swiwi_ wrote: » I’ve discovered quite a good pastime. It’s called a “book”. Apparently been around for centuries. You have this person called an “author” who writes down a story on paper, divided into what’s called “chapters”. Seems like there’s actually quite a few books already out there. I can recommend.
Deleted User wrote: » Seems like the world is going into lock down. Will be interesting to see what data this produces in relation to climate change. In three months a virus has brought human civilisation to a stand still.
Former Former wrote: » Technically, no, you just need people to be immune. However, you need 80-90% of the population to be immune to protect the rest of the herd. There's 60 million people in Britain so they need 50 million cases to reach herd immunity. How many deaths will that be? Jesus.
Former Former wrote: » I think you'd be demoralised to know just how few Americans pay any close attention to the news. Trump will find a way to spin this, Facebook will kick in and he'll romp home.
Peter Wehner wrote: The president’s misinformation and mendacity about the coronavirus are head-snapping. He claimed that it was contained in America when it was actually spreading. He claimed that we had “shut it down” when we had not. He claimed that testing was available when it wasn’t. He claimed that the coronavirus will one day disappear “like a miracle”; it won’t. He claimed that a vaccine would be available in months; Fauci says it will not be available for a year or more.
Neil3030 wrote: » Trump actually doesn't spin anything. You have to get inside the heads of his supporters and understand these people and their motivations. They primarily voted for a leader to protect them from the rising tide of modern liberalism. He wasn't elected in spite of saying awful things, he was elected because he said them. As the world focused increasingly on getting equal opportunities to all, he gave his voters a stay of execution; a reprieve from the stress of facing the scary reality that they no longer had a god-given superiority given their ethnicity. Your way is still OK. As long as his voters experience no change in their quality of life, his net value remains positive. Think of the various scandals: Caught saying "grab her by the pussy", how does that hurt the people who voted for him? Calling a bunch of countries, "****-holes", how does that hurt the people who voted for him? Even the impeachment accusation - withholding Ukrainian aid for looking into the Bidens, how does that hurt the people who voted for him? etc. etc. Not only will his voters not care about these things, they will actually get increased value from any rage elicited amongst their enemy - liberals. So Trump actually doesn't need to do any spinning, he just needs to stay on message: "libs are mad, lol". And then once his base are loyal, the GOP, terrified of losing their house/senate seats will cower into supporting him in kind. His value changes completely when his character, actions and political incompetence have direct consequence on the lives of his voters. And that's what's so profoundly different about coronavirus relative to anything else he has gotten away with - he'll now have to explain away something that is directly (if not disproportionately) hurting his voters. And no amount of, "libs are mad, lol" will help him when the bodycount gets into the 10s if not 100s of thousands. When the stock market continues to plummet. When riots break out. Etc. For me, it's not a question of him losing in November. It's a question of just how ruthlessly and precisely the Democrats will press their foot into the neck of the fallen GOP.
molloyjh wrote: » The UK are saying 60%, which is basically 40m. They are then assuming a very conservative 0.7% mortality rate. Meaning about 275-280k dead. Basically a bare minimum of a quarter of a million dead to the virus, but in reality likely to be a lot more if they see this nonsense through. And that doesnt count those who die of preventable causes because of an overwhelmed NHS.
