O.T. "A touch of the covid"

[Joel]

Yes, stupid (it's easier and people can now so easily 'get away' with it), not to mention, entitled. We are regressing on many fronts, it seems.
I hardly recognize many aspects of this country anymore.

[Mike Amick]

Non political

The truth is not always what you want it to be. Being able to find out what is takes work. And disinformation from any side is a pet peeve
of mine. Consequently I am a firm supporter of the fact checking sites.

These sites could not survive without taking the truth very seriously. A site with a proven bias would be singled out pretty quickly my point being
that I trust these sites to "try" and provide the unbiased truth. Of course they make mistakes which are immediately
weaponized by the disinformation networks to provoke their listeners to stay away from them.

• FactCheck.org
  Annenberg Political Factcheck - a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. 'Monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players.'
• FactChecker (Washington Post)
  Weekly blog from the Washington Post.
• PolitiFact.com
  From the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. Has a 'Truth-O-Meter' scorecard checking the attacks on the candidates (includes explanations). Also see their Punditfact page.
• Snopes.com
  "Oldest and largest fact-checking site on the Internet".
• PunditFact
  "Dedicated to checking the accuracy of claims by pundits, columnists, bloggers, political analysts, the hosts and guests of talk shows, and other members of the media."

[JohnMartin]

John, I too have visited Mary King's Close and what a fascinating place it is, but there was no mention of such a fate. Yes, there was an outbreak of bubonic plaque there, at its worst in 1645, and I note that you have said 'questionably'. But, and I quote, "Portions of the close were destroyed, while others were adapted to serve as the building foundations for the Royal Exchange, built in 1753. The other end of Mary King’s Close was demolished in 1853 so Cockburn Street could be built." So if the Close really was bricked up to prevent the spread of the plague they were a century late, which would make them even more dilatory than some of our present governments.

George B.

Certainly there is mention of it, though today that seems to be ascribed to myth or legend. When I visited many years ago it was given a bit more credence, although it was even then allowed that it might not be true. The bricking up was said to be done not a century late but during one night at the time of the plague, and was removed after about six months when two men were hired to go in and remove the bodies. Or so the story goes.

[JRouche]

Back onto the covid specifics --- does anyone know how the new SA variant is so much more contagious ? I was initially led to believe that the original C-19's success in being so easily transmitting had much to do with it's incredibly small size and therefor easy to get around in vapor form in just speaking and even normal breathing... so is the new "design" even smaller or does it have a specific mechanism that helps it's success rate "once it lands" ???

No. Its not more infectious due to physical restraints, like masks.

Its Biological/Viral. Virus attack our Biological system. Like a hacker might do. The "new" variant is just the same thing under an unknown name yet. Maybe Covid-20. JR

[J Tiers]

Back onto the covid specifics --- does anyone know how the new SA variant is so much more contagious ? I was initially led to believe that the original C-19's success in being so easily transmitting had much to do with it's incredibly small size and therefor easy to get around in vapor form in just speaking and even normal breathing... so is the new "design" even smaller or does it have a specific mechanism that helps it's success rate "once it lands" ???

I'm no expert, but the general impression I get is that it takes fewer virus particles to infect the typical person than the original type. It seems to have a different "receptor" on it that grabs and unlocks cells just as well, but seems to confuse the immune system so that it is not as well countered.

Probably the fewer particles required is due to the receptor change.

[RMinMN]

I guess my basic question is; If you are going to nit-pick the numbers, how far down from 470,000 do you have to get it before you say "no problem, we can let that many die this year, open up them dang businesses!" ? Is it no issue at "only" 400,000? At 350,000? maybe 300,000? What's your tolerance number for ignoring it?

It's out there, it is killing from 1 to 10% of people who get it, depending on how prepared their bodies are to handle a major stress. It does not seem profitable to argue about numbers, when they are obviously too many.

Far better to take the (now much harder, since we screwed up so badly) steps to knock it down. Like figuring out how to distribute vaccine. Right now, you can get it all over rural Missouri, just not in the big cities. Odd, that, you'd think the cities would be better able to do that, and there is no problem finding people.

It was done very efficiently way before the internet. When I was a kid, the polio vaccine was done in mass events with very little problem. I remember, we just went there at our time slot, and it took maybe 15 minutes to get through the line and out again. That was two doses also. We were able to walk to our designated place from the house.

