Coronavirus Outbreak...

[simplicio]

A brain dead response if there ever was one since touching something that is contaminated is one of the chief means of transmitting it. Why else are they urging folks to stop touching their own face sport?

So do you agree with Pixie's argument? That is the context, especially the exchange with carpediem.

Shopping carts are potentially touched by hundreds of persons, and come complete with fecal material and other bugs to small to see.

[lilpixieofterror]

An answer quite consistent with a Christian worldview!

Life is imperfect. A doctor knows that in a mass casualty event, picking those most likely to survive and doing what you can for those you don’t pick, is the best you can do.

[oxmixmudd]

The reality bomb is about to explode; good luck everyone.

Unfortunately with some country's medical systems overrun, we are seeing a rise in overall mortality rates. This at a time when increased testing should tend to push that statistic down.

Naive (deaths total/cases total) = 4% ( up from ~3.3% just a few days ago - this number has risen consistently since January)

Worst case (deaths total/recovered cases+deaths total) = 8.4% (this had been trending down, and this is the worst it has been in a month (IIRC))

And, this does not include today's numbers from Italy yet, which tends to report later in the day.

South Korea, whose younger population in terms of confirmed disease and much higher testing ratio had been running .7% a week ago is now up to .97%.

Germany actually now takes the low number for countries with a significant outbreak - the lowest value seen so far: .26%

UK: 3.5%, France 2.2%, Spain 4.4%, Iran 6.1%, Italy 7.7%, USA 1.9%

China, which is only reporting a small number of new cases per day now - basically it is contained there but not eliminated - stands at 3.9% overall.

There are countries with very low mortality. Russia, interestingly, with only 93 cases, has reported 0 deaths so far.

[carpedm9587]

It is, you did an Alex Jones and don’t even notice. You selected a narrative you wished true and ignored what you didn’t want to hear. How much complaining have you done when every president, since Clinton, was busy selling out to China?

I attempt to assess each president on their own merits. What I like I express; what I dislike I express. It happens that I dislike more about Trump than I like, for reasons I have previously expressed.

My guess is that you didn’t care because your guy was in power?

No. Reagan is actually one of my favorite presidents. So was Obama. Clinton is lower on the list. Bush I and II even lower. Trump is at the bottom in company with Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan.

How about when Obama had the AP wiretapped and had a journalist arrested? How much complaining did you do than?

Obama's use of the espionage act to go after leakers crossed the lines, IMO, numerous times. I understand his desire to protect classified information, but the fourth estate also exists to keep us informed on the inner workings of our government and to ask the hard questions. In an ideal world, problems associated with classified information would follow the whistleblower path outlined in our laws, and the rest would be freely "leaked" to the fourth estate. If Obama had kept his activities to those who went the fourth estate route for classified information, I would have been fine with his choices. He did not - and I did not approve when he did not. The same is true of Trump.

In general, I think it is a good policy to test one's perspectives by putting the objected to thing in a different context. If I am outraged at something Trump did, I ask how I would be reacting if Obama did it. If my reaction is the same, I consider the reaction more justified. If I find I am reacting differently, I am forced to question the original reaction. The same is true about things I praise my favorites for. I ask how I would feel if Trump did it. If I am still praising, then I am more confident in my original reaction.

BTW, my list of "favorite presidents: would include Obama, Reagan, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson.

Like I said, selective facts. It isn’t hard to spin it that Obama was the biggest threat, or Bush, or Romney, or McCain, or really any President/candidate you don’t like.

I'm sure that is true. I make every effort not to "spin." Trump is my least favorite president of all time, and my reasons for holding that position are based in his own words and actions. I find him dangerous in a way that is not completely unique to him, but are combined in a way that is fairly unique and more real to me because he is president in my lifetime. It is also more of an issue because he lives in a different time than his predecessors - a time of instant global communication.

