Coronavirus and the Heart

The kids don't seem to get Covid-19 all that often, and it rarely kills the m if they do get it. Their parents are more vulnerable.

We do keep explaining to John Larkin that this isn't just another seasonal cold - it kills many more people than that, as he should have been able to work out from the news from New York.

The US levels of lock-down are clearly inadequate

The new cases per day number has stuck around 30,000 for nearly a month now . Evem Italy has finally contrived to do better.

The US has managed to impose a lock down which is effective enough to ruin it's economy without being effective enough to stop the epidemic.

China and South Korea have both managed to execute effective exit strategie s, but John Larkin has managed to fail to see either of them.

Australia's new case per day rate is now a factor of twenty smaller than it was at it's peak, a month ago, and the government is starting to talk abou t beginning to relax lock down. It has also just released the CovidSafe mob ile phone application to automate contact tracing. I've already got it on m y phone.

e hav never locked down. Maybe some will lock down until there is a vaccine , in a year or two or never. We'll have data one day.

And John Larkin will fail to recognise what it means then too.

As a prediction this really doesn't cut the mustard. The immediate effect o f such a migration - from heavily Covid-19 infected areas to less infected areas - would be to spread the plague. The US already has a remarkably high level of economic inequality for an advanced industrial country, and movin g people around isn't goig to make much of a difference - the problem seems to be in it's political system, which is currently managing the country's response to the Covid-19 epidemic spectacularly badly. Whether the populati on is gong to wake up to this - John Larkin clearly hasn't - and decides to do something about it is not something I'd care to try to predict.

ic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the k inds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered interna l organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time , maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions peop le who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.

epeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and like ly does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expecte d in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

? Once you have that, then we can consider approaches that may be better.

result?

The choice is not between doing nothing and doing a lockdown. The choice i s between doing everything possible except having a lockdown and doing a l ockdown as well as everything else. Having a lockdown means about 30 mill ion people will still be working and 300 million will be unemployed.

Dan

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Well if that is the case then we should shut everything including the food infrastructure and whomever survives that gets what's left.

You Dr.Phil mentality idiots are f***ed in the head.

James Arthur is the definition of "arrogant ass."

atic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered inter nal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in ti me, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions pe ople who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.

repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and li kely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expec ted in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

ng? Once you have that, then we can consider approaches that may be better .

e result?

is between doing everything possible except having a lockdown and doing a lockdown as well as everything else. Having a lockdown means about 30 mi llion people will still be working and 300 million will be unemployed.

There's also a choice between locking down hard enough to stop the epidemic in about six weeks - which China and Australia seem to have managed - or n ot doing well enough as Italy did for quite while and the US seems to be do ing at the moment.

The is a third choice - the one made by South Korea - which was to forego l ock down but rather to do for really enthusiastic contact tracing and the i solation (for 14 days from contact) of potentially infected people. That do es seem to have worked.

They currently have had 209 cases and five deaths per million population.

thing

aks.

nd

oint

the

ie

nomic

I would have agreed with you at one time, but my nephew lives in Houston an d I can see why he likes it. Companies locate in the popular cities becaus e that is where the talented people want to live. If they locate to a rura l area, people move there for the job, but only as long as they are ok maki ng the various sacrifices.

You make it sound like property costs are high driving people away. It's t he opposite, property costs are high because people want to be there so muc h they are willing to pay the premium.

You have explained it perfectly. Your friends who care about keeping safe know how you don't seem to have much regard for this disease and recognize you as high risk.

Your friends who have less regard for keeping safe appear to also be disregarding safe practices. Then we wonder why our death and infection rates aren't dropping. Do you have any idea why that may be Larkin?

Of course you don't. You believe this disease goes away when the Coronavirus ferry visits and ramps the disease down.

That certainly leaves a lot of room for a meeting of the minds. And we wonder why this country is so divided. It seems a lot more clear now.

If people took the disease seriously the lock down has the potential for es sentially ridding the country of the disease. Look at China and Norway. B ut that won't happen unless everyone participates. Well, at least all the people who aren't in hospitals and the morgues.

I think so. Leftists want to be insured and protected.

ng? Once you have that, then we can consider approaches that may be better .

e result?

is between doing everything possible except having a lockdown and doing a lockdown as well as everything else. Having a lockdown means about 30 mi llion people will still be working and 300 million will be unemployed.

