The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
57Brave
Well-known member
Catherine Rampell
@crampell
·
6h
From just a few months ago.
House Judiciary Dems
@HouseJudiciary
Pamela Karlan:
“What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government
for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded,
‘I would like you to do us a favor.’ I’ll... send the disaster relief once you
brand my opponent a criminal.”
I think at some point it has to be pointed out what the "hoax" has been and exactly who the target of the "hoax"
@crampell
·
6h
From just a few months ago.
House Judiciary Dems
@HouseJudiciary
Pamela Karlan:
“What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government
for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded,
‘I would like you to do us a favor.’ I’ll... send the disaster relief once you
brand my opponent a criminal.”
I think at some point it has to be pointed out what the "hoax" has been and exactly who the target of the "hoax"
Last edited:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing/italian-scientists-investigate-possible-earlier-emergence-of-coronavirus-idUSKBN21D2IG
Wuhan virus around sooner than anyone thought?
Yeah, that wasn't obvious. Which means that we are further along on the curve than anyone thought. Well, mostly anyone. Guess it takes the 'uneducated' to understand reality.
Wuhan virus around sooner than anyone thought?
Yeah, that wasn't obvious. Which means that we are further along on the curve than anyone thought. Well, mostly anyone. Guess it takes the 'uneducated' to understand reality.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Maybe looking for advice on how to be a better liar...Trump's finally going to the experts
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Of all the resources lacking in the Covid-19 pandemic, the one most desperately needed in the United States is a unified national strategy, as well as the confident, coherent and consistent leadership to see it carried out. The country cannot go from one mixed-message news briefing to the next, and from tweet to tweet, to define policy priorities. It needs a science-based plan that looks to the future rather than merely reacting to latest turn in the crisis.
Let’s get one thing straight: From an epidemiological perspective, the current debate, which pits human life against long-term economics, presents a false choice. Just as a return to even a new normal is unthinkable for the foreseeable future — and well past Easter, Mr. Trump — a complete shutdown and shelter-in-place strategy cannot last for months. There are just too many essential workers in our intertwined lives beyond the health care field — sanitation workers; grocery clerks, and food handlers, preparers and deliverers; elevator mechanics; postal workers — who must be out and about if society is to continue to function.
A middle-ground approach is the only realistic one — and defining what that looks like means doing our best to keep all such workers safe. It also means leadership. Above all, it means being realistic about what is possible and what is not, and communicating that clearly to the American public.
When leaders tell the truth about even near-desperate situations, when they lay out a clear and understandable vision, the public might remain frightened, but it will act rationally and actively participate in the preservation of its safety and security.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I agree with this opinion piece on the importance of coherent laidership. It is right that states and local governments have the flexibility to tailor the details to conditions in their jurisdiction. But there also needs to be a coherent national plan that is consistently communicated to the public.
I also very much agree that we need to find a middle ground between sheltering in place for months and going back to normal prematurely. It should be guided by a clear-eyed assessment of the facts. Can more businesses re-open? Not fully, but in a way consistent with social distancing and other measures to contain the virus. I suspect many businesses will quietly try to do this on their own. But it would be better to have some guidance on how to do this based on a careful assessment of the risks and benefits.
There are some other very good points in this piece. Such as that it is now too late to make widespread testing a centerpiece of the strategy to limit the spread of the virus. Increasing the availability of tests is no longer a good use of resources.
Let’s get one thing straight: From an epidemiological perspective, the current debate, which pits human life against long-term economics, presents a false choice. Just as a return to even a new normal is unthinkable for the foreseeable future — and well past Easter, Mr. Trump — a complete shutdown and shelter-in-place strategy cannot last for months. There are just too many essential workers in our intertwined lives beyond the health care field — sanitation workers; grocery clerks, and food handlers, preparers and deliverers; elevator mechanics; postal workers — who must be out and about if society is to continue to function.
A middle-ground approach is the only realistic one — and defining what that looks like means doing our best to keep all such workers safe. It also means leadership. Above all, it means being realistic about what is possible and what is not, and communicating that clearly to the American public.
When leaders tell the truth about even near-desperate situations, when they lay out a clear and understandable vision, the public might remain frightened, but it will act rationally and actively participate in the preservation of its safety and security.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I agree with this opinion piece on the importance of coherent laidership. It is right that states and local governments have the flexibility to tailor the details to conditions in their jurisdiction. But there also needs to be a coherent national plan that is consistently communicated to the public.
I also very much agree that we need to find a middle ground between sheltering in place for months and going back to normal prematurely. It should be guided by a clear-eyed assessment of the facts. Can more businesses re-open? Not fully, but in a way consistent with social distancing and other measures to contain the virus. I suspect many businesses will quietly try to do this on their own. But it would be better to have some guidance on how to do this based on a careful assessment of the risks and benefits.
There are some other very good points in this piece. Such as that it is now too late to make widespread testing a centerpiece of the strategy to limit the spread of the virus. Increasing the availability of tests is no longer a good use of resources.
Last edited:
Who was in here defending the Chinese Government?
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Professor, if you could please help me just a bit more. I almost understand your very astute theoretical model. Can you show me a picture of what your "curve" looks like? Because I see this "curve" for Italy:
... and I think, "hm... seems like deaths really started spiking late Feb/Mar." But I guess I could be wrong and actually 900 people a day were dying in September but no one noticed...? And also somehow that would be better??????????? Pls halp.
Professor, if you could please help me just a bit more. I almost understand your very astute theoretical model. Can you show me a picture of what your "curve" looks like? Because I see this "curve" for Italy:
... and I think, "hm... seems like deaths really started spiking late Feb/Mar." But I guess I could be wrong and actually 900 people a day were dying in September but no one noticed...? And also somehow that would be better??????????? Pls halp.
Based in the rate of transmission the increase in deaths could be so steep that it would not have been noticeable prior to that point in time. And everything we are learning now the rate of transmission is increasing so effectively millions of people are all getting infected within a 2-4 week period. Now you'll say then how do you think it was here earlier? Well that's how exponential functions behave.
sturg33
I
That's awful
There wont be any discussion on this. We will be told to stop being a conspiracy theorist and we ate supposed to just keep the status quo. You know the saying now....restoration.
As if that is a good thing based on what we have learned the last 4 years.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I'm sorry, I do not understand. Who cares if it was technically here earlier if people weren't getting infected en masse? How would that affect the curve at all?
The whole point is to guess the top of the curve. Even more important is to understand the top of the functions first derivative curve. When the slope is decreasing is key but if the slope was at such a high value prior to that inflection point then you'll see a massive rush of infections at a point in time. Let's say 2 weeks.
The more easily the virus transmits to another host the steeper that slope is.
I'm sorry but this is just basic calculus. The function grows quickly based on that factor.
Edit: I misspoke when I said the first order derivative graph would be a curve. It would be a line as the first order derivative of an exponential function less than 2 would be a line.
Last edited:
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
lol, "basic calculus".
"Basic calculus" tells you I can look at the last 2 weeks and see whether deaths are currently exponentially increasing or not, whether the slope is changing, whether there is acceleration or deceleration. The first day it arrived in Italy has no effect on that.
"Basic calculus" tells you I can look at the last 2 weeks and see whether deaths are currently exponentially increasing or not, whether the slope is changing, whether there is acceleration or deceleration. The first day it arrived in Italy has no effect on that.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Don't care.