You said you would have no problem with your nest egg losing, if that met Trump wasn’t re-elected. How many people depend upon their nest eggs? How many retirees would lose everything, if that happens? It’s your words, so nope, not false at all. You really don’t mind if millions lose their 401k, IRA, or jobs due to falling stock prices and economic problems, as long as Trump isn’t re-elected. That’s sick.

Your opinion is noted. Sometimes, we have to suffer to a bit to learn. This country put this man in office, and we have to accept the consequences of our choices. I am willing to accept that pain to see him out of office. I recognize that a lot of people will be hurt - some seriously. Indeed, some people will lose their lives due to the choices this man has made and continues to make. The damage is both short-term and long-term. If we have to pay more short-term, perhaps we will pay less long-term. Another four years of this man would, IMO, be disastrous for our country for a long, long period of time. The long term suffering would be far greater than the short term suffering required to get him out of office.

I will usually choose the path that promises the least pain and the least suffering so long as it does not conflict with my moral framework. If you find that "sick," so be it. It seems fairly rational to me.

[carpedm9587]

Many of these people are exposed too. How many people walk through a Wal-Mart on a daily bases? How many workers can be exposed to an outbreak? Yet these jobs still need done too.

Yes, they do.

[carpedm9587]

I think the difference is that healthcare and emergency workers knowingly put themselves in harms way. For a supermarket employee, any exposure is incidental.

Exactly.

[carpedm9587]

Canada is closing its border and Mexico has threatened to close theirs saying they don't want infected Americans coming into the country. There's some weapons grade irony there.

It is my understanding that the Canadian border closing excludes U.S. citizens. Canada is rejecting people from other countries passing through the U.S. - not U.S. citizens - so far.

[Christianbookworm]

Italy is worse than Iran? Is it because Italy has a older population? I thought Iran was a developing country? Real life Pandemic(there's a board game with the goal of stoppinga pandemic and a web game with the goal of the pandemic wiping out all life on earth) is a horrible game.

[simplicio]

CBRN - Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear. ItÂ’s been in use for at least 20 years now.



When biological containment, is required, yes. Have you never been in a hospital? When a hospital receives someone with a commutable disease, they have a required containment protocol, to prevent the spread of the illness. So if your goal is to prevent the spread of a disease, than yes, PPE is important.



It’s been part of our biannual training, with units requiring to be certified in operations, every two years, for at least 20 years now. Decontamination is in AFPM 10-100.



If they are going into a room, where a patient is supposed to be on lock down or cleaning machines that came from this area, yes they will.



Yet, where are people getting sick and exposed at? A healthcare worker is trained to deal with this, most are not.

Have you ever been in a hospital, or talked anyone who works in a hospital? The full gear we see on TV is rare, that was the problem with Ebola in the US. Very few hospitals do that stuff. And without clear direction from CDC, individuals did not think to don the gear in spite of the mythos surrounding ebola.

You asked why hospitals use gloves, masks, masks and suits. The fact is that they don't, except when needed. And that was not really taught except in passing back in the day, and apparently it is still not taught today, from your answers. I do hope the Army has their heads out of their butts and updates their training. There are different levels of MOPP gear (I don't know the current lingo), for various levels of threat. And seldom do hospitals face the highest levels of threat.

You realize that now you are using the language of going into a lock down room, where earlier you were speaking of wiping down carts in a supermarket. I do not know if it will be a requirement to use high level protective gear to clean machines, maybe a poster who works in a hospital setting will chime in.

An individual might be able to fight off an infection after exposure, but is still more likely to get sick with increased number of viruses. What type of training do you think health care providers get that trains them to avoid viruses? The most important thing is gloves and hand washing, and no amount of training gets people to wash their hands effectively or after going potty.

[carpedm9587]

Have you ever been in a hospital, or talked anyone who works in a hospital? The full gear we see on TV is rare, that was the problem with Ebola in the US. Very few hospitals do that stuff. And without clear direction from CDC, individuals did not think to don the gear in spite of the mythos surrounding ebola.

