Originally posted by SurturI genuinely believe life isn't about finding meaning, it's about the experience and process. When I say repeating I don't mean without variables, it's like baking a cake, a cake is a cake but adding sprinkles or chocolate chips might make it better than the last time you baked it. 🙂
Repeating the same thing expecting different results?Intriguing. I can't put my finger on what that might be the definition of 🙂
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!So you meant improvement, not insanity. I get it!
I genuinely believe life isn't about finding meaning, it's about the experience and process. When I say repeating I don't mean without variables, it's like baking a cake, a cake is a cake but adding sprinkles or chocolate chips might make it better than the last time you baked it. 🙂
Originally posted by Raptor22
i imagine ur like this when ur talking to me.This is what im like when i talk to...well basically everyone
Sometimes, this is what it looks like when I'm talking to you:
Sometimes I'm like this when talking to you:
And, still, sometimes it's like this:
This is what Blakemore looks like when he's talking to anyone:
This is what it is like when I talk to SquallX:
Originally posted by Blakemore
217K deaths from COVID in USA so far.
Actually a bit higher according to WorldoMeters: 222,xxx
Majority of Americans say Trump hasn’t taken the COVID-19 outbreak seriously enough
54% of Americans also disapprove of how the White House handled Trump’s own COVID-19 diagnosis
WASHINGTON (AP) — Less than three weeks from Election Day, majorities of Americans are highly critical of President Donald Trump’s handling of both the coronavirus pandemic and his own illness, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The survey also shows that few Americans have high levels of trust in the information the White House has released about Trump’s health. Initial accounts of the president’s condition were murky and contradictory, and the White House is still refusing to say when the president last tested negative for COVID-19 before his infection became public. -snip
And the majority of Americans would be correct here.
It's also no surprise few people trust what Trump/The White House says considering all the flips and lies.
This American says Trump didn't respond correctly and almost 100% of his actions should not have been undertaken and the only action he should have taken was just to force everyone to protect the elderly from murderous Democratic policies that killed 40K-50K Americans.
But he should have taken NO other actions. None.
London is to go into Tier 2 coronavirus restrictions from midnight on Friday evening, barring the capital’s 9 million residents from meeting other households in their homes or other indoor spaces.The escalation in controls over social and economic life is to be formally announced by health secretary Matt Hancock in a statement to the House of Commons at around 11.30am, when he is also expected to confirm that ministers have backed away from imposing tighter restrictions for Greater Manchester and Lancashire in the face of resistance from local leaders.
So we should see a very sharp drop in new cases on days 3 and 4 after this policy goes into effect, right? Remember, a large majority of folks test positive around the 4 day mark. So if lockdown measures work, you can see it in the data, very significantly, 3-4 days later.
Who wants to takes bets on what happens with percent positive cases in London? This is percent positive, not total positive. Fewer people will be able to take the test after the lockdowns.
Originally posted by dadudemonI don't think that's how that works and no one expects an immediate drop-off like that 😬
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-lockdown-tier-restrictions-coronavirus-new-rules-boris-johnson-sadiq-khan-b1042597.htmlSo we should see a very sharp drop in new cases on days 3 and 4 after this policy goes into effect, right? Remember, a large majority of folks test positive around the 4 day mark. So if lockdown measures work, you can see it in the data, very significantly, 3-4 days later.
Who wants to takes bets on what happens with percent positive cases in London? This is percent positive, not total positive. Fewer people will be able to take the test after the lockdowns.
I mean there will still be things like spreading it to friends and family, those people that have it but just haven't started to shown symptoms, people who initially refuse the lockdown. Acting like if we don't see a dramatic drop in cases immediately afterwards somehow equates to lockdown failure is a failed expectation.
Originally posted by Newjak
I don't think that's how that works and no one expects an immediate drop-off like that 😬
You missed the conversation about this a couple of months back.
That is exactly how it is supposed to work and this is what researchers looked for in published research.
