Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantNew York state has about 269,000 confirmed coronavirus infections.
An antibody study indicates that probably 13.9% of the state’s residence have been infected with the coronavirus. That would be 19.45m x .139 = 2.7m actual infections.
About 21k people have died in the state from Covid-19.
21k/2.7m = 0.77% death rate. Which would make it more than 7 times deadlier than the flu.
Coronavirus is also much more contagious than the flu, with an R0 of at least 2.2 and now estimated to be possibly as high as 5.7 vs 1.3 for the flu (see CDC release below).
Coronavirus is at least 7 times deadlier and wildly more contagious than the flu.
Participant[quote=Coronita]Is there a way to easily track the retail price of weed? How does one invest in it, like any other commodity?
[/quote]
It’s listed on the commodities exchange next to the Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice.
Looking good, Billy Ray!
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
Oh, i would use half and even quarter truths, innuendo, manipulation and outright lies.
I owe it to u, my investors.[/quote]Now I see. When you said, “the only source that does not lie,” you weren’t referring to your new network, you were referring to fox viewers’ view of fox.
If you made that work, we really would be living in a post-truth society.
ParticipantI’ve thought about such a network many times. It seems to me that the difficulty would be in having as much of an effect on beliefs/discourse/narrative/votes as fox and the rest of the right-wing propaganda machine do. Because fox et al. use half-truths, innuendo, manipulation, and outright lies. And this new network would be trying to compete against fox for the hearts and minds of the people, but without using those things.
It’s like trying to win a boxing match without cheating when the other guy is using steel-toed gloves. I don’t think it can be done.
April 20, 2020 at 11:48 AM in reply to: Kyle Bass Blasts China’s “Most Lying, Coercive, Manipulative Government” For “Knowingly Infecting The World” #816680Participant[quote=gogogosandiego]LOL. The fact that they don’t practice Communism?[/quote]
Wait, does this mean that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is not Democratic? Or the people’s?
(a bit bewildered and shocked): Those lying bastards.
ParticipantI just used some of my coronavirus time to redo my music list so some of my favorites are fresh in my mind. Not in any particular order.
I’m always looking for great music to add to my list and would love to hear others’ favorites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xiTE_dEipg
Love the funky little sax solo in this one:
This was my favorite song in 7th grade, and I still love it. They made fun of me for it then. Feel free to make fun of me for it now:
Skip the 43-second intro on this one and settle in for some really great vocal harmonies. Best in headphones:
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
They are also going to start questioning if going to massive outdoor park or walking trail where they may pass within 5 feet of someone once every 10 minutes is actually a problem and why people sitting with their friends on the beach are getting ticketed.
[/quote]There are definitely some ridiculous rules out there right now.
[quote=sdduuuude]
And, for sure – the extroverts of the world are going to go mad and become depressed if they can’t hug their friends on a daily basis.
[/quote]
As an introvert, I’ll say that I am somewhat more bothered by staying home than I thought I’d be. While I’ve always gotten out and done stuff, I didn’t realize how important it is to me until I couldn’t do it any more.
[quote=sdduuuude]
A more sustainable solution is necessary and the politicians who think they are in control of everything are going to find out they aren’t. They need to learn the difference between “perfect” and “optimal.”
[/quote]
I’m not sure they’re looking for perfect. I think they disagree with you on what optimal is. Obviously nobody knows what optimal is. Nobody can possibly know.
I think the key is to start with an open mind and with as much scientific knowledge of the situation as possible. Even if everybody starts with those two things, there are going to be huge disagreements on what’s optimal, because obviously there are no scientific ways to measure the importance of money, lives, mental states, or the thousand other variables at play, nor how any actions we take will affect all those things. But if everybody starts with those two things, we’ll have a better chance of at least moving in the direction of optimal.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
Two teen suicides this weekend in San Diego county. They weren’t reported but we got emails that two teens died but details were being being withheld to protect the families. That usually means suicide. For teens in San Diego, the death rate from the cure is higher than the death rate from the virus.[/quote]Not sure why you’d state that as fact. You’ve made the massive assumption that both of those deaths were, in fact, suicides and that both suicides were a result of the lock down.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]IMO economic effects of Covid-19 lock down will likely kill more people world wide (mostly in poor countries) than the virus itself.
Unless it ends quickly anyway.[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. But that really isn’t the question.
You have to consider how many people would have died without the lockdown, not just how many will die with the lockdown.
You also have to consider the economic damage of an unchecked virus.
The question isn’t “will the economic effects of a lockdown kill more people than the virus will kill in a lockdown situation.”
The question is, “would the deaths plus economic damage caused by an unchecked coronavirus be worse than the deaths plus economic damage caused by the lockdown plus the virus in a lockdown situation?”
Economists will generally tell you the answer is yes. In fact, they think that just the economic damage alone would be worse from an unchecked virus than from a lockdown.
