Turns out my mom has been sick for over two weeks and she just did not tell me. Anyways, she said she was feeling better yesterday, and now she is feeling more congested again. By the way, my mom was not going anywhere before she was sick, other then work, she picked it up from a co-worker. My mom took this serious so **** off.

EDIT: She sent me a text about 5 days ago, I just did not see it for some reason.

They have the best of both worlds. Authoritarian government while stealing western innovation with no risk. Sounds pretty smart to me if you don’t care about morality.

Out of curiosity, so many of these masks are made in China (the one I ordered is made in the UK).

Why does it seem so hard to just mass produce our own? Why doesn't the US do that?

Regulations

Such as?

Can't find any data on using bromepheniramine-Pseudophed-DM syrup for Covid-19. She is asking me if she should take it and I can't find any data on it for Covid-19. These doctors are also hard to get a hold of obviously. My mind is telling me it's probably -EV to take, but I don't know.

Yeah, on Amazon you can't even get simple fabric bandanas or neck gaiters for 1 - 2 months cuz everyone bought em all up since there are no real masks to buy.

Near as I can tell none of Europe has inverted the daily death curve. At best daily deaths have flatlined.
Except semi-lockdowns don’t reduce social connectivity by 80%; they reduce to near zero social connectivity for 80% of the population. But unlike with China, where they could quarantine an entire infected province and have the rest of their economy support those in quarantine, the rest of us will need to keep a skeleton crew of probably30- 40% of the population at work to keep the economy going.

My guess is the model in question is showing that the sub-community of essential employees - despite whatever social distancing procedures are put in place - will still have a >1 rate. That kind of makes sense because if just relying on those procedures would reduce the rate to <1, we really wouldn’t need to lockdown non-essential employees in the first place other than to merely reduce the number of transmissions in the short-term. But that’s their model. The model the U.S. is relying on says we can reduce the rate below 1:



We'll see soon enough. What happens over the next month or so with various countries and the effectiveness of various tactics will probably set the future course.

Environmental, labor, tax

Hi Seedless00,

This is all I've run across. It's from a small study though. Hope it helps and best wishes.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...566-3/fulltext
From Table 2:
Time from illness onset to dyspnoea, days 7·0 (4·0–9·0)
Time from illness onset to sepsis, days 9·0 (7·0–13·0)
Time from illness onset to ARDS, days 12·0 (8·0–15·0)
Time from illness onset to ICU admission, days 12·0 (8·0–15·0)
Time from illness onset to corticosteroids treatment, days 12·0 (10·0–16·0)
Time from illness onset to death or discharge, days 21·0 (17·0–25·0)

Brought here from another thread:
On what mathematical basis would you expect more dead? Be aware that the hardest hit provinces in Italy for example have >4x anomalous death rate for March with about 1.3x reported covid deaths, so it's a lock the official rates are well underreported. But even ignoring that, what's the math behind the view that we should have seen more deaths?

Mass testing, ultra-low-spread Korea is now sitting at 1.78% with no overwhelming and some yet to resolve. What would you have expected there for example if the death rate was higher than 0.5%?
This view is contrary to all expert opinion.
I don't understand either. Whether there are 100 or 10,000,000 infected, social distancing has the same effect on transmission reduction. People are individual units and behavioral changes affect the spread rate the same way, regardless of how many infected you start with. You seem to lack an intuitive grasp of ergodicity.

And let me give you an example of how I'd analyze this. If we take the first death (at your 0.5% death rate) as meaning that there were 400 infected in the country 3 weeks earlier (mean time to death 21 days), let's look at a few countries:

US Feb 8: 400 cases
Italy Jan 20 (estimated): 400 cases
Spain Feb 8: 400 cases

With a 6 day doubling (ignoring the huge effects of lockdown) you'd have 400K cases by now in Spain/USA (1.6 million in Italy)

The doubling might have been every 4 days for a while in some spread-prone dense areas (NY for example), BUT the deaths peaking in Italy/Spain proves that lockdown stopped spread on the lockdown date.