Maybe the internet made everyone too stupid to handle it.

The problem now seems to be in two forms, shortage of the vaccine (takes 2 doses instead of just one), and the political wrangling that makes the distribution unequal.

My wife was one of the lucky ones chosen for the vaccine. The site she went to was very efficient, so efficient that she got in right away even though she was an hour ahead of her appointed time both times. I was not chosen so I didn't get in.

The vaccine was developed in an incredibly short time and from what I have been able to find, is safe and effective. We have only known about this coronavirus for a little over a year while we knew about polio for a long time.

[A.K. Boomer]

I'm no expert, but the general impression I get is that it takes fewer virus particles to infect the typical person than the original type. It seems to have a different "receptor" on it that grabs and unlocks cells just as well, but seems to confuse the immune system so that it is not as well countered.

Probably the fewer particles required is due to the receptor change.

That does ring a bell about taking fewer of the virus particles to infect, hopefully we beat this thing down quick enough to not be a dog chasing it's tail for decades to come...

[JohnMartin]

Questioning the numbers is not nitpicking them, it is an attempt to understand them. To understand exactly what goes into them. If you don’t know that, the numbers are meaningless. The problem is that the politicization of the pandemic has politicized what goes into them, so we will never really know the impact of this thing. Don’t believe that? Well, in one US county 40% of the reported coronavirus deaths actually died of gunshot wounds. That’s a fact, and you can fact check it. Now, it was only 2 of the 5 reported deaths, so the numbers have no significance. What is significant is the fact that people known to have died from other causes were included in the coronavirus deaths. You may not see that as a problem. I do. A major problem.

You have to know whom you can trust, whether an individual or an organization. The doctor who has been the medical face of the pandemic in this country - and who happens to be the highest-paid of our four million federal employees - has admitted that he deliberately lied to the American people when he told them that face masks provided no protection and that there was no need to wear them. That’s a fact, and you can fact check it. How many American lives that cost we will never know. But what it says to me is that nothing he ever says can be trusted. Fool me once shame on me....

There are more than a few countries that have done better than we have.

One of those most often cited is Singapore. Take a good look at their numbers, though - and that is not nitpicking. Their coronavirus deaths are at the very bottom. But at the very top you’ll find - guess what - “influenza and pneumonia”. For most other countries, influenza/pneumonia is a much smaller problem, coming in at maybe 15% compared to the top killer (usually coronary disease, sometimes stroke). But for Singapore, influenza/pneumonia is about 130% compared to the next higher cause. That’s a fact, and you can fact check it. There are a couple of conclusions that I draw from that. One is that someone is fudging the numbers. Almost certainly Singapore is, and unquestionably we are. By how much, it unfortunately is impossible to say. But here is the important conclusion. If you add the coronavirus numbers and the influenza/pneumonia numbers together, they really haven’t done much better than anyone else. Why add them together, you say? Because they are similar diseases, transmitted in much the same ways. If Singapore’s restrictions were so effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus, why didn’t they effect influenza/pneumonia as well?

Some other countries that have done well are Australia, New Zealand and Iceland. One thing that they have in common is that each of them has a pretty substantial moat around it. That’s a fact, but you don’t have to fact check it. We don’t have that moat. Instead, we have a northern border that is well controlled but 3,000 miles long, and a southern border that is no more effective than a sieve. And then there is Alaska, and the islands. Hawaii has done pretty well, I wonder why? I seem to recall that Australia was pretty adamant about not letting some infected cruise ships land there. We had a lot of citizens on those ships, and did not have that luxury.

At one time, many thought Sweden was doing well in spite of their risky approach. Doesn’t look so good now, though.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and in hindsight there are things that we could have done better. Given the knowledge at the time, however, I don’t believe we made too many bad decisions at the national level. At the state level, it seems to be a different story. But you have to remember that we are a union of states, and that many of the decisions made truly belong at the state level. And that, unlike most other countries, our states are very different. One size does not fit all. New York and Wyoming are very different, and at any given time those restrictions that might have made sense in New York made no sense whatever in Wyoming. Most of our governors seem to have made reasonable decisions, with a few very glaring exceptions.

