914 replies to this topic

[Danail Bulgaria]

Not only the evangelists. All religeous groups do noncencess. And thay have always been. I've got a copy of a book, written somwhere in the 50's that describes how an entire village have received some herpetic leasions from kissing the same cross and taking "the blood of Christ" from the same spoon. The answer of the religeous people have been that this is not possible, because God protects them while kissing the cross.

 

Even today, no matter who of the high proiests you will ask, there never have been sure evidences that whatever disease have been spread from kissing the cross or form using the same spoon.

 

Nowadays, after 70 years of spiritual growth and development, the church officials in Bulgaria showed on the TV and anounced that those, who will gather on the traditional religeous gatherings will not get COVID-19 because they are protected by God. As we can see, the progress is astonishing.

Edited by seivtcho, 15 April 2020 - 04:27 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

P.S.

 

Those, who are reasonable walk with masks, just ike me. Happily for me, in Bulgaria, they are still the majority.

[Hip]

Not only the evangelists. All religeous groups do noncencess. And thay have always been. I've got a copy of a book, written somwhere in the 50's that describes how an entire village have received some herpetic leasions from kissing the same cross and taking "the blood of Christ" from the same spoon. The answer of the religeous people have been that this is not possible, because God protects them while kissing the cross.

 

Even today, no matter who of the high proiests you will ask, there never have been sure evidences that whatever disease have been spread from kissing the cross or form using the same spoon.

 

Nowadays, after 70 years of spiritual growth and development, the church officials in Bulgaria showed on the TV and anounced that those, who will gather on the traditional religeous gatherings will not get COVID-19 because they are protected by God. As we can see, the progress is astonishing.

 

I don't think every religious person has abandoned reason and logic. The religious and spiritual state is a faculty of mind, just as reason and logic is a faculty of mind. You can have both faculties in the same person, or just one, or neither. I think it is the people that have a religious or spiritual faculty, but lack the reason and logic faculty, who tend to be deaf and blind to scientific language and scientific fact.

 

Though I think a lot depends on the depth of the religious culture. In some countries there are strong religious feelings, which perhaps may more easily override reason and logic. Whereas in other countries the religious culture is not as deep, and people tend to think more logically.

Edited by Hip, 15 April 2020 - 05:53 PM.

[pamojja]

Perhaps you would argue it was Adolf Hitler inviolable human right too feed Germany with all that occult religious bullshit and political propaganda that eventually roused that nation into war on the rest of the world, with a final death toll of 60 million.

 

Its such facists like in Nazi-Germany, who stripped every one of their humanity, which let to the declaration of universal humans rights. Everyone who questions those rights on account of health, status, gender, relgion etc. is what is a facist.
 

But of course, you know this. Its just you get so much thrill with your obsession to feel cleverer than others.

 

Fake news is a great danger to truth and free speech, and authorities everywhere are trying to get to grips with the fake news issue.

 

Only if those in power want to establish their supremacy in deciding what is true, and no more logic. But I agree the danger to facism has never been so close, now were everyone even asked for their constitutional rights to be taken away.

 

And it was the fake news in the main-stream media, which led to this. And with this obvious deception of the public, every investigative journalist (or as you ad hominem them: 'conspiracy theorists') of course feels perfectly confirmed.

Edited by pamojja, 15 April 2020 - 05:35 PM.

[Mr Serendipity]

_{https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320166}

Malaria drugs could help to combat cancer

Written by Honor Whiteman on November 24, 2017 - Fact checked by Jasmin Collier

 

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are drugs that are used to treat malaria, but a new review suggests that they may have another purpose: treating cancer.

 

Edited by Jesus is King, 15 April 2020 - 10:57 PM.

[Hip]

But of course, you know this. Its just you get so much thrill with your obsession to feel cleverer than others.

 

You seem to have a "bee in your bonnet" regarding people who know more than you about science and logic. No need to feel upset if science is not your best subject!

Edited by Hip, 16 April 2020 - 12:52 AM.

[pamojja]

No. Just with people when they justify facism with what they wrongly understand as science.

[Mr Serendipity]

 

Has anyone been watching the Trump pressers? A question about the Wuhan virology lab came up.