You asked why hospitals use gloves, masks, masks and suits. The fact is that they don't, except when needed. And that was not really taught except in passing back in the day, and apparently it is still not taught today, from your answers. I do hope the Army has their heads out of their butts and updates their training. There are different levels of MOPP gear (I don't know the current lingo), for various levels of threat. And seldom do hospitals face the highest levels of threat.

You realize that now you are using the language of going into a lock down room, where earlier you were speaking of wiping down carts in a supermarket. I do not know if it will be a requirement to use high level protective gear to clean machines, maybe a poster who works in a hospital setting will chime in.

An individual might be able to fight off an infection after exposure, but is still more likely to get sick with increased number of viruses. What type of training do you think health care providers get that trains them to avoid viruses? The most important thing is gloves and hand washing, and no amount of training gets people to wash their hands effectively or after going potty.

That last line caught my eye. It triggered a memory of a podcast I listened to a few years ago about an experiment that was done in hospitals to increase hand washing by personnel, which was below 50% engagement. I don't remember what strategy they used (cameras? peer shaming? bonuses?) but I do remember that it pushed compliance to the mid-high 90s percentage-wise. I've tried to find the podcast, but I cannot seem to locate it. I think it was in Freakonomics (an excellent podcast), but I'm not 100% sure.

And it just dawns on me that all of those "not sures" makes this post mostly useless.

Oh well...I wrote it...might as well post it. Maybe someone else will find it.

[Mountain Man]

98 to 99% of people in the US exhibiting flu like symptoms and have been tested are negative for the Chinese coronavirus. 96% in South Korea.

DR. BIRX: ...in South Korea there are 250,000-plus tests. About 96-plus percent were negative. So -- and that was with symptoms.

So we're working very hard integrating everything they have learned about symptoms and screening, and that is going into the development of this website. So it's not just a simple checkbox website. It's actually going to go through critical symptoms. And that's why we're giving ourselves the weekend to get it put up.

So far, in the United States, from LabCorp and Quest, they're running about a 99 to 98 percent negativity.

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject...pen-1842367021

[carpedm9587]

98 to 99% of people in the US exhibiting flu like symptoms and have been tested are negative for the Chinese coronavirus. 96% in South Korea.

DR. BIRX: ...in South Korea there are 250,000-plus tests. About 96-plus percent were negative. So -- and that was with symptoms.

So we're working very hard integrating everything they have learned about symptoms and screening, and that is going into the development of this website. So it's not just a simple checkbox website. It's actually going to go through critical symptoms. And that's why we're giving ourselves the weekend to get it put up.

So far, in the United States, from LabCorp and Quest, they're running about a 99 to 98 percent negativity.

https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject...pen-1842367021

OK - I'm a little confused. The quotes in the box do not appear to be in the linked article. Where are you getting these negative test statistics?

Also, the 98% and 99% numbers are in a vacuum. To know the impact of the coronavirus, we don't need a snapshot in time. We need a trendline that shows the rate of spread in the population. We are late in the flu season (which generally stretches from the start of fall to the end of spring), and in the beginning of the coronavirus spread (which started, as far as we know, in mid January). It is to be expected that anyone with flu symptoms is, right now, more likely to actually have the flu than coronavirus. The important questions are 1) how aggressively is coronavirus spreading and b) what is its mortality (which can be different by demographics) and 3) how do we best inhibit its spread, and 4) how do we treat it? (not necessarily in that order!).

ETA: I found the text you quoted in this press briefing.

[lilpixieofterror]

I attempt to assess each president on their own merits. What I like I express; what I dislike I express. It happens that I dislike more about Trump than I like, for reasons I have previously expressed.

So you have an opinion, not based in fact, but in assumptions and assertions.

No. Reagan is actually one of my favorite presidents. So was Obama. Clinton is lower on the list. Bush I and II even lower. Trump is at the bottom in company with Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan.

