Tubetec said:I walk my dogs fairly regularly on 650 acres farmland just up the road from me , the place is teeming with rabbits , I must say I'm no longer just seeing my furry friends as just part of the furniture ,but a possible food source if the need arises .
I heard that in Maine they have lifted the need for a fresh water fishing licence for the rest of the season ,thats just plain good common sense thinking . It must be 25 years since I fished my local river ,gonna have to get back to that again soon too.
kambo said:Italy is going bad! ~ 793 new deaths last 24 hours
dogears said:Germany also taking the Chinese route and not attributing comorbidities to covid19 deaths.
living sounds said:I think we should make it a rule that any factual claims must be substantiated with a citation.
I feel this fact is being overlooked / underestimated. In the US we are not testing people unless they have a fever and cough. Many places are now not testing at all unless the test would affect the patients treatment (meaning flu vs corona) because it's burning through too much PPE. That means that all of the numbers about new cases and such are pretty much meaningless. It is very possible that for every person that has a fever and cough, there are 100 people who do not meet the criteria for testing that are just walking around hanging out with their neighbors. I can hear people partying nearby right now.ruairioflaherty said:The unfortunate fact right now is that the data is just not in yet, there are far more questions than answers.
squarewave said:(the "Group A/B" system I was talking about).
Correct. But if you're in Group A, that means you have a 99.9% chance of being perfectly fine.Whoops said:Group A will get all infected, and will infect everyone that deals with them (like all the workers in the basic needs services, like
squarewave said:Correct. But if you're in Group A, that means you have a 99.9% chance of being perfectly fine.
living sounds said:I think we should make it a rule that any factual claims must be substantiated with a citation.
Correct again. Everyone would decide for themselves is they are healthy enough that they have a 99.9% of being fine if they get it. If you don't want to risk it, then you would just declare yourself to be in Group B and not go out on Group A days.Whoops said:That number is something you invented yourself.
That is true. That is a flaw in my scheme. Everyone would have to agree to the system. If you are in Group B you get tested frequently (Group A would not be tested at all since they would be assumed infected by default). If you test positive, you are automatically in Group A and you must not go out on Group B days under penalty of law.Whoops said:So an younger Idiot that wants to be infected because he thinks he will not need medical care, not only will he infect a lot of different people, but also when he needs he will make other people die.
I would not be so sure about that. Normally it takes 10 years to develop a vaccine. I have never heard anyone with any real authority say that it would be less than 2 years and that that is a very optimistic estimate. That's just due to the nature of how vaccines are developed. It's not something that you can rush. The lock-down won't last past the first peak in 6 weeks or so.Whoops said:There will be a vaccine at some point, a lot of efforts worldwide are put into that.
On this point you are unfortunately very incorrect. If you integrate under that curve, you get the same result regardless of how long it takes. Meaning the same number of people will ultimately be infected. The usual number cited is 67%. That is the point at which your chances of running into someone who is a carrier decreases enough to drive R0 below 1. But that assumes we're just a bunch of dumb monkeys. If we use our brains, we can reduce that number.Whoops said:Also if a big percentage of people get infected for this to go away, it's better to be over a period of 3,4 or 5 months than a big peak over a period of 1 or 2 months. That's what flattening the curve means.
dogears said:I recommend reading this.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
squarewave said:Correct again. Everyone would decide for themselves is they are healthy enough that they have a 99.9% of .....
ruairioflaherty said:He makes a good case but is playing awfully fast and loose with the numbers. The author is stating as fact things that I have heard real experts say we cannot/do not know right now. He is not a specialist in the field, he is not in the medical field at all.
That said his core argument that we need need aligns with all of the specialists I've seen.
Enter your email address to join: