Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isnt the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€� They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?
There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It can be scary
but
not dangerous, scary and dangerous, dangerous but not scary, or not
dangerous and not scary.
Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale. A Google news search
on
the virus brings up over 1.5 billion news results. To date, the virus
has
tragically killed nearly 100,000 people in the United States, and more
lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous,
it
would still fall into the category of slightly to mildly dangerous for
most
people, excluding the elderly and those with preexisting medical
conditions.
In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is the
leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000
people
every year, 54,000 per month, or approximately 200,000 people between
February and mid-May of this year. This qualifies as extremely
dangerous.
But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger. Fear
is an
emotion, its the risk that we perceive. As an emotion, it is often
blind
to the facts. For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack
are
minuscule, but the thought still crosses most peoples minds when they
play
in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in the case of sharks, the
danger
is low, even if fear is sometimes high.
Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something that she
graded
it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This might be a
career-ending
mistake. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19:
making
decisions on fear and not data.
According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United
States are
people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add
in
55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55,
preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is
currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age
range.
Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or
roughly
one in 1.25 million, and yet we have shut down all schools and
day-care
centers, some never to open again! This makes it harder for mothers
and
fathers to remain employed.
All life is precious. No death should be ignored, but we have allowed
our
fear to move resources away from areas that are more dangerous, but
less
scary, to areas that are scary, but less dangerous. And herein lies
the
biggest problem.
Hospitals and doctors offices have had to be much more selective in
the
people they are seeing, leaving beds open for COVID-19 patients and
cutting
out elective surgeries. According to Komodo, in the weeks following
the
first shelter-in-place orders, cervical cancer screenings were down
68%,
cholesterol panels were down 67%, and the blood sugar tests to detect
diabetes were off 65% nationally.
It doesnt stop there. The U.N. estimates that infant mortality rates
could
rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because of the global recession
and
diverted health care resources. Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism,
domestic violence and other detrimental reactions from job loss and
despair. Its tragic.
The benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown (if there really
are
any) have massively increased dangers in both the short term and the
long
term. Every day that businesses are shuttered, and people remain
unemployed
or underemployed, the economic wounds grow more deadly. The loss of
wealth
is immense, and this will undermine the ability of nations around the
world
to deal with true dangers for decades to come, maybe forever. We have
altered the course of economic growth.
Shutting down the private sector (which is where all wealth is
created) is
truly dangerous even though many of our leaders suggest we shouldnt
be
scared of it. Another round of stimulus is not what we need. Like a
Band-Aid on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit of the
bleeding,
but the wound continues to worsen, feeding greater and more elaborate
intervention. Moreover, we are putting huge financial burdens on
future
generations because we are scared about something that the data reveal
as
far less dangerous than many other things in life.
A shutdown may slow the spread of a virus, but it cant stop it. A
vaccine
may cure us. But in the meantime, we have entered a new era, one in
which
fear trumps danger and near-term risk creates long-term problems. It
appears many people have come to this realization as the data builds.
Hopefully, this will go down in history as a mistake that we will
never
repeat.
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020

On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isnt the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€� They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?


But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger.
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020




He makes a couple of points but he should have left out heart disease.
Others have brought it up too, but heart disease is not contagious. You
don't get it from others, you can't give it to others. I have some
control of it with lifestyle but no control over the heredity portion.

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus. I take some
measure to do so.

I do agree some other treatments and elective surgery should have been
better managed.

wrote

Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous

We'll see...

The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this
isnt the first deadly virus the world has seen,

But is the most deadly one SINCE the spanish flu.

so what happened?

Most countrys did what makes sense with the
most deadly one SINCE the spanish flu to minimise
the number of dead people it produces.

Why did we react the way we did?

To minimise the number of dead people it produces.

One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic.

It isnt.

News and narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced.

Thats bull**** too.

Drastic and historically unprecedented
lockdowns of the economy happened

Because it just happens to be by far the
worst pandemic SINCE the spanish flu.

and seemed to be accepted with little question.

It wasnt by the worst of the fools, as always.

We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€�

More fool you.

They are not the same thing.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wits ?