You have this habit of treating your opinions as facts and pretending they are proved and Un refutable when they are not. I see more opinions, but very little fact. As an example, the rise of China didn’t start with Trump, but started decades ago and has continued throughout the lifetime of my generation. Companies transferred manufacturing to China, in the 80 and 90’s while the Regan, Bush 1, and Clinton administrations did little to nothing to stop it. So sorry, blaming Trump for something going on for the past 40 years is absurd, yet you seem blissfully unaware on that very important detail. The west sold itself out to China long before Trump announced his presidential bid.

Obama's use of the espionage act to go after leakers crossed the lines, IMO, numerous times. I understand his desire to protect classified information, but the fourth estate also exists to keep us informed on the inner workings of our government and to ask the hard questions. In an ideal world, problems associated with classified information would follow the whistleblower path outlined in our laws, and the rest would be freely "leaked" to the fourth estate. If Obama had kept his activities to those who went the fourth estate route for classified information, I would have been fine with his choices. He did not - and I did not approve when he did not. The same is true of Trump.

As far as I’m aware, Trump hasn’t arrested journalist or wiretapped their offices. So why are you blaming Trump, for what Obama and other presidents did? Trump is hardly the first one to act against the press. John Adams jailed journalist, was he also a threat too? Abe Lincoln also had a hand in jailing journalist as well. Was he a threat? Like I said, your opinions are not based in fact, but in your own dislike of Trump. I can take any facts I desire and paint almost any President or candidate as satan himself. It really isn’t a hard task, in the slightest.

In general, I think it is a good policy to test one's perspectives by putting the objected to thing in a different context. If I am outraged at something Trump did, I ask how I would be reacting if Obama did it. If my reaction is the same, I consider the reaction more justified. If I find I am reacting differently, I am forced to question the original reaction. The same is true about things I praise my favorites for. I ask how I would feel if Trump did it. If I am still praising, then I am more confident in my original reaction.

And how outraged are you that wars on the press are an American presidential tradition, going back to America’s founders? How outraged are you that our presidents and businesses have been selling out to China, for the past 40 years? Yet you’re outraged at Trump, for doing what other presidents have done, sometimes going back centuries.

BTW, my list of "favorite presidents: would include Obama, Reagan, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson.

Presidents which include:

-People who arrested journalist who were critical of them.
-One who locked up thousands of citizens for the crime of having ancestors from Japan.
-One that lied about his disability.
-one who ran on limited government, but expanded government as soon as he was in power.
-One who has the bull dog personality, of Trump. That helped a rebellion, so he could get his civil engineering project built.

I can find serious faults with every president and make similar list to what you have about Trump. It’s pretty easy to accomplish really.

I'm sure that is true. I make every effort not to "spin." Trump is my least favorite president of all time, and my reasons for holding that position are based in his own words and actions. I find him dangerous in a way that is not completely unique to him, but are combined in a way that is fairly unique and more real to me because he is president in my lifetime. It is also more of an issue because he lives in a different time than his predecessors - a time of instant global communication.

Regan and Teddy Roosevelt are really not that different from Trump. Many political elite saw both these men as dangerous, yet you seem to think otherwise, why?

Your opinion is noted. Sometimes, we have to suffer to a bit to learn. This country put this man in office, and we have to accept the consequences of our choices. I am willing to accept that pain to see him out of office. I recognize that a lot of people will be hurt - some seriously. Indeed, some people will lose their lives due to the choices this man has made and continues to make. The damage is both short-term and long-term. If we have to pay more short-term, perhaps we will pay less long-term. Another four years of this man would, IMO, be disastrous for our country for a long, long period of time. The long term suffering would be far greater than the short term suffering required to get him out of office.

Similar claims were made about Regan and Teddy Roosevelt before they were president. Did it come to pass or did these two provide important leadership, in important historical times?

I will usually choose the path that promises the least pain and the least suffering so long as it does not conflict with my moral framework. If you find that "sick," so be it. It seems fairly rational to me.

