If you have to wonder, there is no way anyone can explain it to you.

For example, in the US there is a highly poisonous snake, the copperhead, that can fertilize it’s own eggs. The situation is known as parthogenesis. There are at least ten other animals which can be classified as “other”. Some people may not like to admit it, but there are more genders than male or female.

https://www.treehugger.com/animals-can-change-their-gender-4869361

No kidding, 'genders' can be anything. ‘Two sexes’ with rare exceptions is the rule.

 

@justtrying
26% of the 60-79 age group admitted to the hospital went to an ICU; only 7% of the 80+ group went to an ICU and, as expected, that group also had a higher death rate. Superficially, that looks like a decision was made not to try a last gasp effort to save the 80+. Were ICU beds rationed?

 

If you have to wonder, there is no way anyone can explain it to you.

For example, in the US there is a highly poisonous snake, the copperhead, that can fertilize it’s own eggs. The situation is known as parthogenesis. There are at least ten other animals which can be classified as “other”. Some people may not like to admit it, but there are more genders than male or female.

https://www.treehugger.com/animals-can-change-their-gender-4869361

You mean a hermaphrodite? That does not exist in human species. I am sorry...

No one denies that there are animals that change their sex. Animals do not have gender, gender is a human concept. Animals have sex. I have 2 dogs, one is male (a.k.a. dog) the other is female (a.k.a. bitch). Neither of them care what "gender" they are. My bitch dog exhibits many male characteristics as she tries to gain dominance, i.e. she pees often like a male dog. My male dog is old, so when it is morning and his bladder is full, he pees like a female.

You are free to be whatever you want to be.

 

No kidding, 'genders' can be anything. ‘Two sexes’ with rare exceptions is the rule.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion ... but I see no mystery to the "problem" of two sexes. Humans are not snakes, nor snails, nor wolves, nor amoebas. So an interspecies comparison does not apply, in my opinion. There's XX and XY and that's it. And of course, there are exceptions that should be treated separately. The rest is politics and ideologies.

 

This is interesting:

https://www.timesleader.com/wire/co...uine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate-study-finds-8

The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while 26% of those who did not receive the drug died.

Zervos cautioned against extrapolating the results for treatment outside hospital settings and without further study.

 

This is interesting:

https://www.timesleader.com/wire/co...uine-lowers-covid-19-death-rate-study-finds-8

But also interesting farther down that article, most trials saw no benefit, and in one case in the UK:

A recent United Kingdom study evaluating hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus was stopped after preliminary analysis found it didn’t have any benefit. About 26% of patients in the trial using the drug died, compared with about 24% receiving the usual care, according to the Oxford University study.

Which basically says more people who got that drug died than those who did not.

Bottom line is, there is no conclusive proof that drug actually works, and things like demographics and genetics may play a big role. Some trials may be positive, most others will be negative. That balances out to "no proof it works" for everyone.

 

But also interesting farther down that article, most trials saw no benefit, and in one case in the UK:

Which basically says more people who got that drug died than those who did not.

Bottom line is, there is no conclusive proof that drug actually works, and things like demographics and genetics may play a big role. Some trials may be positive, most others will be negative. That balances out to "no proof it works" for everyone.

The last paragraph in the article states:

But doctors at Detroit Medical Center’s Sinai-Grace told The Detroit News in April, when the hospital was overloaded with senior COVID patients, that they were giving the drug to anyone they could.

What I understand is that the Henry Ford study has been the only one that fully complies with a controlled one. While the rest have been more like data gathering than formal experiments.

 

Bangkok sex district re-opens, with 2m distancing stipulation!
Max.

 

Bangkok sex district re-opens, with 2m distancing stipulation!
Max.

Only a few, proud customers will be able to perform at that distance!

 

Only a few, proud customers will be able to perform at that distance!

Our COVID-19 future.

 

I won't comment on the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) study from Henry Ford. I have not read it carefully. Nevertheless, I suspect if suffers from some of the same deficiencies as the studies that showed no effect did. HCQ is cheap. It was given to millions who served in Vietnam and has been used safely as an immuno-modulator in lupus and other diseases.