It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is one
of the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with.

Hardly surprising that its by far the worst pandemic
SINCE the spanish flu that killed 50M and even more
unpleasantly than that one did. At least with that one it
mostly killed very quickly indeed compared with this one.

But is it the most dangerous?

Corse it is if we did nothing SINCE the spanish flu.

Or even close?

Corse it is if we did nothing SINCE the spanish flu.

There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It
can be scary but not dangerous, scary and dangerous,
dangerous but not scary, or not dangerous and not scary.

Wota ****ing ******.

Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale.

And on the dangerous scale in spades.

A Google news search on the virus
brings up over 1.5 billion news results.

Hardly surprising with something this dangerous
which has killed so many in only 4 months.

To date, the virus has tragically killed nearly
100,000 people in the United States,

And thats with the lockdown. Sweden kill EIGHT
times as many as is scandinavian neighbours
because they didnt have such a good lockdown.

and more lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to
extremely dangerous, it would still fall into the category
of slightly to mildly dangerous for most people,

Because of the lockdown, stupid.

excluding the elderly and those with
preexisting medical conditions.

In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is
the leading cause of death in the United States, killing
around 650,000 people every year, 54,000 per month,
or approximately 200,000 people between February
and mid-May of this year.

But you have to die of something, ****wit.

This qualifies as extremely dangerous.

Nope, because you have to die of something, ****wit.

But most people are not very frightened of it.

Because you have to die of something, ****wit.

A Google news search for heart disease brings up
around 100 million results, under one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.

Because you have to die of something, ****wit.

Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger.

Something you clearly can't manage.

Fear is an emotion, its the risk that we perceive.
As an emotion, it is often blind to the facts.

This one isnt.

For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack are
minuscule, but the thought still crosses most peoples minds
when they play in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in
the case of sharks, the danger is low, even if fear is sometimes
high. Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something
that she graded it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This
might be a career-ending mistake.

Actuarys dont do it like that, stupid.

This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19:
making decisions on fear and not data.

BULL****. The decisions were were actually
made on data, the numbers dying,

According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United
States are people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions.

Is no surprise that most over 65 years old have preexisting conditions,
****wit.

If you add in 55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%.
For those below age 55, preexisting conditions play a
significant role, but the death rate is currently around
0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age
range. Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19
is 0.00008%, or roughly one in 1.25 million, and yet we
have shut down all schools and day-care centers,

Because even a terminal ****wit such as yourself
should have noticed that almost all of those have
some contact with those over 55, ****wit.

some never to open again!

But will certainly be replaced.

This makes it harder for mothers
and fathers to remain employed.

But avoids lots more deaths of those over 55, ****wit.

All life is precious.

Thats bull**** too with the worst of the criminals.

No death should be ignored, but we have allowed
our fear to move resources away from areas that
are more dangerous, but less scary, to areas that
are scary, but less dangerous.

Wrong, as always.

And herein lies the biggest problem.

Wrong, as always.

Hospitals and doctors offices have had to be
much more selective in the people they are
seeing, leaving beds open for COVID-19
patients and cutting out elective surgeries.

Because it wasnt clear how well the lockdown would work.

According to Komodo, in the weeks following the first
shelter-in-place orders, cervical cancer screenings were
down 68%, cholesterol panels were down 67%, and the
blood sugar tests to detect diabetes were off 65% nationally.

Because most chose not to risk it by visiting hospitals, stupid.

It doesnt stop there. The U.N. estimates that infant mortality
rates could rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because
of the global recession and diverted health care resources.

And it remains to be seen what will actually happen there.

Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence
and other detrimental reactions from job loss and despair.
Its tragic.

Thats a side effect of the worst virus
we have seen for a hundred years, fool.

The benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown

Repeating that stupid lie changes nothing, ****wit.

(if there really are any)

Of course there are, as can be seen with the countrys
with the best lockdowns that have seen death rates per
million due to this virus of a HUNDREDTH of those who
do their lockdowns much later than they should have.

have massively increased dangers in
both the short term and the long term.

More mindless bull****.

