I don't know that his reasoning is sound as it depends on a number of variables that he seems to be completely ignoring.

There's the question of who is being tested, how are they being tested, what is the quality of the tests being used, just to mention a few.

I agree but I don't think it's random error causing almost every test (RNA, antibody, etc...) that checks for prevalence to be skewed to much higher numbers of infected in the general public than most models predict.

 

Maybe but the number of times some drug or treatment that looks so promising in a lab completely fails in human trials should make us humble about the level of engineering currently possible in advanced medical research.

Sadly... I tend to agree

Very best regards
HP

 

I agree but I don't think it's random error causing almost every test (RNA, antibody, etc...) that checks for prevalence to be skewed to much higher numbers of infected in the general public than most models predict.

I haven't been following the specific numbers too much, but I don't find it surprising at all that the numbers are much higher. I've never felt that a claim that the mortality rate is 20x the seasonal flu had much veracity and that it merely meant that the number of people infected was much higher than what the limited testing was showing.

If, as is repeatedly stated, this virus is much more easily communicated than the seasonal flu (which is a highly contagious disease already), and if, as is repeatedly stated, people can transmit the disease for several days before showing symptoms, and if, as is repeatedly stated, most infections result in mild symptoms requiring no unusual treatment, and if, as is repeatedly stated, there are a large number of completely asymptomatic infections, then how could it be any other way than that the infection rate in the general population is going to be quite high? The seasonable flu infects between 3% and 20% of the U.S. population each year, so how could it be surprising to find it on par or even topping that by a considerable margin?

 

https://www.hmbreview.com/news/heal...cle_82a742dc-8a54-11ea-a59c-7f8187184076.html

San Mateo County joined six other local jurisdictions on Wednesday in significantly loosening restrictions drawn to lessen the spread of COVID-19. Beginning Monday, Bay Area residents have more recreation possibilities and can continue construction and some other work.
...
Other activities that can resume under the new order include residential moves and the use of certain shared outdoor recreational facilities that were previously ordered closed, like skate parks. Other park infrastructure that involve shared equipment or physical contact, will remain off limits.

San Mateo County is also loosening the five-mile restriction as it pertains to recreation. People will now be able to travel up to 10 miles to recreate on the Coastside. Beach parking will remain closed in San Mateo County.

Earlier, the county said it would open some trails and parks — including some on the Coastside — beginning Monday. The parks have been closed since March 27 in an effort to keep people from congregating as coronavirus spread through the community.

I don't think that 'government' is ready to admit it yet but lockdown containment has failed. Once restrictions are loosened do we really expect a reintroduction if COVID-19 related deaths increase by a medical resources manageable amount?

 

I haven't been following the specific numbers too much, but I don't find it surprising at all that the numbers are much higher. I've never felt that a claim that the mortality rate is 20x the seasonal flu had much veracity and that it merely meant that the number of people infected was much higher than what the limited testing was showing.

If, as is repeatedly stated, this virus is much more easily communicated than the seasonal flu (which is a highly contagious disease already), and if, as is repeatedly stated, people can transmit the disease for several days before showing symptoms, and if, as is repeatedly stated, most infections result in mild symptoms requiring no unusual treatment, and if, as is repeatedly stated, there are a large number of completely asymptomatic infections, then how could it be any other way than that the infection rate in the general population is going to be quite high? The seasonable flu infects between 3% and 20% of the U.S. population each year, so how could it be surprising to find it on par or even topping that by a considerable margin?

I'll mark you down as undecided.

 

I'll mark you down as undecided.

Actually, I am undecided because I don't know how good the data is. My understanding is that there's a pretty high false-positive rate and this may not be properly being taken into account. Also, a fair amount of the testing appears to have been done with test kits made in China and -- gee, what a shocker this is -- they have very poor quality control.

 

Once restrictions are loosened do we really expect a reintroduction if COVID-19 related deaths increase by a medical resources manageable amount?

Inasmuch as easing of incidence to [within] capacity is the stated (and, IMO, credible) objective of said restrictions, your question would seem to answer itself -- but then, perhaps, such is your point? --- Seems subtlety is lost upon me this week.

Best regards
HP

 

View attachment 205745

Yeah the virus is very bad with a ruler.

 

Some very exciting news!

I went to a local Shop Rite this morn and guess what?
They had:
1. Water !
2. Bathroom tissue !
3. Even some napkins !
4. Alcohol !