 

Trump says “we’ll see, when you say multiple sources there’s the case when you can use the word sources, but we’re doing a very thorough examination of this horrible situation”

 

When pressed further about it and discussing with President Xi, he says “I don’t want to discuss what I talked to him about the laboratory, I just don’t want to discuss it, it’s inappropriate right now”

 

All within the 1st minute of that video. There’s no explicit denial, and Trump says this is a case you can use the word sources.

 

So the bio lab conspiracy theory might turn out to be true. If this turns out to be true, they’ll be no doubt of financial retribution and the cancelling of Chinese debt worldwide to pay for damaging the worlds economies.

[Mind]

Are there any sources of COVID-19 data that differentiate between "presumptive cases" and cases that have tested positive.

 

I ask because in the US, the state of New York decided to add over 2,000 presumptive cases to their death total yesterday. Apparently, these were cases from early in the outbreak that were not tested, but patients had some of the COVID-19 symptoms.

[pamojja]

It seems no more available in the US, since this CDC memo was issued: https://www.cdc.gov/...D-19-deaths.pdf

 

 

Just read that in this times article, that the UK still differentiates: https://archive.is/2eKCW

[Mind]

Navy reports an alarming stealth transmission rate: https://www.zerohedg...ew-symptom-free

 

I am not sure why this would be "ALARMING", except that Zerohedge has been the most "HAIR ON FIRE!!!" website during the whole episode.

 

First of all, I think it is well known that young people (like the sailors) are likely to be asymptomatic carriers. The larger the percentage, the better for young people in this crisis, the better for acquiring societal herd immunity, and the more likely it is that the virus traveled the world several times over since November when it was first percolating in China.

[Mind]

Yet another study showing that asymptomatic cases are much higher than currently assumed. Santa Clara County finds number of infections 50 to 80 times higher than the official case total.

 

Some will portray this as horrible news because it means the virus is very widespread across the entire world already. But like in the US Navy study this means that the true mortality rate could be much lower.

 

If Santa Clara County is representative of the rest of the US, and if the testing is accurate, then the true mortality rate of this virus would not be anywhere near the case fatality rate of 5% (in the U.S.), but somewhere around the 0.06 to 0.10 percent range, like seasonal flu.

 

A study from  town in Germany that had an outbreak found a mortality rate of 0.37%, much more than the seasonal flu, but no where near the current CFR.

[pamojja]

Some interesting points, even if one doesn't agree with all of them:

 

[Hip]

Just with people when they justify facism with what they wrongly understand as science.

 
Sorry pamojja, but you appear to be the amoral fascist here: you are advocating abandoning lockdown and other protective measures against coronavirus, and advocating letting the pandemic run wild, without any care or concern for the vulnerable and elderly people who will die as a result. 

 

This disregard for human life is shocking; it appears you are happy to see the vulnerable get killed by coronavirus. The Nazis had a similar view on disabled people, often killing the disabled.

 

Some people on the PR forum have thanked me for combating the genocidal views you are advocating on that forum and here too. Some vulnerable people are actually quite scared of the idea of letting the pandemic run wild. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 18 April 2020 - 04:08 PM.

[xEva]

 
Sorry pamojja, but you appear to be the amoral fascist here: you are advocating abandoning lockdown and other protective measures against coronavirus, and advocating letting the pandemic run wild, without any care or concern for the vulnerable and elderly people who will die as a result. 

 

This disregard for human life is shocking; it appears you are happy to see the vulnerable get killed by coronavirus. The Nazis had a similar view on disabled people, often killing the disabled.

 

Some people on the PR forum have thanked me for combating the genocidal views you are advocating on that forum and here too. Some vulnerable people are actually quite scared of the idea of letting the pandemic run wild. 

 

 

but what is the alternative? the world cannot stop for a year, and maybe even longer. Let the vulnerable people be on a lockdown, and let the rest of the society provide for their comfort -- it's far cheaper than enforcing a lockdown on everyone. 

 

This virus is not going anywhere. Sooner or later the herd immunity must be reached. It will be reached sooner without lockdowns (while the vulnerable population is protected). There is no other options. What is your solution?

And btw, I too am one of the 'vulnerable'.

Edited by xEva, 18 April 2020 - 08:20 PM.

[Hip]

but what is the alternative? the world cannot stop for a year, and maybe even longer. Let the vulnerable people be on a lockdown, and let the rest of the society provide for their comfort -- it's far cheaper than enforcing a lockdown on everyone. 