Time from exposure to symptoms/positive tests: 4-5 days for 90% of people.
So if lockdowns work and are strictly enforced, then you will see a significant drop in percent positive test cases as early as 2 days later and definitely by day 3.
I'll give you a hint: research has already told us what happens and the data is in.
Want to take bets on what happens after London goes back on lockdown, 3-4 days later, with percent positive test cases?
Originally posted by dadudemoni legit laughed my ass off. Well done 😄
Sometimes, this is what it looks like when I'm talking to you:Sometimes I'm like this when talking to you:
And, still, sometimes it's like this:
This is what Blakemore looks like when he's talking to anyone:
This is what it is like when I talk to SquallX:
Originally posted by dadudemonOh Dear! You do get all the reasons why Herd Immunity is a ridiculous strategy?
This American says Trump didn't respond correctly and almost 100% of his actions should not have been undertaken and the only action he should have taken was just to force everyone to protect the elderly from murderous Democratic policies that killed 40K-50K Americans.But he should have taken NO other actions. None.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext
Here's the Scientific Consensus which backs what I told you just before you put me on ignore and started saying I was trolling you with facts.
Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 35 million people globally, with more than 1 million deaths recorded by WHO as of Oct 12, 2020. As a second wave of COVID-19 affects Europe, and with winter approaching, we need clear communication about the risks posed by COVID-19 and effective strategies to combat them. Here, we share our view of the current evidence-based consensus on COVID-19.
SARS-CoV-2 spreads through contact (via larger droplets and aerosols), and longer-range transmission via aerosols, especially in conditions where ventilation is poor. Its high infectivity,1 combined with the susceptibility of unexposed populations to a new virus, creates conditions for rapid community spread. The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is several-fold higher than that of seasonal influenza,2 and infection can lead to persisting illness, including in young, previously healthy people (ie, long COVID).3 It is unclear how long protective immunity lasts,4 and, like other seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is capable of re-infecting people who have already had the disease, but the frequency of re-infection is unknown.5 Transmission of the virus can be mitigated through physical distancing, use of face coverings, hand and respiratory hygiene, and by avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. Rapid testing, contact tracing, and isolation are also critical to controlling transmission. WHO has been advocating for these measures since early in the pandemic.
In the initial phase of the pandemic, many countries instituted lockdowns (general population restrictions, including orders to stay at home and work from home) to slow the rapid spread of the virus. This was essential to reduce mortality,6, 7 prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission following lockdown. Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems. In the absence of adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts, these countries have faced continuing restrictions.
This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.
This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence. etc. For all the reasons explained simply to you by many, many people!
Another study published which talks about why lockdowns kill more people, even when looking ONLY the disease and measures against the disease (not secondary deaths such as economic ruin):
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588
Results The CovidSim model would have produced a good forecast of the subsequent data if initialised with a reproduction number of about 3.5 for covid-19. The model predicted that school closures and isolation of younger people would increase the total number of deaths, albeit postponed to a second and subsequent waves. The findings of this study suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long term. This happens because covid-19 related mortality is highly skewed towards older age groups. In the absence of an effective vaccination programme, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths below 200 000.Conclusions [size=3]It was predicted in March 2020 that in response to covid-19 a broad lockdown, as opposed to a focus on shielding the most vulnerable members of society, would reduce immediate demand for ICU beds at the cost of more deaths long term. The optimal strategy for saving lives in a covid-19 epidemic is different from that anticipated for an influenza epidemic with a different mortality age profile.[.size]
Their conclusion is almost a proper British "tut" about the measures taken.