For Italy, Mar 9th effective lockdown appears to have peaked spread. So with a 4 day doubling from Jan 20 to March 9 in Italy, we have:

Italy: 1.6 million infected, 15K dead with 15K to come = 2% population death rate
Spain (March 15): About 800K infected: 12K dead with 18K to resolve = 3% population death rate
USA (~March 27 in the key hotspots): About 1.6 million infected (double for ineffecive lockdowns = 3.2M, expecting 100K deaths = 3%.

Unless you're positing a less than 3 day doubling uncontained, which is possible I guess, I don't see why you would expect more dead at this point. By the way I've biased the numbers in your favor by assuming a 0.5% date rate, if real is higher than we'd actually expect fewer infections now which means the death rates we're seeing are higher.

All in all I can't understand why you'd expect more deaths if the death rates are 2%. We have exactly the deaths we'd expect at this point for a 2-3% real fatality rate.

I am not interested in some back and forth where you and I fight with data that is completely unreliable right now to prove our positions.

I understand where you are coming from. You have a different opinion than I do. And I am quite willing to admit that my opinion could be completely wrong, as it is based on data that is incomplete.

I said it in another thread that I am not going to die on a hill of untested data. And that remains true. My position on this is fluid. But you haven't introduced any arguments that have changed my mind or shown you have any insight into this that a million other people on the internet don't have.

Ok, so you're happy to give us your dumb feels, and throw out random numbers (not even a range!) without any justification, but not show any of your work.

You're probably too dumb to construct a rational argument. Your every post in this thread has been worthless incompetent noise. Have you thought of applying for a job at the WHO?

I'm not interesting in fighting with you over numbers, I'm interested in how you got to your feels of 0.5% and why you think there should be more dead and whether it's a rational take. You just answered my question I guess: you have no rational basis for your belief.
I think there will be a 0.1% final death rate. I won't show or discuss my work, because my position on this is fluid. Sound reasonable?
You don't deal in analyzing uncertain situations, but oddly that doesn't stop you being pretty sure the final death rate will be 0.5%, and you think "more should be dead by now". And I'm not asking you to "die on a hill of untested data". I'm asking you to come up with a viable model for this claim:
Why would you expect more dead right now from the hard data we have? What rational basis do you have for this expectation?

Hey Tooth -

Would like to get your thoughts on the IHME Covid-19 model pulling their April 4th update and it's great overestimation of New York state hospitalizations and ICU beds needed.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/



New York appears to have peaked.

And this model has been relied on by the Federal Government.

As TS pointed out, this has happened multiple times since SARS.

Not to continue what is a pointless conversation, but the post I made about my gut feeling was in another thread where the whole point was to offer an opinion, which I did.

As far as my other posts in this thread, most of them have focused on criticizing your moronic views on vaccine/new drug testing, a subject of which I have a vast amount of experience and one in which I was easily able to post relevant information that refuted your childlike premises.

I don't know if that contains steroids, but everything I have read from MDs interacting with this disease say that steroids make the disease worse, and hasten both the onset and severity of pneumonia.

It's an antihistamine, decongestant and cough suppressant.

The experience card is why we are in the situation we are in. Barriers to entry leads to incompetent people making high leverage decisions.

Tooth’s suggestions all made sense. The prison volunteers part makes sense in theory but would never happen in practice due to the horrible optics. But, the rest was completely reasonable and would save hundreds of thousands of lives in EV.

True, but it would have never happened without our consent. We have the older Trudeau and Nixon (Kissinger) to blame for that. We should have taken the hard anti-socialist line with China that we did with the Soviet Union and crushed their economy. Instead, we gave them a fingerhold and the rest is history.

I've heard London is hospitalising less than expected. But we're also hearing about deaths outside hospital where it's hard to believe many of the victims wouldn't normally have been hospitalised.

I wonder how linked these are and if it also applies in NY

Lol

Fwiw in my country weekend data has proven to be unreliable. Also peaking means that hospital beds used are going down, I don't see that anywhere? Italy's hospital beds used kept growing for more than a week after the growth started slowing down.

In my country, Canada, I am growing increasingly suspicious that test results are being intentionally manipulated, or at the very least being updated in a step-wise fashion to hide exponential growth. There are other factors at play, but those should resolve over time, and they don't seem to be.

The odds we got this virus under control so fast using fewer measures than other countries are near zero.