 

This virus is not going anywhere. Sooner or later the herd immunity will be reached. There is no other options. What is your solution?

And btw, I too am one of the 'vulnerable'.

 

I agree: with lockdown, it seems to be damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

And I agree we have to consider the economy and people's livelihoods just as much as the death toll that coronavirus has caused and will carry on causing.

 

But those who are worried about the economy should not be downplaying and lying about the serious of coronavirus, just because they want to get lockdown lifted.

 

Some people would have us believe that coronavirus is no more dangerous than the flu, and that becomes their false argument for why lockdown should be eased. 

 

I don't mind arguments for easing lockdown, as long as you don't distort the truth about the seriousness of coronavirus, and its death rate of around 0.5%, which is many times higher than the death rate of seasonal flu.

 

There is a maxim that in war, truth is the first casualty. Well it seems that maxim also applies to pandemics, because people are willing to distort the truth just to try to win their argument.

 

 

 

In any case, this argument between balancing economic needs with saving life is something we would have never needed to consider, if Western countries followed the lead of Asian nations, many of which have avoided lockdown by means of universal use of masks and a comprehensive testings program. Taiwan for example opened up 60 new factory production lines to make masks for everyone in the country, and they have only had 6 deaths so far.

 

We in the West are in this situation of having to apply emergency lockdowns because our governments and many of our scientific advisors did not plan ahead, even though they had months of advanced warning that a pandemic was likely coming.

 

My solution is for Western governments to massively ramp up mask production, to make masks for everyone, and then to pass laws requiring masks to be worn in public. Then get large scale testing organized, and keep applying sensible measures like social distancing, the banning of large congregations of people, and I think we should be able to both prevent death, and we should be able to avoid lockdown. 

 

 

 

If it were not for the WHO's erroneous advice that masks do not help the populace, we might have had masks for all. The WHO lied about masks, because they wanted to protect the limited supply for frontline health workers. But it is a very bad thing for a scientific organization like the WHO to start telling white lies. Science should be scrupulously truthful. 

Edited by Hip, 18 April 2020 - 08:55 PM.

[xEva]

Yet another study showing that asymptomatic cases are much higher than currently assumed. Santa Clara County finds number of infections 50 to 80 times higher than the official case total.

 

Some will portray this as horrible news because it means the virus is very widespread across the entire world already. But like in the US Navy study this means that the true mortality rate could be much lower.

 

If Santa Clara County is representative of the rest of the US, and if the testing is accurate, then the true mortality rate of this virus would not be anywhere near the case fatality rate of 5% (in the U.S.), but somewhere around the 0.06 to 0.10 percent range, like seasonal flu.

 

A study from  town in Germany that had an outbreak found a mortality rate of 0.37%, much more than the seasonal flu, but no where near the current CFR.

 

even better numbers are  estimated in a new study from Stanford U:

 

Antibody study suggests coronavirus is far more widespread than previously thought
Non-peer reviewed study from Stanford found rate of virus may be 50 to 85 times higher than official figures

 

The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

 

At the time of the study, Santa Clara county had 1,094 confirmed cases of Covid-19, resulting in 50 deaths. But based on the rate of participants who have antibodies, the study estimates it is likely that between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in Santa Clara county by early April.

 

That also means coronavirus is potentially much less deadly to the overall population than initially thought. As of Tuesday, the US’s coronavirus death rate was 4.1% and Stanford researchers said their findings show a death rate of just 0.12% to 0.2%.

[xEva]

the latest estimated death rate is 0.12% to 0.2%. https://www.theguard...viously-thought

 

But let it be 10%. The 99% of that 10% applies to 'vulnerable' group only. The rest can make an informed decision and let the 9.9% be locked down for their own protection.  I agree that your measures to slow down the spread (and the acquisition of herd immunity) sound sensible, but, logically speaking, masks or no masks, it's the vulnerable who should be locked. Not the rest of the world. Regardless of death rate numbers. That's the point.

Edited by xEva, 18 April 2020 - 09:21 PM.

[pamojja]

 Sorry pamojja, but you appear to be the amoral fascist here: you are advocating abandoning lockdown and other protective measures against coronavirus, and advocating letting the pandemic run wild, without any care or concern for the vulnerable and elderly people who will die as a result.

