wait, what?

In early March the discussion with you went on for pages, with people calling the UK "herd imminuty" approach moronic/certain to lead to the same result (total lockdown for months), just with far more needless dead. Against this correct mockery you defended that approach, suggesting the experts in the UK know more than us. They ended up doing what we said they should/would and killing >10K extra people needlessly in the process - the UK is almost Italy in far less time - and ending up with a more prolonged shutdown as well (which they now have no plan to get out of).

Your views aren't misrepresented at all, and this "no true scotsman" thing you do when you prior views up being wrong is ridiculous. Anyone can search your name for your first 30 posts in this thread.

And your views now, also trusting the experts in the UK (who already go it wrong once), are equally wrong:
The correct plan is 100% the Trump plan - start opening up in areas not badly hit with strict and then gradually relaxing social distancing, and monitor them closely with testing. You gain data that way on what works and what doesn't (right now there is none except China, which is useless), data on true R0 in the current environment and with different strategies/progressive relaxation, data on if the weather is helping reduce spread rates, all of which gives you hard data on whether you can open up faster and broadly. You can hone your plan based on real feedback. You also bring some economic normality back to some regions as well as hope for other regions. This is the only sane approach, it is pure science, but the utter loser experts in the UK are screwing it up again, and you're right behind them yet again.

The new UK expert plan is as dumb as the first one, and you're defending it yet again "because experts". It's is so absurd. Trust of expertise is why there are 160K+ dead now, over a million eventually, of which the UK has a 10% share with <1% of the world's population thanks entirely to the rank stupidity of your experts. Have you learned nothing at all through this whole debacle?

A bad case on pne has permanently affected me from 15 years ago. Got it in Mexico while living in a $3/night room, dusty and dirty, smoking crappy weed and cigarettes. Stuck in that bed for 2 months barely able to get up and still when the weather changes suddenly I can barely breathe, lots of wheezing. I have a feeling if I got covid I would be in trouble.

sounds like it also may have very negative effects as well, so maybe that's why many places won't use it. Why would liberals want to kill anyone and do any of them have names?

I have never accepted or supported a herd immunity approach.

I also had no doubt we were heading for lockdown and that that was the intention. The key issue was always when not if measures would be introduced.

If you wish to have some argument based on your views vs mine than that would be ok but as with my view on who are experts you seem determined to impose views I have never held and that's pointless.

lol you and your side effects garbage. Why do you insist on making this political, it’s science and medicine and the overwhelming consensus is to use it to treat Covid-19, when medically appropriate. lol I sound like a climate change activist. It is very bizarre to me that so many lay people think they have a credible opinion on this. Do you not think that doctors and patients who choose to use this treatment consider the benefits and the risks? I just went through this, I was involved in the decision to use it on my father, so why would some schmoe on the internet have any credibility on this.

When I made the “liberals trying to kill you” joke, I did it because my dad is a real MAGA guy. It was funny. He thought it was funny. lol now you want names of liberals trying to kill people. What a seriously inappropriate response to me telling about a joke I made to my dad? It’s almost as if you are so overly defensive, there may be a reason for it. Something like you being so emotional about your Trump hatred you have lost the ability to recognize a joke and you’ve lost the ability to analyze and accept the many and obvious reasons, hydroxychlorquine Zpak is being used in virtually every hospital in the US treating Covid 19 patients.

Why are you really against using it? Is it really the minimal side effects that are clearly outweighed in many cases by the potential benefits, when you will likely die if you don’t take it? Or is it really that you just hate Trump so badly, he can’t be right or even close to right about anything?

The last funny thing about your post is that you are in essence telling me I made the wrong choice in affirming that treatment option because of the potential side effects. Well, I’m just glad I didn’t listen to schmoe from the internet and that I did listen to the science and the experts.

But sure go ahead argue side effects, oh and don’t forget Orange man bad.

smh

Link?

In fact:

Protestors Against Stay-at-Home Order Rally Downtown

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...order/2305834/

Interesting post - not disagreeing - but I have questions:

1. Are you referring to the rate of deaths to total cases? If yes, how do you account for infections that go undiagnosed? Alternatively, are you discussing deaths to confirmed cases only?

2. How can we accurately estimate the death rate without knowing prevalence in the population?

The Santa Clara paper has problems as discussed ITT (it's a preprint, the sample is not representative, and the sample size is too small), but it does attempt to identify population prevalence.