Wishing people will suffer, so your preferred politicians will win, is sick.

[lilpixieofterror]

Have you ever been in a hospital, or talked anyone who works in a hospital? The full gear we see on TV is rare, that was the problem with Ebola in the US. Very few hospitals do that stuff. And without clear direction from CDC, individuals did not think to don the gear in spite of the mythos surrounding ebola.

I wasn’t aware that gloves, face mask, and aprons was full gear. Has that changed lately?

You asked why hospitals use gloves, masks, masks and suits. The fact is that they don't, except when needed. And that was not really taught except in passing back in the day, and apparently it is still not taught today, from your answers. I do hope the Army has their heads out of their butts and updates their training. There are different levels of MOPP gear (I don't know the current lingo), for various levels of threat. And seldom do hospitals face the highest levels of threat.

You and I obviously have a very different definition of ‘suits’. Suit can range from full MOPP gear to those yellow, throw away suits, with disposable mask and gloves.

You realize that now you are using the language of going into a lock down room, where earlier you were speaking of wiping down carts in a supermarket. I do not know if it will be a requirement to use high level protective gear to clean machines, maybe a poster who works in a hospital setting will chime in.

You and I are using different definitions here. No where did I say full MOPP gear, what I original said was a mask and gloves. Are you trying to blow my original words, to absurd proportions, to troll because you have nothing worth saying?

An individual might be able to fight off an infection after exposure, but is still more likely to get sick with increased number of viruses. What type of training do you think health care providers get that trains them to avoid viruses? The most important thing is gloves and hand washing, and no amount of training gets people to wash their hands effectively or after going potty.

Doesn’t answer a word I said. Come back when you’re not trolling.

[carpedm9587]

So you have an opinion, not based in fact, but in assumptions and assertions.

I have opinions rooted in facts. I've provided those facts in previous posts, but you are welcome to ask about any of them if you wish.

You have this habit of treating your opinions as facts and pretending they are proved and Un refutable when they are not. I see more opinions, but very little fact. As an example, the rise of China didn’t start with Trump, but started decades ago and has continued throughout the lifetime of my generation. Companies transferred manufacturing to China, in the 80 and 90’s while the Regan, Bush 1, and Clinton administrations did little to nothing to stop it. So sorry, blaming Trump for something going on for the past 40 years is absurd, yet you seem blissfully unaware on that very important detail. The west sold itself out to China long before Trump announced his presidential bid.

I am not aware that I claimed the rise of China started with Trump, so I have no response.

As far as I’m aware, Trump hasn’t arrested journalist or wiretapped their offices. So why are you blaming Trump, for what Obama and other presidents did? Trump is hardly the first one to act against the press. John Adams jailed journalist, was he also a threat too? Abe Lincoln also had a hand in jailing journalist as well. Was he a threat? Like I said, your opinions are not based in fact, but in your own dislike of Trump. I can take any facts I desire and paint almost any President or candidate as satan himself. It really isn’t a hard task, in the slightest.

I am not aware that I claimed that Trump jailed anyone, so I have no response.

And how outraged are you that wars on the press are an American presidential tradition, going back to America’s founders? How outraged are you that our presidents and businesses have been selling out to China, for the past 40 years? Yet you’re outraged at Trump, for doing what other presidents have done, sometimes going back centuries.

Almost every president has expressed frustration at some part of the press, throughout history. That is natural. Even Jefferson, who once wrote, "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter," also wrote, "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." It requires looking at each case to see if the criticism of the press is warranted, and that will indeed inevitably involve some degree of personal opinion. In Trump's case (and it's not just Trump - Fox and CNN are equally to be faulted, IMO - among a large cast of others), the excess lies in his labeling "fake news" any news story that he simply dislikes, thereby eroding confidence in the function and role of the fourth estate. That function and role is critical to the life of a democracy. He is not the first to do something like this - but he has taken it to an extreme that has lasted the entirety of his candidacy and his presidency. Coupled with his propensity for outright lying (I have not seen a single speech he has made that has not contained a slew of outright falsehoods), I assess him as a highly dangerous president.