 

What a wild lie!

 

What you post here on longecity you posted before on PhoenixRising, and there was actually deleted for its rudenss by moderators.

 

On PR as well as here I consistently advocated differentiation for more targeted containment, like experienced countries as South Korea, Taiwan and Hongkong were successfully employing. It's all still there for the record. Also that most countries implemented brude lock-downs right after their peak of mortality, and compared to those countries without such lock-down in the end there wasn't a significant difference, in the time since the outbreak and plateauing of mortality.

 

With 3 diagnosis I'm highly at risk too. Therefore I followed the worldwide outbreak for acertaining my own real risks. Just as before with any advised medical intervention, which I all refused for their too high risk, compared to their benefits.

 

And overjoyed, just today I was allowed back to work (system relevant). My risk in my state of Austria of dying these last week has never been as high as all the former years. Only about 70% than from the usual flu. With all the social-distancing and hygiene even much lower.

 

What a liar, so easily disproven by looking at my post history.
 

[Hip]

What a liar, so easily disproven by looking at my post history.

 

Please link to any previous post on any forum in which you expressed concern and compassion for the vulnerable people at risk of dying from coronavirus.

 

All your posts involve linking to research which downplays the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic, implying that it is no worse than seasonal flu.

 

When I mentioned to you that over 100 doctors and nurses have died in Italy while treating coronavirus, a tragedy which never happens when treating seasonal flu, you questioned whether these medics really died of coronavirus, and suggested that they could have just been old retired physicians, ready to pop off anyway (which does not seem likely, as in the UK list of 19 UK NHS doctors and nurses who have died from coronavirus infection so far, almost nobody was past retirement age, except a few).

 

I can't see how anyone can think coronavirus is no worse than flu when so many medics have died while treating patients.

Edited by Hip, 18 April 2020 - 09:52 PM.

[Hip]

the latest estimated death rate is 0.12% to 0.2%. https://www.theguard...viously-thought

Interesting. The paper in question is here. 

 

Similar antibody testing on the population in the town of Gangelt in Germany concluded that the death rate was 0.37%. Ref: here. 

 

We will have to wait to get more antibody test results in. I read that one of the concerns with the antibody tests though is that they might be detecting regular common cold virus coronaviruses, which would then overestimate the numbers infected. But hopefully as time goes on, we will be able to properly validate these tests.

 

 

 

it's the vulnerable who should be locked. Not the rest of the world. Regardless of death rate numbers. That's the point.

 

That is easier said than done. A lot of elderly and younger vulnerable people live in homes shared with working-age members of the population, so it's not really possible to isolate them from potential carriers of the virus. For example, grandparents may live with the rest of the family. 

 

Obviously though we should be doing as much as we can to isolate the elderly and vulnerable. A lot of the problems come back to lack of masks and protective equipment. About 4% of the elderly in the UK live in care homes (ref: here), and it is the staff of these homes which bring in the virus, which then tends to kill lots of the elderly in the home. Because there is no protective equipment available, there is no way to prevent the staff from infecting the elderly residents. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 18 April 2020 - 10:15 PM.

[pamojja]

Please link to any previous post on any forum in which you expressed concern and compassion for the vulnerable people at risk of dying from coronavirus.

 
This one, beside countless others, sums it up: https://forums.phoen...36/post-2269056
 

 

We've got to work together to become smarter than that.

 
We ought to. But look what happened in this thread. One site thought the strict meassures is all what one could do to save life, by implication the other site to go easy on risking lifes. In short, the puplic opinion advanced by mass-media.
 
I wanted to give voice to the other site in starting this thread for a more comprehensive and balanced view, considering the site til then neglected by mass-media and also this forum: To those who think more targeted meassures will save more lifes, by unavoidable implication the other site would be risking more lifes. Receiving of course massive opposition.
 
Being utterly divided, by the inherent implications of each site of opinion not allowed to voice on this forum. But omminously inherent.
 
I think we can only work together, if we appreciate that inherently both sites only wants nothing more than the maximum of saved lifes. We are far from there yet. We are divided and therefore not smarter.