Similar research will likely expand on this with better methodologies and larger samples. If I understand correctly you're saying this would be futile and a waste of time and resources?

Do you mean people from a randomly sampled pop who either had been infected, or are infected (ie. have antibodies)? Or solely people who test positive ie. on a PCR test?

This problem will take care of itself (with collateral damage unfortunately).
Also, the ones wearing masks should show more conviction.

Post less.

The comparison with measles is probably a bad one because of immunity. Very good interview on the BBC this morning with Sarah Gilbert who is leading the Oxford Vaccine project and made some very relevant general points, although everything specific is still uncertain.

The main point is that the natural antibody response is likely to be short lived because corona viruses produce a weak immune response. But the vaccine they are working on uses the adana (think that's the wrong spelling) virus which produces a strong immune response and so is likely to be long lasting. Re your measles point that means that without a vaccine the ifr of covid could mean that ~0.5% of the population die every year while we usually only get measles once. Hopefully the vaccine will make it more like measles in this respect or only require occasional boosters.

A couple of other interesting points:

Although the virus mutates, it isn't like flu and a single vaccine is likely to cover the family of mutations

Testing will be done by giving some the covid vaccination and some the meningitis vaccination (blinded obviously). Then over time they will analyse who gets covid and who doesn't. Follows from this that the worse the infection rates are in the population, the faster they will get statistically significant results.

Next stimulus package include 20k loans to install thermal cameras at all businesses with more than 50 customers per day?

The handheld thermometers are dumb because there's too much accidental contact.

Keep an eye on electronic nose technology. Maybe a horse to back one day for sniffing out viruses etc.

Coming to a smartphone near you one day eventually.

1/ Did you see all the articles posted against Hydroxychloroquine recently? What is your view on them?
2/ I am glad your father is ok . Can you post a little more information on what exactly happened and why you are so confident that it was Hydroxychloroquine that saved his life? I'm interested in hearing some real-life examples.

Everybody is forgetting that we have a couple of controled & mature outbreaks out there, and the best one is South Korea who is sitting at 2,19% mortality rate and has tested at less than 2% positive. How do you get from South Korea's numbers to a 0,1% - 0,4% mortality rate?

^Yeah i think it's clear from post exactly what I mean as I'm giving examples of population level samples.
A more realistic take:

We've never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it's so difficult

Good lord, what is wrong with people? Small studies relying on chance that will take months to play out. Meanwhile millions die and economies and lives are ruined. Experts in the West are grossly incompetent and incapable of rapid action.

At this point, not deliberately infecting willing volunteers with a probable vaccine is tantamount to manslaughter.

I can't see anything there that disagrees with the post I made. Except perhaps that he is a tiny bit more hopeful about natural (called 'herd' a lot these days) immunity then I suggested.

Your post implied that "when" a vaccine is made it will probably cover future mutations. Tooth's link says that if a vaccine is "ever" made it would be the 1st of it's kind.

Did the Dr on BBC let it be known there has never been a vaccine for the Coronavirus family? Seems like kind of an important detail when talking about a vaccine.

Are these contradictory? Maybe I should clarify that Prof Gilbert was referring to the vaccine her team are developing and not all vaccinees

It was a BBC interview which is question led and I don't recall it coming up.

She is very confident about the likelihood of success which I take with a healthy pinch of salt but it's hard to see anything from TS's expert where they disagree about anything else.

Dont know if this works outside UK but here's a link to the interview
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p089xqrl

Yeah, just a minor point I guess

It's a point we're not disagreeing about and wasn't even mention in the post that TS responded to with his 'rebuttal'

I'd be very interested in TS's expert specifically addressing prof Gilbert's research but otherwise he didn't add anything much to this conversation. We have an expert bullish about their specific work and an expert bearish about vaccines in general - both to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt when it comes to the bullish/bearish bit but both likely to be **** hot on the details

Kind of makes sense to be bearish on a feat never done before. Obviously we all hope it's successful but it's not something that can just be hand waved away, it's kind of a big deal.

Barry hussein Obama gave us the obamaphone.

Agent orange 45 will give us the trumpscanner. The only question is which company will win the contract to supply them. FLIR and FTV seem like laziest plays, but are there any more strategic moves to be made in thermal space? Maybe a security contractor?

https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...1118/1.1819532

i'm liking oct calls of flir right now, will research more before i yolo yet another option