Any such assessment necessarily includes an element of opinion. The question is not whether or not there is opinion involved - the question is whether the opinion formed is rooted in broad fact or rooted in selectively chosen facts and nonsense.

Presidents which include:

-People who arrested journalist who were critical of them.
-One who locked up thousands of citizens for the crime of having ancestors from Japan.
-One that lied about his disability.
-one who ran on limited government, but expanded government as soon as he was in power.
-One who has the bull dog personality, of Trump. That helped a rebellion, so he could get his civil engineering project built.

I can find serious faults with every president and make similar list to what you have about Trump. It’s pretty easy to accomplish really.

An interesting list. I absolutely agree that no president is perfect. Indeed, no person is perfect. Each functions in the context of their times and makes choices within that context. Jefferson owned slaves and even had a child by one of them, which I find reprehensible. Obama jailed some journalists in a way I did not agree with. I have little/no problem with FDR "lying about his disability." Indeed, the press largely cooperated with that lie. History suggests his decision was largely to avoid the perception of a "weak" president. Even if he was simply vain about his disability, it's an issue that does not concern me over-much. We all have elements of pride - it's a human condition. I am far more concerned about his decision to inter the Japanese, which I likewise find reprehensible. The issue of limited versus expanded government concerns me not at all. First, what one says in a campaign often fails to manifest in office: campaigning is different from being in office. In the former you dream and express those hopes and priorities. In the latter you face the realities and adjust (hopefully) as needed. I'm assuming the bull dog reference is to TDR? Why is a "bull dog personality" an issue? I don't recall ever saying that Trump's "bull dog personality" was something I objected to, so I have no response.

Regan and Teddy Roosevelt are really not that different from Trump. Many political elite saw both these men as dangerous, yet you seem to think otherwise, why?

Actually, I find Trump to be VASTLY different from either of those men in some important and significant ways. TDR's approach was captured in his mantra "speak softly and carry a big stick." Reagan was the consummate diplomat, alliance builder, and yet managed to challenge those who internationally required challenging. Trump alienates our allies and expresses admiration for dictators and strong men. Neither TDR nor Reagan publicly lied at a rate that was anywhere near Trump's rate of outright lying. Both TDR and Reagan expressed and acted on a "country first" mentality - even if I did not always agree with how that translated to policy. Trump is a "Trump first" president. It is clear in his tweets, his speeches, and his incessant megalomania and narcissism.

Most importantly, to me, is the issue of truth. Our founders understood that democracy is dependent on an educated an informed electorate. Neither Reagan nor TDR attacked U.S. institutions and social norms with outright lies the way Trump does. In an amazing irony, the greatest source of "fake news" in our country, AFAICT, is the person screaming "fake news" most often. When the boundary between truth and fiction is blurred or erased, and untruths are promulgated as truths to the degree Trump is doing it, the risk to our democracy is great. Yes, every politician has spun and sometimes even outright lied. Trump is the first president in my memory who regularly and consistently lies, and then regularly and consistently doubles down on the lie when caught doing it.

Similar claims were made about Regan and Teddy Roosevelt before they were president. Did it come to pass or did these two provide important leadership, in important historical times?

I am sure I am not the first to find someone holding the executive office reprehensible. For every president, you will find their dissenters and some will be vocal and high-placed. Reagan and TDR did indeed provide important leadership, even though I found some of their policies undesirable. Trump is not even close to their ilk, IMO, and for reasons I have already cited. And yes, that is an opinion formed after 5+ years watching this man emerge and then hold office.

Wishing people will suffer, so your preferred politicians will win, is sick.

So, first, I did not "wish people would suffer." I frankly wish this man would step up and be a good president. He consistently doesn't. What I DID say was that I am willing to accept the pain if it means this man will not be in office beyond January, 2020.

Second, your opinion is duly noted.