Wooo-Weee, Yaaa-Hooo, I'm free, I'm free
Now if they would just let me down on the beach without getting arrested i'd be all set.

Sadly, with all the couples being stuck inside at home, they were all out of K-Y Jelly again.
(ha ha just kidding about that last one i dont think they really carry that)

 

Sadly... I tend to agree

Very best regards
HP

As advanced as we think we are, medicine is still treating diseases by either cutting them up or poisoning the patient enough to poison the disease hoping the patient survives. We have come up with gene therapy, but it is applicable in very rare instances. We really have no way of fighting bacterial and viral diseases realiable other than by supporting our immune system. The problem is, our immune system is in bad shape because of our lifestyle. And, unfortunately, a too strong of a response can kill as well. Bummer...

For all the hype about coronavirus, and the shutdown of economies, and the money spent, I find this reaction interesting. Millions of people have been dying of starvation for decades and it has never been considered an issue. Something easily solveable and preventable.

 

"Something easily solveable and preventable."

Not if the anti-GMO crowd has anything to say about it.

 

"Something easily solveable and preventable."

Not if the anti-GMO crowd has anything to say about it.

Depends on your definition of GMO...

Are we talking about seeds/plants selected and crossbred overtime by farmers to produce higher yields?

Or are we talking monsanto plants that are sterile?

This is like discussing vaccines - polio vaccine and flu vaccine are not even remotely in the same category

 

I find this reaction interesting. Millions of people have been dying of starvation for decades and it has never been considered an issue. Something easily solveable and preventable.

hi,
I suggest you do more research before making such statements,

https://www.google.com/search?clien...IABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab

 

The problem is, our immune system is in bad shape because of our lifestyle.

Compared to what/when?

 

"Something easily solveable and preventable."

Not if the anti-GMO crowd has anything to say about it.

This Pandemic has shown we have a huge excess of food in this and most top-tier nations.
https://www.treehugger.com/green-fo...g-destroyed-because-farmers-cant-sell-it.html

Dying of starvation outside of isolated dictatorships and dirt-poor last-world countries lead by despotic rulers is more logistics/distribution and market forces than bulk availability.

 

hi,
I suggest you do more research before making such statements,

https://www.google.com/search?clien...IABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab

You should actually read some of those statistics... Did I word poorly perhaps? Does it make it less true?

 

Only $130 bucks.
https://www.kptv.com/news/quest-dia...cle_47630656-8aa5-11ea-ad49-7b42ff69982e.html

PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – With the click of a button and no doctor needed, you can now order your own COVID-19 antibody test.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-news-europe-uk-accuracy-abbot-a9490026.html

Coronavirus: New antibody test ‘with 99 per cent accuracy’ approved for use across Europe

 

Compared to what/when?

That's really an apples and oranges comparison.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of those gains are due to drastic decreases in infant mortality. Throughout recorded history someone that lived to adulthood has had a very reasonable expectation of making it to their 70s and 80s and the accepted meaning of "elderly" and "old age" have changed very little over thousands of years.

But aside from that, would living longer today be more due to improvements in the human immune system, or to advancements in medical technology in spite of what we might have done to weaken our immune systems.

Certainly there are LOTS of people alive today that would not have been alive fifty or a hundred years ago only because of advancements in the treatment of all kinds of conditions (and I am very much one of them, given that I am insulin-dependent and the first use of insulin in a human occurred less than a century ago).

 

That's really an apples and oranges comparison.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of those gains are due to drastic decreases in infant mortality. Throughout recorded history someone that lived to adulthood has had a very reasonable expectation of making it to their 70s and 80s and the accepted meaning of "elderly" and "old age" have changed very little over thousands of years.

But aside from that, would living longer today be more due to improvements in the human immune system, or to advancements in medical technology in spite of what we might have done to weaken our immune systems.

Certainly there are LOTS of people alive today that would not have been alive fifty or a hundred years ago only because of advancements in the treatment of all kinds of conditions (and I am very much one of them, given that I am insulin-dependent and the first use of insulin in a human occurred less than a century ago).

So, what proof is there that "our immune system is in bad shape because of our lifestyle"? (And I know this was not your statement, but you're being Mr. Helper so I'll throw it back at you.

How is/was "our immune system" wrt "our life style", now, 50 years ago, 100 years ago?

How do you measure such a thing?

My beef: many try to turn what are substantial improvements in the human condition into something bad. Why?

 

And then there are those of us whose autoimmune systems are out of whack and already attacking our bodies or otherwise altered by medication intake.