Could we have shut down New York City completely? Could we have shut down the subways, the trains, the above ground transportation? Sure. But that would have meant shutting down the hospitals, the police and fire departments, sanitation, etc. What a nightmare that would have been.

Jerry made the point that this is killing from 1% to 10% of the people that get it, depending on age, general health, etc. I would argue that those numbers are way off. As I’ve said, I believe that the overall death numbers are hugely inflated, by counting those who died “with” coronavirus as opposed to those who died “from” it. Looking at it that way, it’s under 1% overall deaths. A healthy child who gets it may have a death rate of only 1% of 1%, the elderly may be well over 10%. However you look at it it’s too many. And we don’t yet know the long term effects, which from some anecdotal evidence may be much more serious than we think. But we are still in the learning stage with this thing, and we don’t yet know how to successfully attack it. I’d liken it to Pearl Harbor. We are still under attack - look at the new variants - and we are still learning. Roosevelt couldn’t be faulted for his response during the attack (unless you believe he had advance knowledge of it), for it was over before he could do anything. MacArthur, on the other hand, should have been court martialed for his failure to prepare his airfields after he knew of the Hawaiian attack. But that’s a subject for another time, and I’ve already gone too long on this particular rant.

[J Tiers]

The problem now seems to be in two forms, shortage of the vaccine (takes 2 doses instead of just one), and the political wrangling that makes the distribution unequal.

My wife was one of the lucky ones chosen for the vaccine. The site she went to was very efficient, so efficient that she got in right away even though she was an hour ahead of her appointed time both times. I was not chosen so I didn't get in.

The vaccine was developed in an incredibly short time and from what I have been able to find, is safe and effective. We have only known about this coronavirus for a little over a year while we knew about polio for a long time.

At the time of the polio vaccine, much much less was known about how to make vaccines, and how they work. Much much less was known about viruses as well. But the production distribution and administration of the vaccines was far more efficient.

And that was when the immediate need was less. People were getting polio, sure, but it was not ripping through the population. At that time, I actually did not know anyone who had got it. With Covid, I know at least a dozen now in my immediate circle of acquaintances. I actually do not know that I did not have a mild case myself, it is possible, as I was in contact with a large number of people between January and March last year..

Totally different situation, and far worse response to it. Almost a non-response in every way except the development of vaccine. It's as if the existence of a vaccine was all that is needed to solve the problem...as if there is no need to actually do the vaccinations, the existence of a vaccine is enough.

Shortage of vaccines? Not so much, although some areas of the world will (as usual) be behind. The shortage in many cases exists in some areas where the vaccine is needed, while stocks of it are in cold storage and not being distributed to those areas. The 2 doses is not an issue overall, it is, again, mostly distribution. IIRC, the polio vaccine that we all had long ago was in two doses as well which were not injected, but swallowed. One was clear, one was red. There was also an injected type that was developed earlier.

This whole matter has, as you point out, become a political football. That seems to be the main issue, actually. Foot-dragging at the state level, ordering far less vaccine than would be required, and then choosing which areas actually get it on a basis other than need.

.........hopefully we beat this thing down quick enough to not be a dog chasing it's tail for decades to come...

At the current rate, the local area will still be vaccinating people at this time in 2022, and possibly into the summer of 2022. Not encouraging. The new variants will be fully in place here far before the vaccines are administered and maybe far sooner than they are actually even delivered.

If you look at the graph Lakeside linked to, you will notice that at about the time the new variants probably appeared (before they were identified) the death rates in many countries took a sharp turn upward. There could be a number of reasons contributing to that up-tick, but the new types are most likely an important factor.

And, looking at the graph,if you do not trust them, just assume all countries lie about their numbers to about the same extent. That is actually fairly likely, if you leave out china and russia, both of which habitually lie on a grand scale. If so, the absolute numbers will be wrong, but the ratio between countries is about the same.

[A.K. Boomer]

I guess my basic question is; If you are going to nit-pick the numbers, how far down from 470,000 do you have to get it before you say "no problem, we can let that many die this year, open up them dang businesses!" ? Is it no issue at "only" 400,000? At 350,000? maybe 300,000? What's your tolerance number for ignoring it?

.