 

 
 

When I mentioned to you that over 100 doctors and nurses have died in Italy while treating coronavirus, a tragedy which never happens when treating seasonal flu, you questioned whether these medics really died of coronavirus, and suggested that they could have just been old retired physicians, ready to pop off anyway (which does not seem likely,

 
I didn't question out of blind belief. I linked to the report of an investigative jounalist which gave the birth-date of those phyicians. And their field of expertise: https://swprs.org/a-...or-on-covid-19/
 

On March 30, we mentioned the list of Italian doctors who died „during the Corona crisis“, many of whom were up to 90 years old and didn’t actively participate in the crisis at all. Today, all years of birth on the list have been removed (see however the last archive version). A strange procedure.

 
In a situation where most politicians, mass-media all are hell-bend on creating hysteria, none should believe blindly, but question and verify ALL sources of information.

Edited by pamojja, 18 April 2020 - 10:21 PM.

[BlueCloud]

but what is the alternative? the world cannot stop for a year, and maybe even longer. Let the vulnerable people be on a lockdown, and let the rest of the society provide for their comfort -- it's far cheaper than enforcing a lockdown on everyone. 

 

This virus is not going anywhere. Sooner or later the herd immunity must be reached. It will be reached sooner without lockdowns (while the vulnerable population is protected). There is no other options. What is your solution?

And btw, I too am one of the 'vulnerable'.

I don’t think any country has planned for a year long lockdown. It’s mostly 2 months on average. All european countries have already announced lifting it around May, only advising  the fragile to stay ( voluntarily) confined for a couple more months. And masks+distanciation will be used all around after that.

[pamojja]

 

 

In this "back to work" edition of Perspectives on the Pandemic, John Kirby talks with Dr. David L. Katz, the author of the much-debated March 20th New York Times op-ed, "Is Our Fight Against the Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?" Read the op-ed, here: https://www.nytimes....020/03/20/op... Watch episode 1 here: https://youtu.be/d6MZy-2fcBw And, episode 2, here: https://youtu.be/lGC5sGdz4kg

 

00:58-How to minimize the risk of COVID-19

03:52-Comparing the responses to a global pandemic

08:53-Who is most at risk

13:44-Is our global response warranted?

17:17-Comparing COVID-19 to the flu

20:55-Is the risk really that high?

23:53-What is the fatality rate versus other common risk factors?

25:29-The risk of labeling COVID-19 as a ?pandemic?

26:14-Are the COVID-19 tests reliable?

28:58-Should we be concerned about herd immunity?

30:16-On the chances of getting a vaccine

31:47-The return of ?measles parties??

34:30-Breaking down the pros and cons of herd immunity

37:25-Is lockdown making the problem worse?

40:01-How to really hashtag Flatten the Curve

45:45-Can we really trace the exposure for every person?

48:06-Is authoritarianism growing in the name of public health?

50:37-Who can we trust when this pandemic is over?

54:54-Industries? roles in the pandemic

 

Dr. Katz discusses his proposal for "total harm minimization", a plan that seeks to protect people both from Covid-19 and the host of ills that result from social isolation and economic shut-down.

 

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2020 - 04:29 PM.

[Mind]

Wondering why National media sources, "establishment" government health authorities are gung-ho on vaccines and hardly any other solutions to COVID-19 (or any virus, really).

 

Maybe they have financial and other maladaptive incentives?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=97UF836N3zQ

[pamojja]

I don’t think any country has planned for a year long lockdown. It’s mostly 2 months on average. All european countries have already announced lifting it around May, only advising  the fragile to stay ( voluntarily) confined for a couple more months.

 

The problem is the models to justify brude-lockdown do speak of much longer time-periods than 2 months. All European countries announcing lifting, do it because the tide of deaths and infected have already turned. And now it also became apparent that it didn't made any difference with more surgical meassures, or brute lock-down.

 

 

https://www.nytimes....distancing.html

 

There is another and much overlooked liability in this approach. If we succeed in slowing the spread of coronavirus from torrent to trickle, then when does the society-wide disruption end? When will it be safe for healthy children and younger teachers to return to school, much less older teachers and teachers with chronic illnesses? When will it be safe for the work force to repopulate the workplace, given that some are in the at-risk group for severe infection?

 

When would it be safe to visit loved ones in nursing homes or hospitals? When once again might grandparents pick up their grandchildren?

