Why bother testing when an effective remedy can be distributed to the whole population? Why waste the time pondering over such statistical models. Gosh it spreads just like the common cold - what the hell do you expect? All this technobabble moving from 'containment' phase to 'delay' phases is just the government/medical experts vain attempt to maintain their own credibility. Simply a waste of time.
Covid-19 News
- Alan Smith
- Closed
-
-
Why bother testing when an effective remedy can be distributed to the whole population? Why waste the time pondering over such statistical models. Gosh it spreads just like the common cold - what the hell do you expect? All this technobabble moving from 'containment' phase to 'delay' phases is just the government/medical experts vain attempt to maintain their own credibility. Simply a waste of time.
The edition of the "instruction leaflet" will take significant time. They will discuss sentences like this: Don't feed it to the dog or the gold fish.
The other point is; Does a 6'000 burger body (250kg) need the same dose as Oma happy with 50 kilos? shall we take it after the beer and before the joint/line?
And most important: Why not just take it without testing for covid-19 as some here propose!!
-
Simple to work out dosage from body weight and instruction sheets are already available listing side-effects etc because both chloroquine and other analogues have been used to treat other conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus as well as malaria over very long extended periods of years, not just a few weeks to counteract a virus infection. Take it with your coke beer or hash if u like but maybe give the crystal meth a miss! We all know its used prophylactically for malaria so why not for coronavirus so testing would be unnecessary as you say. Most likely its been in general use and freely prescribed in China - there have been reports of over-doses already which were non-fatal. I intend to take it if I develop coronavirus symptoms - dry cough/sore throat/fever and will post here how effective it is along with any other local volunteers up for a clinical trial. Nothing to lose and everything to gain! Treat it as a COVID-19 replication!
-
To counter my own point, How can we really trust China's numbers completely?
We can trust them for the following reasons:
1. The W.H.O. experts such as Aylward checked and double checked them, and asked many questions to many people to confirm them. They are good at finding problems with statistics.
2. China is a totalitarian dictatorship, but not as bad as it was under Mao, or North Korea or Japan in the 1930s. Dictatorships are not all the same, any more than democracies are. There is considerably more freedom in China than there use to be, and the internet is everywhere. If the numbers were wrong, people would be talking about it, and word would get out.
3. We know their methods work because Japan and S. Korea paid close attention and used many of the same methods successfully.
It does appear that things have gotten markedly better there. But have they really have arrested the spread of the virus like they want us to believe? How do we take what the Chinese government says to the bank?
We should doubt what the government says, but the scientific and medical establishments are honest.
-
so you mean for not having better we should use surrogates?
No, I mean the trendline is exponential, with same formula for the last 12 days. Nothing has changed the situation. No effective steps have been taken to slow down the epidemic. You can see that clearly in the numbers. Today's increase, 572, was exactly in line with the trend:
-
LENR to the rescue.
-
No, I mean the trendline is exponential, with same formula for the last 12 days. Nothing has changed the situation. No effective steps have been taken to slow down the epidemic. You can see that clearly in the numbers. Today's increase, 572, was exactly in line with the trend:
Means nothing. Do you know of linear epidemics? I don't, but I am not an expert.
-
Display More
The W.H.O. does not approve drugs. It has no such authority. National governments do that.
Profit has nothing to do with public health. Vaccines are by far the cheapest way to reduce disease. They are orders of magnitude cheaper than any other method. Vaccine manufacturers make little profit, for various reasons. Yet no government is discouraging vaccination, and after one is developed for this disease, you can be sure it will be mass produced and deployed worldwide as soon as possible.
You claim there are effective treatments: ACE receptor inhibitors, chloroquine and monolauri. Perhaps you are right. If so, I expect the experts will agree with you and these will be used. On the other hand, if the experts disagree, you are probably wrong. Not necessarily wrong, but probably. That's how science usually works. That is one of the most important lessons of cold fusion: the experts are right. People outside the field, including scientists from other fields who not experts are wrong. People who do not know the detailed history of cold fusion sometimes think this history shows you cannot trust experts. Or that science, replication and peer-review do not work. That is the opposite of the real lessons. Cold fusion was rejected by people such as Robert Park because they abandoned the scientific method. They replaced it with emotion, academic politics, and lies. If only the scientists had remained true to their own discipline, we would have cold fusion powered automobiles by now.
As Martin Fleischmann said, "we are painfully conventional people." We are the conservatives who stick to the scientific method, to the facts, and to rock solid established theory such as the laws of thermodynamics. Robert Park and the other major scientists who attack cold fusion are from the lunatic fringe. They are the wild radicals who would overturn traditions. There are some strange people associated with cold fusion. New science always attracts such people. But all the major researchers I know, and have known, such as Fleischmann, Bockris, Miles and Srinivasan were very conservative, traditional scientists.
sometimes outside experts or those with more general or less rigid foundational perseption can cause radically new perspectives on the same feild while remaining "conservative scientists" themselves.
Display Morethis is more than an idea..
long before coronavirus.. and probably long after.. as long as the dragon lives..
