87% infection rate

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/coronavirus-washington-choir-outbreak-trnd/index.html

They were close together for hours, singing, and no doubt inhaling
fast a lot through their mouths, bypassing sinus filters.

I wonder if trumpet players have higher incidence of CV infection.
Similar effects?



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 4:37:45 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rnd/index.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think the other issues of transmission identified in the report are more  
than sufficient to explain the high infection rate.  The report also seemed
 to dismiss the possibility that there was more than one carrier.  The Marc
h 3 was four days prior to the first patient showing symptoms, so not unrea
sonable to think the virus could have been transmitted then.  So the March  
10 practice might well have had more than one shooter... I mean carrier.  

Did they check the grassy knoll?  

Do they have grassy knolls anywhere other than Dallas?  

I've never seen one.  

--  

  Rick C.

  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On 15/5/20 6:37 am, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you're posting to support your ignorant hope that a majority of the  
US population has already unknowingly had the virus and it's all going  
to stop soon, you're clutching at straws.

For comparison, Spain, which has had 143K cases and 27K deaths, was just  
extensively tested for antibodies. The result shows that only 5% of the  
population has been exposed. If herd immunity starts to kick in at  
around 60%, those numbers are going to get at least TWELVE TIMES WORSE.

That's over 320,000 dead, in a country of 47 million.

Translating that to the USA, you're going to see 2.3 million deaths.

Which is in the range that I predicted in February (I said 1.5M-2.5M).

Time will tell.

CH

Re: 87% infection rate
On Fri, 15 May 2020 11:58:03 +1000, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Were you born a jerk, or did something terrible happen?



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On 15/5/20 12:54 pm, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just doing the numbers, because you consistently refuse to.

Yuo can't start fixing a problem until you first admit that you've got a  
problem.

Re: 87% infection rate
On Fri, 15 May 2020 13:29:20 +1000, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OK, something terrible.



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On 15/5/20 2:01 pm, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

How 'bout you un-snip my rough calculations and tell me what's wrong  
with them?

As it is, you're just showing everyone what's wrong with *you*.

CH

Re: 87% infection rate
On Fri, 15 May 2020 14:09:40 +1000, Clifford Heath

Quoted text here. Click to load it

JHU says 230K cases in Spain, but that's just verified, presumably
tested, cases. The asymptomatic cases tend to not be counted.

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-05-14/antibody-study-shows-just-5-of-spaniards-have-contracted-the-coronavirus.html

5% of 47 million is 2.3 million. Places in New York are 30% antibody
positive.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What's wrong with me is that I'm curious about possibilities.  

What's wrong about this virus is the data. It's terrible. You can make
almost any case you want from the available data.

I thought the choir thing was really interesting. Singing is
dangerous. Sinuses may be the first, most important defense against CV
infection.  

Gosh, other people have discovered that too.

https://omft.info/en/news-posts/nasal-breathing-as-a-defense-against-the-corona-virus/

Running and swimming and such can involve mouth breathing. Don't run,
don't sing.

Sorry to bore you. I suppose there is a huge range of things that you
don't find to be interesting.



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 10:22:17 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The virus is not 'wrong', it's not responsible for your difficulties in comprehension.
The available data is not impossible to use, it just doesn't answer all of the possible
questions.   If you want to know how to STOP the plague, the available data
isn't the issue; we could tell if it were stopped, just fine.

Shutdown caused a very obvious signal in the R value...   that's why we
want to be careful about removing restrictions.   See, for instance,
the "How the Lockdown Cut..." graph here
<https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523

Re: 87% infection rate
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

By all means keep up the lockdown forever. You probably weren't doing
much anyhow.



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 12:25:24 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnol
ogy.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
comprehension. The available data is not impossible to use, it just doesn't
 answer all of the possible questions.   If you want to know how to STOP th
e plague, the available data isn't the issue; we could tell if it were stop
ped, just fine.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ch anyhow.

It isn't the lock down that stops the epidemic. South Korea didn't bother i
mposing one, but did enough contact tracing and isolation of possibly infec
ted people to kill the epidemic very early on. They've had new infections s
ince then, but essentially only returning travellers who get quarantined fo
r 14 days after arrival, which should stop them from infecting anybody else
.

Pretty much everybody else has gone in for lock down - it makes contact tra
cing easier and makes it easier to persuade people who merely might have be
en infected to stay isolated for 14 days from the potentially infectious co
ntact.

If its done right - essentially as a back to contact tracing - you can kill
 the epidemic in six weeks, and don't need lock down any more.

You still have to pounce on any new infection that shows up and trace anybo
dy who they might have infected and isolate them for 14 days, but this isn'
t going to slow down the economy anything like enough to worry about.

What you should be complaining about is a lock down that isn't rigorous eno
ugh to work, probably because it isn't backed up by nearly enough contact t
racing.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: 87% infection rate
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

This from the guy who calls other people "nasty" for saying the same sorts of things.  

--  

  Rick C.

  ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On Fri, 15 May 2020 07:25:16 -0700, jlarkin wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just hanging out with Bitrex in the welfare line I'd imagine.