 

There are many possible answers, but the most likely one is: We just don’t know. We could wait until there’s an effective treatment, a vaccine or transmission rates fall to undetectable levels. But what if those are a year or more away? Then we suffer the full extent of societal disruption the virus might cause for all those months. The costs, not just in money, are staggering to contemplate.

 

So what is the alternative? Well, we could focus our resources on testing and protecting, in every way possible, all those people the data indicate are especially vulnerable to severe infection: the elderly, people with chronic diseases and the immunologically compromised. Those that test positive could be the first to receive the first approved antivirals. The majority, testing negative, could benefit from every resource we have to shield them from exposure.

 

To be sure, while mortality is highly concentrated in a select groups, it does not stop there. There are poignant, heart-rending tales of severe infection and death from Covid-19 in younger people for reasons we do not know. If we found over time that younger people were also especially vulnerable to the virus, we could expand the at-risk category and extend protections to them.

 

We have already identified many of the especially vulnerable. A detailed list of criteria could be generated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated daily and circulated widely to health professionals and the public alike. The at-risk population is already subject to the protections of our current policies: social distancing, medical attention for fever or cough. But there are several major problems with subsuming the especially vulnerable within the policies now applied to all.

 

First, the medical system is being overwhelmed by those in the lower-risk group seeking its resources, limiting its capacity to direct them to those at greatest need. Second, health professionals are burdened not just with work demands, but also with family demands as schools, colleges and businesses are shuttered. Third, sending everyone home to huddle together increases mingling across generations that will expose the most vulnerable.

 

As the virus is already circulating widely in the United States, with many cases going undetected, this is like sending innumerable lit matches into small patches of tinder. Right now, it is harder, not easier, to keep the especially vulnerable isolated from all others — including members of their own families — who may have been exposed to the virus.

 

If we were to focus on the especially vulnerable, there would be resources to keep them at home, provide them with needed services and coronavirus testing, and direct our medical system to their early care. I would favor proactive rather than reactive testing in this group, and early use of the most promising anti-viral drugs. This cannot be done under current policies, as we spread our relatively few test kits across the expanse of a whole population, made all the more anxious because society has shut down.

 

This focus on a much smaller portion of the population would allow most of society to return to life as usual and perhaps prevent vast segments of the economy from collapsing. Healthy children could return to school and healthy adults go back to their jobs. Theaters and restaurants could reopen, though we might be wise to avoid very large social gatherings like stadium sporting events and concerts.

 

So long as we were protecting the truly vulnerable, a sense of calm could be restored to society. Just as important, society as a whole could develop natural herd immunity to the virus. The vast majority of people would develop mild coronavirus infections, while medical resources could focus on those who fell critically ill. Once the wider population had been exposed and, if infected, had recovered and gained natural immunity, the risk to the most vulnerable would fall dramatically.

 

A pivot right now from trying to protect all people to focusing on the most vulnerable remains entirely plausible. With each passing day, however, it becomes more difficult. The path we are on may well lead to uncontained viral contagion and monumental collateral damage to our society and economy. A more surgical approach is what we need.

 

Edited by pamojja, 19 April 2020 - 04:48 PM.

[Mind]

Kyle Bass blames China.

 

https://www.zerohedg...nment-knowingly

 

 

 

They are the most lying, coercive, manipulative government in the world, and you and I both know, they are committing the largest crimes against humanity prior to this outbreak of the sinister virus that God knows where it really came from—somewhere between the Wuhan wet market, the Chinese Center for Disease Control, which is right across the street, or maybe 20 miles north, at the Biosafety Level 4 lab in China. But the bottom line is, this disease has been unleashed on the rest of the world, and it was knowingly done so. And that’s why I’m so visibly upset about this.

 

[Hip]

The problem is the models to justify brude-lockdown do speak of much longer time-periods than 2 months. All European countries announcing lifting, do it because the tide of deaths and infected have already turned. And now it also became apparent that it didn't made any difference with more surgical meassures, or brute lock-down.

 
Those of us who have seen the nonsense you have posted on the Phoenix Rising forum are well aware of your bizarre view that lockdown, social distancing and other substantial measures to control coronavirus make no difference, and that the pandemic is now just diminishing by its own accord.
 
And you wheel out some old retired geriatric academic, appropriately called Professor Knut, to support your silly ideas.

 

But your ideas are nonsense.