You are saying you want me to come out of retirement and work??? Very odd numbers since on a good day we don't have 300 million working, so it would be hard to have that many unemployed.

These discussions are actually pretty boring. People seem to want to post a bunch of drivel that means nothing (like your numbers) to try to score po ints. Larkin is one of the worst offenders then he complains that no one w ants to discuss the issues.

Having a lockdown is the only way to stem the rate of infection. If done r ight, we would only need to be under lock down for a month or so and the in fection rates would drop off to nearly nothing like in Norway and China. B ut something is wrong and we still have the highest daily new infection num bers we've had since the disease first came to the US as well as the highes t daily death numbers.

So don't whine to me about only 30 million people working. Complain to som eone who can do something about the lockdown not working. That's the probl em we need to solve. If we can't get the infection rates low enough to do useful contact tracing and quarantine everyone with the disease, we not onl y will have the infection sweeping through the population, we won't have en ough healthy people to work the jobs you want to put them back into.

Look at how we have over 800,000 infected at the moment and only 118,000 re covered and 55,000 deaths!!! Are you the same sort of denialist as Larkin who thinks there is nothing wrong with these numbers??? Open up the lock d own and we will have millions infected, a lot more deaths and a lot fewer p eople to work!

I wish it could be like a si-fi show where we can ignore the disease, see h ow terrible it becomes and then go back to an alternate time line and do th ings right.

Why do people refuse to accept the fact that ignoring this disease is liter ally the worst thing we can do. I guess part of the problem is that doing the lock down half way is a close second.

A plague o' both your houses! Oh, that's what we have, isn't it?

That's not cowardice but prudence.

Rightist insist on huge spending on the police and the army to make sure that they are not burglarised and invaded.

Wouldn't that be cowardice too?

In reality, rightist resent money spent on protecting anything that isn't theirs - property in the case of the police and the army, and are silly enough not to realise the danger to their own lives of epidemic infections.

John Larkin and James Arthur have consistently played down the risk of getting killed by Covid-19. Presumably they want to think that they won't get it and it won't kill them if they do get it.

atic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about the kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered inter nal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in ti me, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions pe ople who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.

repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and li kely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco expec ted in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

ng? Once you have that, then we can consider approaches that may be better .

e result?

is between doing everything possible except having a lockdown and doing a lockdown as well as everything else. Having a lockdown means about 30 mi llion people will still be working and 300 million will be unemployed.

True. I think the most sensible thing is for vulnerable people to stay hunkered down, while the rest of us take care of them and ride this thing out.

If we find a treatment or a vaccine before then, everyone's golden.

Cheers, James Arthur

You're always inventing enemies. That's weird.

I'm for saving lives, and you're not. That makes me an enemy?

Cheers, James Arthur

omatic doesn't mean it actually was. The majority don't have a clue about t he kinds of more subtle damage that can occur. They could have suffered int ernal organ damage that will develop into serious chronic illness later in time, maybe decades. It is more likely than not that many of the millions people who have been "exposed" are damaged in some way.

ed repeatedly with corona virus infection over decades of study, could and likely does explain the so-called higher mortality "second wave" fiasco exp ected in fall 2020/ winter 2021.

the

hing? Once you have that, then we can consider approaches that may be bett er.

the result?

ce is between doing everything possible except having a lockdown and doing a lockdown as well as everything else. Having a lockdown means about 30 million people will still be working and 300 million will be unemployed.

In case you haven't heard, the only person who is invulnerable is superman.

Besides, there's no place to hide. With everyone else running around like it's spring break they keep dragging it into the places where the rest of u s live and people who live without get infected and die while you enjoy you rself. Yeah, that's a fair shake.

How about this. If you think that is a good idea, go ahead and hang out wi th infected people at the hospital and get infected. Then I'll listen to y ou whine about not being able to get a haircut.

Dying isn't about numbers or age or any of your bullshit. When someone die s it hurts everyone around them. Knowing they died because of selfish peop le like you makes it even worse for everyone. Selfish people, could be a R andy Newman song.

Oh, honey. You're not my "enemy." "Enemy" is a term most people reserve for someone who kills their mother or something, not Usenet-yakkers with delusions of grandeur.

And they'd give up any and all of the precious rights they enjoy in exchange for some illusory "security" promised them by their lords and masters in the DP. Pathetic!

No offense intended, but you, and most everyone else, are talking like an economist, presenting possible choices.

I pay people to think and then decide what to do.