Fausto Tomei wrote: EXPONENTIAL - Update March 14 Today finally positive news from many indicators and I am so happy to be able to observe them, after the nightmare weeks we've lived. 175 dead, many, but less than the two records recorded in the past days. The thing that comforts me most is that, after so many days that didn't happen, patients in ICU grow more than the deceased, even in Lombardy. Signs that new places in IT are finally available and have mitigated the terrible situations that hospital staff have had to face these days. For this reason the graph I want to start today, for the first time, is different from the usual. The first graph is the evolution of the deceased, in a logarithmic scale, divided between Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna and sum of the rest of Italy. For the first time the number of the new deceased in Lombardy strongly breaks the trend. If there is no missing data (like March 1st), this is great news. Even the trend of Emilia-Romagna continues to drop and today's figure is now equal to that of the rest of Italy. The only problem: the growth of the dead in other regions does not mention falling.It is essential that the other regions strictly RESPECT the lockdown, in an even more stringent way than the epicenter regions, because small outbreaks must be exterminated until they are contained. They must be reset, deleted from the map, so they can then focus on helping Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna. I would like to take advantage of this to reiterate a concept, especially valid for other regions: SWABS, SWABS, SWABS. WE WILL NOT get such a chance for long, we can't keep the country still for too long. Let's take advantage of this block to identify all positive cases and isolate them, even beyond lockdown time. I see that some regions of the south are starting to make many swabs, although they don't have many cases yet: GREAT, continue and increase. And let's forget, please, the counterexam of the ISS (Higher Institute of Health), it is useless, over 98 % of the swabs have been confirmed by the counterexam: we use the forces of the ISS to examine other swabs. Today's other graphs: the second is our usual indicator (critical+death), on a linear scale, which further away from the exponential free growth curve of the virus. Today's slope seems luckily to confirm the semi-linear growth of the past days, after yesterday's bad signal (which I think is closely linked to the crazy days of the #milanonononsiferma, exactly 14 days before). Even the logarithmic scale graph confirms that the trend improves: the observed data are starting to dispose below the margin of error of the curve with saturation at 8000 thousand serious cases. Should a downward break happen, hopefully soon, we could start evaluating a lower saturation curve.Notice that tomorrow, despite my bad English, I will try to make a post in this language, which I would pray to turn to all your contacts in UK, any of you have any. Because the strategy they are considering implementing in England is CRIMINAL and I will try to explain why.
sydthebeat wrote: » We don’t think of ourselves as a herd. The idea of the needs of the collective subsuming those of the individual is antithetical to much of western culture. According to the government’s chief scientific adviser, we might have to reacquaint ourselves with the concept. Because to control coronavirus, says Patrick Vallance, will require something called “herd immunity”. It will also require controlling who in the herd it is who gains that immunity. Herd immunity does not require everyone in Britain’s “herd” to be infected. It happens before that, when just a proportion of them have. That proportion is the second most important number in epidemic modelling. To see how it is calculated — and perhaps even changed — requires, however, understanding the most important number in epidemic modelling: R0. R0 is a measure of how infectious a disease is. If R0 is 2, say, then it means that every person infected goes on, on average, to infect two others. If it is 20, as is the case for measles, then each person infects 20 others. R0 is important because so long as it is more than 1 — even if it is 1.000001 — a disease proliferates exponentially. If it is less than 1 — even if it is 0.9999999 — the disease is doomed. Infection rates, though, are not fixed for eternity. Imagine a disease with an R0 of 2, which spreads through a single sneeze. At the start of an outbreak of this disease, you sneeze on two people and infect them. In the middle of an outbreak, it is different. Infected people still sneeze the same amount, but some of those downwind of the sneeze will have had the disease already and be immune. Until the point comes where 50 per cent of the population have been infected. Then if you sneeze on two people on average only one will be susceptible. The infection rate has now dropped from 2 to 1 — and the disease dies out. Herd immunity has been achieved. For coronavirus, R0 is 2.5. That means, in this simplified example, that for every 2.5 people you sneeze on you want 1.5 to already be immune. Herd immunity for coronavirus, then, is 1.5 divided by 2.5, or 60 per cent. If indeed it is the government’s belief that the coronavirus cannot be stopped until we gain herd immunity, then that seems at least superficially to be an astonishing admission: an acceptance that more than 40 million people will get the disease. With even a 1 per cent fatality rate, that is 400,000 deaths. There are good reasons to think it will be nowhere near that bad, and there is one good reason to think it could be worse. One reason it will not be so bad is that the 60 per cent who get it need not be a random sample of the population. Instead, with sensible measures and “cocooning” of those most at risk, it may be possible to protect the elderly and sick even as the virus sweeps through the healthy. The second reason is that the number R0 is just that — a number. People are not equations and cannot be reduced to a single figure. It may well be the case that in 2019 Britain coronavirus had an R0 of 2.5. But in 2020 Britain, a Britain that has reacquainted itself with handwashing and deacquainted itself with air kissing, R0 could well be very different. So what is the reason it could be worse? The entire calculation rests on the idea that people maintain their immunity, that once infected they cannot be reinfected for a long period of time. The problem is, as with so much about the virus, we don’t know enough to be absolutely certain that that is true. What we do know though, is that individualism only goes so far. Coronavirus has reminded us we are indeed a herd — bonded by common obligations. For all the vagaries of disease modelling and complexities of viral mutation, scientists are unanimous on one piece of advice, among the most well-validated in modern medicine. To protect everyone, wash your hands
Dubinusa wrote: » Jaysez!