Re: 87% infection rate
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 3:22:17 PM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thirty percent of Covid-19 infections may be asymptomatic enough not to get counted. That might push the Spanish case count up to 330k at most.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And the antibody tests are known to produce a great many false positive results.

There's quite a lot of good evidence - from more reliable sources - that shows that they can't be right.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And incurious about facts and connections that tend to demonstrate that your "possibilities" are fatuous misapprehensions.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you are as bad at connecting the dots as John Larkin is, this is obviously true. More competent observers are more tightly constrained.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The obvious is rarely interesting.

What's obvious from this story is that John Larkin's theory that 80% of the population won't get Covid-19 if exposed to it is total nonsense - a point that he doesn't find interesting.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: 87% infection rate
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 4:08:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
he population won't get Covid-19 if exposed to it is total nonsense - a poi
nt that he doesn't find interesting.

One of Larkin's talking points is that the silent infections can be inferri
ng immunity to the population is isn't being counted.  Today I read about a
 case in a Maryland nursing home where a patient was sent to the hospital,  
cured of the disease, tested twice and found to be no longer infected, then
 back in a nursing home again, contracted the disease again.  

Certainly it is possible the patient was not fully cured and the tests were
 wrong, but they would not have released him unless he clearly no longer sh
owed signs of the disease.  It's hard to image this was a fluke.  The parti
cular home he started in has had a large number of infections and deaths.  
He was sent to a different home after recovering in the hospital, became re
infected and ultimately died.  

If this is any indication, there won't be herd immunity.  The only way to f
ight this virus is to deny it exposure to new hosts by isolation and quaran
tine until a vaccine is found.  Hopefully a better one that we have for man
y diseases that only prevent around half the cases.  

--  

  Rick C.

  -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: 87% infection rate
On Fri, 15 May 2020 14:09:40 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well the main thing I at any rate see wrong with them is that there is no  
reliable test for CV19 antibodies as yet, so it's not possible to tell  
who's been exposed to the virus and who hasn't.

Re: 87% infection rate
On 17/05/2020 09:41, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You are badly out of date. Roche now has a test that the US and EU  
approved for use on 3rd May which claims a 0.2% false positive rate.  
That is a big improvement on the early 1-5% inaccurate ones. UK didn't  
approve it until this week - another "benefit" of Brexit being weeks  
behind the curve with almost everything. UK just accepted losing sense  
of smell/taste as a Covid symptom yesterday (ROW has been for weeks).

The old tests consistently over estimate the percentage with Covid  
antibodies in the population. UK sees about 3% at present in a typical  
location with a likely systematic error of at least 0.5% high and that  
is with 35k officially dead from Covid and another 20k "unexplained".

If the infection continues to spread until herd immunity is reached then  
the death toll will be somewhere around the 1M mark which is not all  
that far off Ferguson's original worst case scenario prediction.

There is a slight problem with the antibody tests in that what they test  
for is now unique to Covid-19 infection but is by no means a guarantee  
that your immune response will be effective against re-infection.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: 87% infection rate
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 12:54:20 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnolog
y.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
k-trnd/index.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not an appropriate response. John Larkin clearly is a jerk, so he does post
 responses like that.

I share Clifford Heath's reaction, and the only reason that John Larkin has
n't posted the same kind of reaction to my post is that he won't have bothe
red to read it.

John Larkin won't admit - even to himself - that a lot of what he  posts is
 ignorant twaddle, and if he runs into a post that points it out, he experi
ences it as a tedious insult, rather than as an attempt to educate him. He  
does need more education, but he doesn't see himself as any kind of pupil,  
which does make him incorrigibly ignorant (to use the Catholic Church's for
mulation).

Of course the church does uses the phrase to describe the kind of rational  
scepticism which prevents people from swallowing the church's favourite lin
es of twaddle.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: 87% infection rate
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 12:54:20 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnolog
y.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
k-trnd/index.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not an appropriate response. John Larkin clearly is a jerk, so he does post
 responses like that.

I share Clifford Heath's reaction, and the only reason that John Larkin has
n't posted the same kind of reaction to my post is that he won't have bothe
red to read it.

John Larkin won't admit - even to himself - that a lot of what he  posts is
 ignorant twaddle, and if he runs into a post that points it out, he experi
ences it as a tedious insult, rather than as an attempt to educate him. He  
does need more education, but he doesn't see himself as any kind of pupil,  
which does make him incorrigibly ignorant (to use the Catholic Church's for
mulation).

Of course the church does uses the phrase to describe the kind of rational  
scepticism which prevents people from swallowing the church's favourite lin
es of twaddle.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: 87% infection rate
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 10:54:20 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Notice he doesn't deny what Cliford posted that Larkin is ignorant of the facts or that his posts illustrate Larkin's ridiculous expectations.  

But people keep responding to Larkin.  So Larkin gets the nourishment he seeks and he keeps posting.  Just like Pavlov's dog.  Ding, ding.  

--  

  Rick C.

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline