What have we learned from all this?

+1



On 4/8/2020 10:00 PM, wrote:
Boy I have a different viewpoint.
And sometimes I have to kick it back towards the center court line...

Most daily deaths?
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality...state-by-state

In 2018, we were killing, by average, 3670 people DAILY in car wrecks in the US. I can't imagine we've cut that in half, but with the StayAtHome mandates, it likely has dropped this month.

That's a few more deaths than the ILLNESS chart which was touted.
And with the scrutiny of covid-19 infection confirmation and mortality reporting, no one cares/reports about counting car wrecks or shootings this month.


I imagine the flu rates have dropped, due to SAH. If we got around the single topic focus, which I view as our more serious disease, we would perhaps find that ALL transmittable illness is down this month.

I agree that SAH will flatten a Covid-19 transmission curve.
I agree that personal filters of any sort, on any percentage of folks, will lessen transmission of lots of things (TB anyone?). All transmissions will drop with social distancing, and hygenic improvements. Duh.

But I have a heel digging response to the guvmint telling the entire US population what to do. The sheeple response scares me. But I have been worried about our 'social training' since the 3 week stand down of civil aviation in 2001, and subsequent creation of DHS and TSA.

I have large worries about 6-7-8 million Americans going on unemployment from a government hugely upside down in cash flow. Never mind that my job evaporated, too.

I prefer to be told what the risks are, and be left to make my choices. I can drive sober, in good weather, at moderate speeds, no distractions, and will accept the risk of someone careening drunk across the median at me.

I don't see a huge difference in my exposure to TB, flu, covid, sars, avian Newcastle being worth crushing the world's economy.

Should this health issue cause us to rethink transportation? Communication? National manufacturing and local sustainability of food supply? Priorities?

Yes.

Am I an isolationist? Raving nationalist? Hopefully not in the negative connotation. Naive? Maybe, still a bit.
Hopeful that we'll return to 'normalcy' & soaring? You damn betcha.

But I've started my garden, just in case I'm not soaring in June.

Cindy


--
Dan, 5J

Oops, the German study said "0,37 percent",Â* in US speak, that's 0.37%
or 0.0037.



On 4/9/2020 10:52 AM, wrote:
Germans saying .3 death rate.
https://www.bccourier.com/these-are-...insberg-study/

--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Oops, the German study said "0,37 percent",Â* in US speak, that's 0.37%
or 0.0037.
Dan, 5J

Dan; You're smarter than you think. 0.3 percent is indeed 0.37%, .0037 is the multiple.
However, most readers have misinterpreted the half-completed study in Germany. The interim results use both the "swab test" which reveals those presently infected plus the "serological blood test" which reveals those that had been infected but were mostly asymptomatic. Not surprising, those that were no longer testing positive were 7 times more prevalent than those confirmed to be currently infected. So, the "0.37%" figure uses the combined number and does not represent the % lethality of those infected. Another misquote by the OP was that Germany has a 0.3% lethality figure. They currently have a bit less than 2% lethality. It is expected that when the serologic testing is complete world-wide, the infection rate for this virus will be very impressive, and the lethality measured using both IGG and PCR tests will go lower. Don't interpret that to mean the virus is less lethal, it means many more of us caught it than suffered with it.

How dare you try to take away my fear/sarcasm

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Oops, the German study said "0,37 percent", in US speak, that's 0.37%
or 0.0037.
Dan, 5J

Dan; You're smarter than you think. 0.37 percent is indeed 0.37%, .0037 is the multiple.
However, most readers have misinterpreted the half-completed study in Germany. The interim results use both the "swab test" which reveals those presently infected plus the "serological blood test" which reveals those that had been infected but were mostly asymptomatic. Not surprising, those that were no longer testing positive were 7 times more prevalent than those confirmed to be currently infected. So, the "0.37%" figure uses the combined number and does not represent the % lethality of those infected. Another misquote by the OP was that Germany has a 0.3% lethality figure. They currently have a around a 2% lethality. It is expected that when the serologic testing is complete world-wide, the infection rate for this virus will be quite impressive, and the "lethality" measured using both IGG and PCR tests will go lower. Don't interpret that to mean the virus is less lethal, it means many more of us caught it than suffered with it.

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 5:21:35 PM UTC-4, Duster wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Oops, the German study said "0,37 percent", in US speak, that's 0.37%
or 0.0037.
Dan, 5J

Dan; You're smarter than you think. 0.37 percent is indeed 0.37%, .0037 is the multiple.
However, most readers have misinterpreted the half-completed study in Germany. The interim results use both the "swab test" which reveals those presently infected plus the "serological blood test" which reveals those that had been infected but were mostly asymptomatic. Not surprising, those that were no longer testing positive were 7 times more prevalent than those confirmed to be currently infected. So, the "0.37%" figure uses the combined number and does not represent the % lethality of those infected. Another misquote by the OP was that Germany has a 0.3% lethality figure. They currently have a around a 2% lethality. It is expected that when the serologic testing is complete world-wide, the infection rate for this virus will be quite impressive, and the "lethality" measured using both IGG and PCR tests will go lower. Don't interpret that to mean the virus is less lethal, it means many more of us caught it than suffered with it.

Most of you people are missing the boat. When someone dies that test positive of COVD19 it is declared as a virus death. It may well be because of another related problem. Not saying that this is not serious, but underlying circumstance play an important role. Bob

How dare they
https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...num bers.html

Yeah, I figured it was something like that.

My take is that none of these "rates" are relevant until the dust
settles.Â* How can anyone quote a death rate when the rate of infection
information is at best a couple of weeks behind and at worst totally
unknown?

But it's giving a lot of reporters and politicians to talk about...

On 4/9/2020 3:10 PM, Duster wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 3:20:08 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Oops, the German study said "0,37 percent",Â* in US speak, that's 0.37%
or 0.0037.
Dan, 5J
Dan; You're smarter than you think. 0.3 percent is indeed 0.37%, .0037 is the multiple.
However, most readers have misinterpreted the half-completed study in Germany. The interim results use both the "swab test" which reveals those presently infected plus the "serological blood test" which reveals those that had been infected but were mostly asymptomatic. Not surprising, those that were no longer testing positive were 7 times more prevalent than those confirmed to be currently infected. So, the "0.37%" figure uses the combined number and does not represent the % lethality of those infected. Another misquote by the OP was that Germany has a 0.3% lethality figure. They currently have a bit less than 2% lethality. It is expected that when the serologic testing is complete world-wide, the infection rate for this virus will be very impressive, and the lethality measured using both IGG and PCR tests will go lower. Don't interpret that to mean the virus is less lethal, it means many more of us caught it than suffered with it.

--
Dan, 5J

SOMETHING to talk about...

On 4/9/2020 5:22 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
But it's giving a lot of reporters and politicians to talk about...

--
Dan, 5J

On Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 7:24:11 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
SOMETHING to talk about...

On 4/9/2020 5:22 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
But it's giving a lot of reporters and politicians to talk about...

--
Dan, 5J

Dan, the reporters and politicians can really put the spin on things. I tried watching the news yesterday after applying 3000 pounds of fertilizer to the strip here at the house and tending to the mango orchard. I needed a break, grabbed a cold beer and did something that caused me considerable discomfort, I watched 20 minutes of the following, CNN, MSNBC,and Fox News.
I have come to the conclusion that we live in three different worlds.