The coronavirus

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Of course you can...

You act as if viruses spread just as fast around the world back in 1968 as they do today...here's a news flash...they didn't.

That's just one factor as to why it lasted longer back then.

Comparing total worldwide deaths after the 68-69 pandemic is over, one that was 4 1/2 times longer than the present pandemic, is bogus statistics

You claim it was slower. How much slower and why?

Here's a news flash for you, the R.O. or contagion factor of covid-19 is at least twice as much as the 68-69 pandemic. Making it's spread exponential. And that's why Elmhurst hospital had to park morgue trucks outside for the rapidly accumulating deaths.

The most significant number is that....

How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu?
https://www.livescience.com/new-coro...-with-flu.html

Virus transmission

The measure scientists use to determine how easily a virus spreads is known as the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-nought). This is an estimate of the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person, Live science previously reported. The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3, according to The New York Times.

Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19. Preliminary studies estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3, according to a review study published Feb. 28 in the journal JAMA. This means each infected person has spread the virus to an average of 2 to 3 people.

Some studies suggest COVID-19 has an even higher R0 value. For example, a study published April 7 in the journal Emerging Infectious Disease used mathematical modeling to calculate an R0 of nearly 6 in China.

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

Could it be you don't post any from respected sources that easily debunk and tear down the premise you have hitched your paranoid wagon to?

And will not even consider those other respected sources that run counter to your conspiracy theories?

Just asking

could it be what you consider respected sources are also crap?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Comparing total worldwide deaths after the 68-69 pandemic is over, one that was 4 1/2 times longer than the present pandemic, is bogus statistics

You claim it was slower. How much slower and why?

Here's a news flash for you, the R.O. or contagion factor of covid-19 is at least twice as much as the 68-69 pandemic. Making it's spread exponential. And that's why Elmhurst hospital had to park morgue trucks outside for the rapidly accumulating deaths.

The most significant number is that....

How does the new coronavirus compare with the flu?
https://www.livescience.com/new-coro...-with-flu.html

Virus transmission

The measure scientists use to determine how easily a virus spreads is known as the "basic reproduction number," or R0 (pronounced R-nought). This is an estimate of the average number of people who catch the virus from a single infected person, Live science previously reported. The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3, according to The New York Times.

Researchers are still working to determine the R0 for COVID-19. Preliminary studies estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3, according to a review study published Feb. 28 in the journal JAMA. This means each infected person has spread the virus to an average of 2 to 3 people.

Some studies suggest COVID-19 has an even higher R0 value. For example, a study published April 7 in the journal Emerging Infectious Disease used mathematical modeling to calculate an R0 of nearly 6 in China.

There's that much relied upon R0 number...unless you provide a whole lot of context around the r0s you are tossing about, it's pretty meaningless:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157160/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/p...tious-diseases

Oh, but it's a SCARY number...isn't it? Used in movies like CONTAGION....you don't even realize what it represents and what it does not represent.

More attempts to SCARE...lol

[Half Smoke]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The data is what it is. Data usually is a sure thing, because it's just that, data. Unless you don't believe the data.

the data you present may be a sure thing - if it's from a reliable source

but then you make a speculation based on that data that is not a sure thing

and the way you write - you try to make it sound as if your speculation is a guaranteed set in stone thing

you ignore the fact that the data could be interpreted in other ways

as if nobody could make a different speculation from the same data

as if only you can see the true meaning behind the data

that no reasonable or logical person could see it any other way

this is the reason that you are not believable

because you cannot accept a contradictory point of view as being reasonable

every scientist knows one thing - the only acceptable way to learn, to move forward, is to acknowledge your errors and try to adjust for them


.

[jk3521]

Now the Sun itself is in a "lockdown"..

As reported in the media..

https://nypost.com/2020/05/14/the-su...eather-famine/

...and the truth

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...ting-slump.htm

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

the data you present may be a sure thing - if it's from a reliable source

but then you make a speculation based on that data that is not a sure thing

and the way you write - you try to make it sound as if your speculation is a guaranteed set in stone thing

you ignore the fact that the data could be interpreted in other ways

as if nobody could make a different speculation from the same data

as if only you can see the true meaning behind the data

that no reasonable or logical person could see it any other way

this is the reason that you are not believable

because you cannot accept a contradictory point of view as being reasonable

every scientist knows one thing - the only acceptable way to learn, to move forward, is to acknowledge your errors and try to adjust for them


.

Sounds like you've made this personal.

Sounds like I'm in your head. That happens...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

There's that much relied upon R0 number...unless you provide a whole lot of context around the r0s you are tossing about, it's pretty meaningless:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157160/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/p...tious-diseases

Oh, but it's a SCARY number...isn't it? Used in movies like CONTAGION....you don't even realize what it represents and what it does not represent.

More attempts to SCARE...lol

First link, published by mathematicians, not epidemiologists or infectious disease experts back in Aug 16, 2011. Way before the current data was available about the current pandemic.

Second link An article written by a software engineer back in Oct 6 2014, not an epidemiologists or infectious disease expert, criticizing the movie Contagion, way before the current data was available

Come back with something current and by experts in the field. You are clutching at straws. Frantically.

There may be some inaccuracies, but you have yet to seriously cast doubt on the R.O number.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

You sound just as you do denying climate change top climatology experts.

The world’s top medical journals – a guide

What makes a medical journal “top”?

The credibility of the world’s esteemed journals may be due to their high impact factors and peer-review processes


Research published in The Lancet is considered ethical and credible.
.................................................. ................

I guess you would rather believe crackpots?

How much swamp land in Florida you you own?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

This article attempts to explain what the issue/confusion was with the research study done by Northwell Health and published by JAMA:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ny/3080189001/

Altho I've read the article times, and I still can't get a handle on it. My head is currently swimming in antihistamines..

So science organizations published misleading information in a time of crisis withoiut know what it was publishing to begin with?

Seems irresponsible to me.
Bet the rettactisn was on page 87.

For God's sake you mix up 25% with 85%???

Science or Scientology?

[davew]

hcap, the 1968 pandemic was slower because of the number of people crossing international borders around the world. In 2019 it was much easier for more people to go further.

[Tom]

And what is more improtant - how many people die of how fast they die?

So what if it took 18 months - it STILL killed a lot of people.
Would the exact same number over 6 months be worse?

[ReplayRandall]

I just remembered where....

YouTube

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

First link, published by mathematicians, not epidemiologists or infectious disease experts back in Aug 16, 2011. Way before the current data was available about the current pandemic.

Second link An article written by a software engineer back in Oct 6 2014, not an epidemiologists or infectious disease expert, criticizing the movie Contagion, way before the current data was available

Come back with something current and by experts in the field. You are clutching at straws. Frantically.

There may be some inaccuracies, but you have yet to seriously cast doubt on the R.O number.

Current? r0 is r0...except when it isn't...

You have no idea what your r0 actually represents, and neither do I...

But It can be a SCARY NUMBER like from that SCARY MOVIE so you're gonna use it...

[Track Collector]

Here is another interesting interview.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...19-data-video/

One particular point about midway thru the video clip that I found interesting was that if you do not believe in the benefits of herd immunity then you should also be against vaccinations because they are given with the purpose of establishing population immunity.

[PaceAdvantage]

YouTube