Dubinusa wrote: » Not sure if you understand how people feel about politics here. I speak for myself and the majority of people I know. We don't trust politicians! None of them. To the point that I believe, if the entire Congress fell into a sinkhole well... so be it. The alternative to Trump was HRD! She is a liar, she's despised and polarizing. Prior to her was Obama, who was awful. He ran against Romney, who is as fake and phony as John Edward's. Before that was McCain, he was a meathead. Then W another twat, who beat Longjawn Kerry and Al Gore, zzz. Anyone who isn't in the mix, in foggy bottom is welcome!. For years, we the people have been given a choice between shyte and more shyte. It's a never ending road of retards. I worked for Trump in 1991. I've met him. My impression is he's obnoxious. But, he always shook my hand and remembered my name. I worked a menial job. But, he took the time to stop and shoot the shyte. You would never get that from Romney, Obama or any other ****bag politician. Growing up in Dublin, my dad was a Haughey fan! My dad despised Labour and FG. Turned out that Haughey was a maggot. I wonder what the oul fella would think if he were alive now. While not a fan of Trump, it's bizarre to see the absolute knobs the liberals put into play. I suppose the British political arena is somewhat similar. Boris is a buffoon. But his opponent apparently was more of a buffoon. That said, Irish politics is not dissimilar. Looking back at the past few Taoisheach's Cowen was incompetent, Ahern was corrupt and so on... Politics is a disaster, but it's our own making... unless we are unfortunate enough to be Chinese or an Arab etc.
Neil3030 wrote: » Well I can't tell you how or what to do with your vote (in the country I also live, btw), except to say that competent, experienced politicians are like bear spray; you don't appreciate how important they are until it's too late.
Clegg wrote: » I was out today doing a 'big shop'. It was utterly necessary, but I now regret doing it. Loads of ppl in an enclosed areas and I couldn't help but brush off some. I might sound paranoid, but at this stage I can't know if I've now been infected or, indeed, if I was infected before that and have now spread it to others Lads, this is no way to live.
ClanofLams wrote: » Obama was excellent imo. Took over economy in absolute meltdown, when he left it was in excellent condition and primed for more growth. Unemployment rate reduced from over 10% to under 5%. Advanced the healthcare system. Got most difficult decisions correct, eg auto bailout. Represented America with dignity on the world stage. Done this with republicans looking for any hint of dirt and the best that they could come up with was lunatic theory that he was born in Kenya. Look at Trump, called the virus a ‘hoax’ first now it’s an emergency said he ‘doesn’t take responsibility’ for decisions his administration made, he’s an absolute disaster who is completely out of his depth.
Dubinusa wrote: » The health care was ruined by Obama. He destroyed it. It's awful. It's getting worse now.
Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Mr Trump was trying to secure the scientists’ work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the US, “but only for the United States”.
Dubinusa wrote: » No. Obamacare ruined it. Premiums up. Restrictive testing etc. Co pays are pretty much the same. I had to fork out 400$ for a blood test. Prior to Obamacare it was free..
Former Former wrote: » Well, you and your ilk have unleashed Trump on us, so we'll call it even.
Dubinusa wrote: » Feck off. You and ur ilk should worry about Ireland.
stephen_n wrote: » And that there is why we don’t get to discuss politics on here.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/22ad2522fee20cd29b61d94f8b4e216f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)