I look at this statement in the opposing direction because it's become quite obvious that many are just fine with the 470,000

So it begs the question at what magical number would they start to think it worthy of major effort? a cool million in all reality is still just under 1 in 300 americano's,

some people would probably still take a step back and say "yeah im ok with that" of course those are the people who most likely aren't getting hit with people in their own family dying from it - or maybe they had it and got over it without too much trouble and also on the flip side are losing their biz over the lockdown, to some degree you have to try and relate like I stated before there are folks that are getting hit by this in a completely different way

Ok so now lets up the ante to a cool 3 million, just under 1 in 100 americans --- that's substantial and in my mind pretty realistic if we just would have let it go unchecked...

if we were having trouble in the ICU's at close to a half mil dragged out over a year can you imagine a mil in about half that time? that's quadruple the work load with absolutely nowhere to put people to try and help them heal except ship them right to the refrigerated trucks,
now imagine totally unchecked like say 3 mill in three months... correct me if im wrong but is that not close to 10 fold the disaster on what you would be dealing with time wise? and im using the double comparison rate of if we lost 1 mil in a half year,,, would 3 mil in 3 months not be like 24 times the trauma rate of what were experiencing today???
Now throw in all the people who did pull through but will be in gimp mode the rest of their lives and need major medical attention from it...

this is the kinda quick guide I use when trying to reason with people who seem like it would be fine to have just let things run amuck...

after I finally get people to come to grips with this I then throw in your example of what we could have achieved from the get go "if" we would have took it very serious, under half our current numbers, much more kept open while doing it - and most likely less than half the bailout if not just a fraction...

After I get that point across I also tell them that believe it or not for all the division in the nation when things hit that we were actually sitting in one of the best strategically posed positions that we could have hoped for at the time, because if we had a "different brand" then the denial and resistance would have been exactly the same, and so too would have the outcome, but we actually had one of the greatest opportunities to unite over the mess, unfortunately the opportunity was totally lost and all efforts diverted back to playing the division card once again... wrong move.

In my mind this last statement will always be the greatest mistake we've ever made over this.... and I use the term "we've" very loosely, so - here we are, gotta try and make the best of it now.

[J Tiers]

If it had been believed-in, and taken seriously, we would still have shut down. But it would have been over with by May-June of 2020, and we would be back to near-normal now, except for a very strict quarantine on people coming into the country, probably some folks still wearing masks, and likely a few local outbreaks when "deniers" break quarantine.

Coulda-woulda-shoulda....... But "we" did not.

[MattiJ]

I look at this statement in the opposing direction because it's become quite obvious that many are just fine with the 470,000

More meaningful indicator would be total lost life-years. In here average age of the people dying to Covid-19 has been 84 years. On average you have 3 to 4 years left at that age. (and one might arque that the dead ones have been in worse shape than average)

[J Tiers]

More meaningful indicator would be total lost life-years. In here average age of the people dying to Covid-19 has been 84 years. On average you have 3 to 4 years left at that age. (and one might arque that the dead ones have been in worse shape than average)

Likely to be far lower age here. Many people in their 30s and early 40s are dying of covid. And quite a number of older people are coming through with fairly minor symptoms.

[A.K. Boomer]

More meaningful indicator would be total lost life-years. In here average age of the people dying to Covid-19 has been 84 years. On average you have 3 to 4 years left at that age. (and one might arque that the dead ones have been in worse shape than average)

While true you still can't just ship them off to the crematorium while their still kicking, so one wonders how far do you get away from the humane part of the equation to accommodate the greater numbers? we've already had to put people in parking garages and some front line medical workers feeling guilty for ones that might have been saved but simply no room to put them and chances don't look as promising so they basically have stated they had to "play god" that sucks, so what would that be like at 10 fold or 20??? it would be very hard to imagine.

[JohnMartin]

If it had been believed-in, and taken seriously, we would still have shut down. But it would have been over with by May-June of 2020, and we would be back to near-normal now, except for a very strict quarantine on people coming into the country, probably some folks still wearing masks, and likely a few local outbreaks when "deniers" break quarantine.

Coulda-woulda-shoulda....... But "we" did not.

When the “deniers” break quarantine it’s deplorable. But that’s to be expected because they are, after all, “deplorables”.

When those demonstrating for social equity break quarantine, it’s commendable - because that is a much more important cause. And they are a better class of people. Even the looters, who are just retrieving their due reparations. Health has to take a back seat.

That is how political it has all gotten, and that is what is truly deplorable.