For those interested in the actual science of herd immunity, not psuedo-science or gaslighting, I made this post and cited the commentary from the actual experts on the subject, in the below post:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Now we see evidence of what we have been observing in people for months, now: longterm immunity to SARS-CoV-2. With studies showing pre-existing immunity from other cold viruses (who shared such similar antigens with SARS-CoV-2 that it provided somewhere between 40%-60% immunity to the population), new studies are confirming that we see long term immunity even after exposure to SARS-CoV-2.This is good news. And it reflects what we are seeing in places like Belgium, Sweden, and NYC: very near heard immunity as very few new cases and deaths are seen in those places.
Antibodies also come with an expiration date: Because they are inanimate proteins and not living cells, they can’t replenish themselves, and so disappear from the blood just weeks or months after they are produced. Hoards of antibodies appear shortly after a virus has breached the body’s barriers, then wane as the threat dissipates. Most of the B cells that produce these early antibodies die off as well.But even when not under siege, the body retains a battalion of longer-lived B cells that can churn out virus-fighting antibodies en masse, should they prove useful again. Some patrol the bloodstream, waiting to be triggered anew; others retreat into the bone marrow, generating small amounts of antibodies that are detectable years, sometimes decades, after an infection is over. Several studies, including those led by Bhattacharya and Pepper, have found antibodies capable of incapacitating the coronavirus lingering at low levels in the blood months after people have recovered from COVID-19.
“The antibodies decline, but they settle in what looks like a stable nadir,” which is observable about three months after symptoms start, Bhattacharya said. “The response looks perfectly durable.”
Seeing antibodies this long after infection is a strong indication that B cells are still chugging away in the bone marrow, Pepper said. She and her team were also able to pluck B cells that recognize the coronavirus from the blood of people who have recovered from mild cases of COVID-19 and grow them in the lab.
Multiple studies, including one published Friday in the journal Cell, have also managed to isolate coronavirus-attacking T cells from the blood of recovered individuals — long after symptoms have disappeared. When provoked with bits of the coronavirus in the lab, these T cells pumped out virus-fighting signals, and cloned themselves into fresh armies ready to confront a familiar foe. Some reports have noted that analyses of T cells could give researchers a glimpse into the immune response to the coronavirus, even in patients whose antibody levels have declined to a point where they are difficult to detect.
“This is very promising,” said Smita Iyer, an immunologist at the University of California, Davis, who is studying immune responses to the coronavirus in rhesus macaques but was not involved in the new studies. “This calls for some optimism about herd immunity, and potentially a vaccine.”
Notably, several of the new studies are finding these powerful responses in people who did not develop severe cases of COVID-19, Iyer added. Some researchers have worried that infections that take a smaller toll on the body are less memorable to the immune system’s studious cells, which may prefer to invest their resources in more serious assaults. In some cases, the body could even jettison the viruses so quickly that it fails to catalog them. “This paper suggests this is not true,” Iyer said. “You can still get durable immunity without suffering the consequences of infection.”
The researchers are also apt to point out that they do not have the smoking gun research that shows long-term immunity remains in place because it has still only been a few months after the first infections. But since the time tables are now exceeding the original 3 month antibody drop, and they are finding markers of anitbodies this long after, it speaks volumes to long-term immunity. As always, this is not a 100% across the board thing: others may become reinfected especially if they have poor immune systems.
You can find Herd Immunity data, research, commentary, and details, on this site:
https://coronavirusbellcurve.com/#statesherd
Originally posted by dadudemon
And for those interested in the actual science of herd immunity and the states which have passed the threshold:https://coronavirusbellcurve.com/#statesherd
Tons of great info and data on this site about trends.
They even include percent of nursing home/car home deaths as a percent of their total deaths. So you can see which states majorly failed to protect the elderly who constitute a plurality to a majority of COVID-19 deaths.
Herd immunity has only ever been attained by vaccination. But the declaration advocates naturally acquired immunity. In other words, letting between two-thirds and three-quarters of the population catch the virus.
It is bad science to say covid-19 infections will create herd immunity
Originally posted by Blakemore
We're going to reach over 230k deaths in the USA before halloween. This is my prediction.
Awful, at least people have their priorities straight.