What struck my eye was this chart from Johns Hopkins:


Source: https: //www.foxnews.com/media/houston-doctor-bill-fisher-coronavirus-icu-capacity

Why is the period 7 days? Why are the peaks on Saturdays, approximately?

1) Does the virus know to attack on Saturday? I doubt it.
2) What's special about Saturdays?
Could it be an artifact of people worried over weekends when they have nothing else to do. They get worried about an imaginary symptom, go to the ER and get tested. Not really sick, but maybe asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic with something. Then the bean counters weigh in. Lots more reimbursement for a Covid-19 "diagnosis" than for a false alarm. We know China's number are skewed very low; America's numbers are skewed very high because of incentives in the CARES act.
3) Should I go shopping in Cleveland on Wednesday or Saturday?

Solution: Get College football started. It's hot and dry in Northeastern Ohio. I want something to occupy my worries.

 

hi John,
The UK figures show similar peaks after the weekends, it is due to the delay in the registering deaths over the weekend period.

E

 

I won't comment on the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) study from Henry Ford. I have not read it carefully. Nevertheless, I suspect if suffers from some of the same deficiencies as the studies that showed no effect did. HCQ is cheap. It was given to millions who served in Vietnam and has been used safely as an immuno-modulator in lupus and other diseases.

What struck my eye was this chart from Johns Hopkins:

View attachment 211320
Source: https: //www.foxnews.com/media/houston-doctor-bill-fisher-coronavirus-icu-capacity

Why is the period 7 days? Why are the peaks on Saturdays, approximately?

1) Does the virus know to attack on Saturday? I doubt it.
2) What's special about Saturdays?
Could it be an artifact of people worried over weekends when they have nothing else to do. They get worried about an imaginary symptom, go to the ER and get tested. Not really sick, but maybe asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic with something. Then the bean counters weigh in. Lots more reimbursement for a Covid-19 "diagnosis" than for a false alarm. We know China's number are skewed very low; America's numbers are skewed very high because of incentives in the CARES act.
3) Should I go shopping in Cleveland on Wednesday or Saturday?

Solution: Get College football started. It's hot and dry in Northeastern Ohio. I want something to occupy my worries.

Hi,

yes i noticed that too but did not come up with a good enough reason for it yet, except that there is a period of activity that varies over 7 days. But keep in mind many of the numbers we see have a delay factor. What happens today will not be seen in any number until some days later, and the delay period varies depending on what we are looking at.

This is what i think shows that at least the original "lockdowns" did not do anything. This is because the number of deaths fell sharply when the lockdowns went into affect, yet there is an average of 22 days between infection and death for those who did not survive.
So first we see the number go up sharply, then come to a point, and then start downward sharply, then taper off slowly. The lockdown came at the very peak, the point of highest deaths, but that is exactly the time when the number of deaths started to fall sharply.
NOW IF THE LOCKDOWN was responsible for this sharp decline then it would have taken 22 more days before the number of deaths stated to decline, that's almost a month, and yet they went down sharply right away. That means something other than the lockdown caused this decrease in deaths, and whatever it was had to be significant and natural and not man made.

It is like a control law in the digital domain where we have delays we have to deal with in a control system. I could probably come up with a transfer function that shows this exact behavior with and without a delay.
If there was an effect due to lockdown immediately, we'd see a fast decline all of s sudden. But we know that is not true. So if the decline was due to lockdown, the peak would have gone much higher before starting on it's downward trend.
Q.E.D, thus it is proved.

However, some would believe that their order of lockdown caused the downward trend anyway because somehow they think that the lockdown and the decrease in deaths could happen immediately.

 

hi John,
The UK figures show similar peaks after the weekends, it is due to the delay in the registering deaths over the weekend period.

E

Hi Eric,

That is interesting that you noticed that, because the delays account for a lot of things and i think can help us prove what is true and not true.
See my previous post and see what you think about this.

 

hi Al,
It is stated as the reason by the Medical Officer who presents the data on the TV daily Covid update.
Clip:
(Deaths on Sunday tend to be lower due to the weekend reporting effect.

E
Note the 2/5 repeat pattern

 

The chart I posted are "cases" not deaths. Here's the chart with Saturdays marked in red.

 

The chart I posted are "cases" not deaths. Here's the chart with Saturdays marked in red.