 
And by the way, Professor Knut may well be a nut, but he is not a professor, and his former university has put out a statement that they do not endorse his crazy views:

The opinions that have been expressed by Knut Wittkowski, discouraging social distancing in order to hasten the development of herd immunity to the novel coronavirus, do not represent the views of The Rockefeller University, its leadership, or its faculty.
 
Wittkowski was previously employed by Rockefeller as a biostatistician. He has never held the title of professor at Rockefeller.

Source: The Rockefeller University releases statement concerning Knut Wittkowski

 

 

 

We are at the very early stages of the pandemic, according to antibody testing of the population. For example, the Santa Clara study indicates that only 3% of the population are infected. The German Gangelt study indicates that 15% of the local population are infected (but Gangelt was a hard hit town, so its coronavirus prevalence will be higher than average).

 

It's only when around 80% of the population are infected will the pandemic have run its course. If we were in the later phases of the pandemic, you would get some natural slowdown (because as more and more people become infected, the virus finds it harder and harder to find new hosts). But you do not get this slowdown at the early phases, when the vast majority of the population are still uninfected, and the virus has ample opportunities to find new hosts to infect.

 

Thus if there is any slowdown, it's almost certainly due to the controlling measures put in place.

 

So your bizarre ideas that this pandemic it naturally slowing down and naturally coming to an end on its own accord are totally out of touch with reality.

 

Edited by Hip, 19 April 2020 - 05:19 PM.

[pamojja]

 So your bizarre ideas that this pandemic it naturally slowing down and coming to an end are totally out of touch with reality.

 

Oh Hip. By now I learned that is your style of discussion: heaping up untrue accusations, but never follow up to my replies to the contrary. But just continue with more and more untrue accusations.

 

I till now replyed each accusation with a quote showing your ceaseless accusations to be untrue. You never quote. Of course you don't. You could only do if you take whatever I said out of its context. Which againg could be proven untrue in each case.

 

In fact, that was your style in the thread your alluding to. Again claiming the non-peer reviewed Imperial College Covid model (above in article by Dr. Katz linked to) as the science based for neccesary brude-lockdowns. You never conceded it to be mere hypothesis in that other thread. But just insisted on without any evidence.
 

[pamojja]

And by the way, Professor Knut may well be a nut, but he is not a professor, and his former university has put out a statement that they do not endorse his crazy views:

 

Other than you, always arguing on account of ad hominems, I actually testeed Wittkowski's explanations here and at PR:

 

If one checks the wikipedia pages of coronavirus pandemic, almost all countries which do have a dedictated cart for daily deaths do already show declines. I add below in the order of first covid death:

 

China:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China - Wikipedia.png

 

Phillipines:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines - Wikipedia.png

 

Spain:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Spain - Wikipedia.png

 

France:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in France - Wikipedia.png

 

Iran:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran - Wikipedia.png

 

South Korea:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea - Wikipedia.png

 

Italy:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy - Wikipedia.png

 

US:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States - Wikipedia.png

 

Thailand:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Thailand - Wikipedia.png

 

Iraq:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iraq - Wikipedia.png

 

Switzerland:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Switzerland - Wikipedia.png

 

UK:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia.png

 

Netherlands:

Screenshot_2020-04-14 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Netherlands - Wikipedia.png

 

 

I did try to test Prov. Wittkovskis observation from 35 years as an epidemiologst, that respiratory disease epidemics would always decline naturally. And if strict lockdown would have been effective, than it would have to show in a marked decline 17 days after. Since it takes in average 17 days from infection to death (for those who indeed become that severe, since the majority don't experience any symptoms anyway).

I could identify 25 countries with lockdown and daily deaths plateauing, in average after 14 days.
On the opposite site could only identify 6 countries where no information about lockdown has been puplished.

The difference from the first covid-death untill deaths plateaued between these 2 groups was 30 days with lockdown, and 33 days without lockdown.

That in itself is not a significant difference at all. Especially since it's a comparison of 25 to only 6 very disparate countries.

Also at this point it simply can not be known, if regions now with lower deaths wont experience a much worse second peak. Especially with desparate attemps to flatten the curve (ie. strict lockdown, instead of sensible meassures shown to work already for example in Taiwan, South Korea, Hongkong and Japan).