentioned in your edit - I suppose you mean the number of positive cases? That’s strictly a function of testing capability and has no direct correlation that we can be sure of yet to the actual transmission rate of the virus.

 

[VB.TRD.Pro]

Who knows what you’re talking about anymore.

What fundamentals do you mean? You’ve been voicing your opinion, nothing else. Your opinions aren’t my “fundamentals,” perhaps that’s why you’re frustrated.

pro·ac·tive
/prōˈaktiv/

adjective
adjective: proactive; adjective: pro-active
(of a person, policy, or action) creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has happened.
"be proactive in identifying and preventing potential problems"

But please continue on. You'll figure it out eventually.

 

[RichinRidgewood]

Need to Boycott Smithfield Pork Products.Buy American Owned Products :usa2:
At Smithfield Foods' slaughterhouse, China brings home U.S. bacon - Reuters

I dont buy Smithfield products anymore. I followed this acquisitions for a year. This void has already been filled by other independents and the price started to go back to normal levels up until this week (79¢/lbs bone in pork shoulder. It has been as low as 49¢)

Smithfield closed a plant in ND because of the Wuhan Flu. The Chinese are not getting away scott-free

There could be a pork "shortage" at some point but beef and chicken prices are holding

One of America's largest pork processing plants has joined a long list of meat factory to close | Daily Mail Online