The IGM Economic Experts Panel’s latest survey of top US macroeconomists asked for their view of the statement “Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk”. Eighty per cent of the panel agreed, the rest were uncertain or did not respond. Not a single expert disagreed.
https://www.ft.com/content/e593e7d4-b82a-4bf9-8497-426eee43bcbc
April 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM in reply to: Los Angeles 1978, up in smoke, power, cops, tommy chong’s prison stint #816296Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=scaredyclassic]… pretty lame cheech and Chong.[/quote]
Blasphemy ! I read no further than this :|[/quote]
In 1979, I was a senior in high school in the suburbs of Chicago. Two buddies and I took a 4-week trip to L.A. We did this very much on the cheap, sleeping in parks and whatnot so the meager job earnings we’d saved up would last, and spending most days on the beach. One night we parked at NBC studios overnight getting ready to line up super early the next morning to see Johnny Carson the next evening. We had Big Bambu on tape and a few hours to kill, so we fired up a J (or three) and cued up some Cheech and Chong on the car’s tape deck. After a little while, we were really good and high, and we noticed that they started pretty much every sentence with “hey,” and ended pretty much every sentence with “man.” In the state we were in, we found this quite funny. So every time they said “hey” or “man” we would crack up. We’d heard the whole album many times before, of course, but it didn’t matter that it wasn’t new to us, because “hey” and “man” was all we needed at the time. And we got one of each almost every sentence.
Just the memory of that night is enough to make me love Cheech and Chong forever.
Cheech goes to visit his super-high friend Chong and finds him sitting on the couch:
“Hey, watcha doin’, man?”
“Aw, just watchin’ tv, man.”
“Watchin’ tv? What are you watchin’, man?”
“I don’t know. It’s a movie about Indians, but it’s really boring, man.”
“Hey, man, that’s not a movie, man, that’s a test pattern, man!”[Larry the cable guy accent]: I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Sometimes the more healthy you are the worse it can be.
The body attacks itself in response to the virus.
“cytokines attack”[/quote]
I don’t think that cytokine storms are a result of a particularly healthy immune system. They are partially defined by an immune system overreacting. But the overreaction isn’t because your immune system is healthy. The overreaction is something that some people have a genetic predisposition to.
At least that’s the way I understand it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3294426/
Host Susceptibility to the Cytokine Storm
One of the challenging clinical questions about the cytokine storm is why some individuals seem particularly susceptible yet others seem relatively resistant, and there has been a great deal of interest in identifying underlying genetic mechanisms (149). Recent studies have shown a vast amount of variability in the innate immune responses of healthy humans, as reflected by the intermediate phenotype of whole-blood cytokine responses to bacterial products (151). Hyper- and hyporesponders to bacterial products are identifiable in the healthy population, which is explainable in part by genetically determined differences in the structure and function of TLR receptors, particularly TLR1 (150). In a large population of septic patients, those with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marking a hyperfunctioning variant of TLR1 had increased organ dysfunction and morbidity from Gram-positive bacteremia (150). Other genetic polymorphisms also contribute to the severity of the host response in sepsis and the cytokine storm, but the TLR1 polymorphism has a particularly strong relationship to Gram-positive infections (149).
ParticipantThat’s a drag. Thanks for the advice. So far no problems with them, but we’ll keep an eye out.
You have to figure they’re hiring like crazy right now. And even with 10 million newly unemployed people out there, it’s gotta be hard to hire so many people so quickly without a few scam artists and other kinds of sub par employees working their way in.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=zk]This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we need government for. What we needed was early and fast action on tests. We could have had far fewer infections and probably avoided some of the economic damage, also, because less social distancing is necessary if you know who has the virus.[/quote]
This is exactly what we need government for – and they failed (according to you). Again. So, we should or should not continue looking to them to save us?[/quote]
The answer to that should be exceedingly obvious.
As I said, there is no other entity or group that is capable of and willing to take the necessary actions. So the solution is to improve our government. The first step would be to vote out incompetents and vote in people who are reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful, cool-headed, etc. and who care about the country more than they care about themselves or their party.
[quote=sdduuuude]And another thing – even if I do acquiesce and say “yes we need government for these kinds of crises” that really doesn’t explain why they need to spend so much when there isn’t a crisis.[/quote]
That’s a totally separate issue. But, while we’re on it, it’s difficult to be efficient when you’re the size of a government of a large country. But efficiency should always, of course, be a (but not the) priority.
[quote=sdduuuude]
Note that when the economy took a hit congress gave money back to the people to stimulate the economy which, for me, begs the question – how good would the economy be if they hadn’t taken it in the first place?[/quote]Well, now you’re back to the question of “do we need government?” Because government is not free, and so if you’re going to have government, government is going to have to take some money in the form of taxes. So if you NEED government, then the question of “how good would the economy be if they didn’t tax us in the first place” is moot.
The question of “how much should they take,” of course, is a reasonable question and a debate which will/should always be had as long as there’s a government.
If, by, “how good would the economy be if they hadn’t taken it in the first place?” you mean, “just that money that they’re giving back” and not “taxation in general,” well, that brings up another important government function. Saving up for a rainy day (or the arguably worse, and much-more-often used “borrow and pay back later for a rainy day”), such as a recession or a pandemic or a war. Who else is going to do that for a whole country?
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]I heard someone say today that healthcare workers are frustrated because there is no leadership from the federal government. I actually heard that. What ? What does that even mean ? Why should the fed be leading the frontline healthcare workers ?[/quote]
As a friend of over a dozen frontline healthcare workers, I can say that (in my experience) their frustration with the federal government is the difficulty obtaining medical equipment, personal protective equipment, and coronavirus tests. These are things that, under normal circumstances, wouldn’t require help from the federal government to obtain. But which, in these circumstances, would require stronger action from the federal government to manufacture and distribute in sufficient quantities.
-
AuthorPosts