Victims of the dragonhttps://www.victimsofcommunism…id-availability-of-organs
"Highly anomalous transplant activity indicating an abundant and ready organ supply"
This also reminds me of all the missing children and kidnappings that are happening in poorer or minority communities around the western world. Young organs have more stem cells, less genetic mutations, while less homogenised genetic variety leads to higher chances of healthier organs as well. Hope humane diverse thoughts become prevalent in the countries and people responsible. Have a restful weekend all, praying for health and free breathing air passages for y'all!
-
This also reminds me of all the missing children and kidnappings that are happening in poorer or minority communities around the western world. Young organs have more stem cells, less genetic mutations, while less homogenised genetic variety leads to higher chances of healthier organs as well. Hope humane diverse thoughts become prevalent in the countries and people responsible. Have a restful weekend all, praying for health and free breathing air passages for y'all!
Good one. We started from sulphur concentration over Wuhan and now we are here. This can potentially trump Hillary pizza shop child exploitation hoax. Info Wars should be envy.
-
Means nothing. Do you know of linear epidemics? I don't, but I am not an expert.
It means the natural trend with the same infection rate is continuing. Nothing has slowed it. The shape of epidemics is well known. You don't need to be an expert; just read the New York Times or any other mass media. Look at the graphs from the Times I uploaded today.
-
It means the natural trend with the same infection rate is continuing. Nothing has slowed it. The shape of epidemics is well known. You don't need to be an expert; just read the New York Times or any other mass media. Look at the graphs from the Times I uploaded today.
Like many natural processes it is Gaussian.
-
This might seem like a stupid idea but can we create a "checkin" box where the lenr forum regulars can show they are still with us an healthy?
-
JedRothwell everyone's worst case prediction is 70-80 percent of population exposed. The question nobody knows is how many are asymptomatic. This can drive mortality rate significantly down. You would say that blanket tests found noting I would argue how Canada's PM wife contracted virus on short UK visit.
-
JedRothwell btw did stats account to the fact that testing also grows exponentially?
-
finding more positive tests my change the CFR percentages. However, it does not change the "growth factor" of the exponential projection of the total deaths. notice the slope of the curve (number of deaths vs time) seems to be increasing.
even in the log plot of deaths you can see the growth factor seems to be increasing
I do not understand the people that think that identifying more active cases does anything to change the total death numbers. … so there is a smaller percentage of deaths per cases, but more cases. The number of dead remains the same.
-
Good one. We started from sulphur concentration over Wuhan and now we are here. This can potentially trump Hillary pizza shop child exploitation hoax. Info Wars should be envy.
Wasn't stating facts lol just hypothetical realistic causations. Quite far fetched ones at that.
-
Jacinda Ardern goes early and goes hard ... cancels the cricket.
All NZ visitors to quarantine for 14 days
https://www.foxsports.com.au/c…acf4cdbfe0195bc883b4db52f
"We must go hard, and go early, and do everything we can to protect New Zealanders' health.
That is exactly why, to tackle this global pandemic, Cabinet made far-reaching and unprecedented decisions today," she said.
-
Display More
No, that makes no sense. That would be the most lethal outcome. If 50% of the population is going to get it, you want them to get it over the longest period of time possible. You want to stretch it out. Otherwise, the hospitals are overwhelmed. Here is an interactive graph for the U.S. showing how that works:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera…virus-trump-response.html
(Note that N.Y. Times articles about the coronavirus are no longer behind the paywall.)
Here are the two key graphs showing the effect of stretching out the epidemic:
Well, that is superficial.
Of course I know the hospitals will be overwhelmed issue. And the "flatten the peak" issue. But the numbers don't add up. Not sure if you have done the calcs but the problem is that Summer is a better time to do this than winter, and a lock-down that does not give herd immunity just delays something much worse this winter. So getting up to a just manageable level of cases ASAP is arguable best strategy if you can lock things down at the right time. Even then, the time required to get herd immunity woithout overwhelming hospitals is much too long unless we have a lot of "silent" cases where people become immune without any symptoms, which seems not so likely though I'm not sure we have clear evidence yet from Italy, and not sure evidence from China alone is reliable.
But it is true we as yet don't really know enough, so all this is guesswork.
My personal solution would be to separate population into "at high risk" and others. Encourage epidemic to burn through others ASAP while asking those at high risk to self-isolate and providing a lot of support for this. That is I expect what the UK will end up doing.
You get a high case rate but lower medical needs per case from the not at high risk group. When they have mostly had the disease you can try for a general lock-down and trace to reduce occurence, and then those at higher risk need no longer self-isolate so much.
-
Wasn't stating facts lol just hypothetical realistic causations. Quite far fetched ones at that.
I didn't realize you are keen on 'hypothetical realidsm' - not my forte
-
I do not understand the people that think that identifying more active cases does anything to change the total death numbers. … so there is a smaller percentage of deaths per cases, but more cases. The number of dead remains the same.
it reduces mortality rate which is currently 10-20 times of that of a flu