View attachment 211342

Hi,

Yes both show a periodic behavior but there is a delay associated with every one.
For this one, it cant be measured as a 'case' until after the person has been tested, so that is one delay, and another is the time between when they first contracted it until they were tested.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=265249484771683

 

It's been political theater from the start. Earlier, I compared it to "global warming" where people who speak against it get a warning or worse. As for letters and such from the Board of Medical Practice (or whatever it is called in other states), warnings and complaints are not benign. It's a case of proving innocence, and they stay in a physician's record regardless. I feel particularly bad for Senators Jensen and Paul.

I have contended that face masks need to be studied for both beneficial and harmful effects, which should be done in any ethical clinical study. That is not being done. They are universally (among most politicians) considered beneficial, and mandates have been made by executive order. No opportunity for debate or input. Cleveland and Cuyahoga county are soon to have a mandate requiring they be worn whenever outside or in any place that is not your home. Presumably, that means while driving too. The fine will be on the order of $50 per citation, which may escalate. It's as if our leaders are trying to outdo one another with having the most stringent mandates.

Over the weekend, I spoke with an ophthalmologist at a large academic medical center. That center has seen a significant uptick in intraocular infections among mask wearers who need intraocular injections for other reasons. Those infections have been due mostly to upper respiratory flora, which are typically an unusual cause of such infections, and are quite difficult to treat in the eye. The proposed mechanism is that masks direct exhaled air up and into the eyes. The person with whom I spoke thinks a publication is in the works, but didn't have a timeline for its submission.

 

It's been political theater from the start. Earlier, I compared it to "global warming" where people who speak against it get a warning or worse. As for letters and such from the Board of Medical Practice (or whatever it is called in other states), warnings and complaints are not benign. It's a case of proving innocence, and they stay in a physician's record regardless. I feel particularly bad for Senators Jensen and Paul.

I have contended that face masks need to be studied for both beneficial and harmful effects, which should be done in any ethical clinical study. That is not being done. They are universally (among most politicians) considered beneficial, and mandates have been made by executive order. No opportunity for debate or input. Cleveland and Cuyahoga county are soon to have a mandate requiring they be worn whenever outside or in any place that is not your home. Presumably, that means while driving too. The fine will be on the order of $50 per citation, which may escalate. It's as if our leaders are trying to outdo one another with having the most stringent mandates.

Over the weekend, I spoke with an ophthalmologist at a large academic medical center. That center has seen a significant uptick in intraocular infections among mask wearers who need intraocular injections for other reasons. Those infections have been due mostly to upper respiratory flora, which are typically an unusual cause of such infections, and are quite difficult to treat in the eye. The proposed mechanism is that masks direct exhaled air up and into the eyes. The person with whom I spoke thinks a publication is in the works, but didn't have a timeline for its submission.

Hi,

What are the symptoms of that illness?

I have heard different pro's and con's now for masks.
The most significant is the 'pro' view where the particles exhaled normally or while talking get projected out into the space where another person can pass or exist in and thus transmit the virus that way. That seems to be the most common means of transmission.
There are pro's and con's to the transmission itself though too, in that although a slower transmission rate slows hospital cases it also impedes the natural herd immunity process.
So it seems we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.
There is a way to assess this in an exact way, but we need a lot of data to do it and because the methods for collecting data have changed since the initial onset we cant trust the data, so there is probably no way to exactly determine what the best course of action should be.

I did a quick mock up of a system where the virus starts out infecting more and more people then tapers off naturally. The curve looks exactly like the curves we see today in the death rate and infection rate. So by itself, with no intervention, we could have seen the same curves we see today in agreement up to about the 1st of May or so. After that it is harder to tell because of the lockdowns, but i may be able to factor those in eventually too. But it is interesting that since the lockdowns could not have affected the downward trend in the curves (because of the timing) at least the first 20 or so days of the decrease in deaths had to be attributed to a natural phenomenon of the virus itself.
I hope to be able to factor in some of the none natural responses but it may be hard to do because i dont think there are any ways to get the numbers required for this. But keeping in mind that only comes after a certain absolute time anyway not at the start of the decline.

The curve i got was very similar to the curves we see today if the virus starts out infecting more and more people then drops off on it's own at a gradual rate.