Every day that businesses are shuttered, and
people remain unemployed or underemployed,
the economic wounds grow more deadly.

But nothing like as deadly as this virus, ****wit.

The loss of wealth is immense,

Bull****.

and this will undermine the ability of nations around the world
to deal with true dangers for decades to come, maybe forever.

More bull****.

We have altered the course of economic growth.

It would be a ****ing sight more surprising if the
worst pandemic in a hundred years didnt, ****wit.

Shutting down the private sector

It hasnt been shut down, ****wit.

(which is where all wealth is created)

Thats bull**** too.

is truly dangerous

Pity it hasnt happened anywhere.

even though many of our leaders suggest we
shouldnt be scared of it. Another round of
stimulus is not what we need. Like a Band-Aid
on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit
of the bleeding, but the wound continues to
worsen, feeding greater and more elaborate
intervention.

More mindless flagrantly dishonest ****.

Its what worked with the great depression, ****wit.

Moreover, we are putting huge financial
burdens on future generations

Better than killing millions, ****wit.

because we are scared about something that the data reveal
as far less dangerous than many other things in life.

That is a bare faced lie.

A shutdown may slow the spread of a virus,

No may about it ****wit, it clearly does.

but it cant stop it.

How odd that it did in Taiwan.

A vaccine may cure us.

And has done with other viruses that
mutates as slowly as this one does.

But in the meantime, we have entered a new era,

Bull**** we have.

one in which fear trumps danger

More bull****.

and near-term risk creates long-term problems.

Not the first time that has happened, ****wit.

It appears many people have come to this realization as the data builds.

More bull****.

Hopefully, this will go down in history as a mistake

Not a chance.

that we will never repeat.

No chance.

Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist

Both terminal ****wits.

RealClear Politics,

Mindless lies, actually.

May 22, 2020

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isnt the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€� They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?


But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger. Brian S.
Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020

He makes a couple of points

Not one useful one.

but he should have left out heart disease.

And the **** about fear.

Others have brought it up too, but heart disease is not contagious.

And you have to die of something, stupid.

You don't get it from others, you can't give it to others.

You can actually scare them into having one.

I have some control of it with lifestyle but no control over the heredity
portion.

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus. I take some
measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.

I do agree some other treatments and elective surgery should have been
better managed.

But it wasnt clear how bad it would get at that stage.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 15:50:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Thu, 28 May 2020 15:33:15 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.Â* I take some measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?

"GatesTattooInc" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus. I take some
measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?

I have never done that and I dont need to given that
we had enough of a clue to have started out lockdown
much earlier than you clowns and got a MUCH better
result than you clowns. A HUNDREDTH of the deaths
per million that you clowns got.

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 8:18:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isnt the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€� They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?
There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It can be scary
but
not dangerous, scary and dangerous, dangerous but not scary, or not
dangerous and not scary.
Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale. A Google news search
on
the virus brings up over 1.5 billion news results. To date, the virus
has
tragically killed nearly 100,000 people in the United States, and more
lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous,
it
would still fall into the category of slightly to mildly dangerous for
most
people, excluding the elderly and those with preexisting medical
conditions.
In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is the
leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000
people
every year, 54,000 per month, or approximately 200,000 people between
February and mid-May of this year. This qualifies as extremely
dangerous.
But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger. Fear
is an
emotion, its the risk that we perceive. As an emotion, it is often
blind
to the facts. For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack
are
minuscule, but the thought still crosses most peoples minds when they
play
in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in the case of sharks, the
danger
is low, even if fear is sometimes high.
Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something that she
graded
it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This might be a
career-ending
mistake. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19:
making
decisions on fear and not data.
According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United
States are
people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add
in
55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55,
preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is
currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age
range.
Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or
roughly
one in 1.25 million, and yet we have shut down all schools and
day-care
centers, some never to open again! This makes it harder for mothers
and
fathers to remain employed.
All life is precious. No death should be ignored, but we have allowed
our
fear to move resources away from areas that are more dangerous, but
less
scary, to areas that are scary, but less dangerous. And herein lies
the
biggest problem.
Hospitals and doctors offices have had to be much more selective in
the
people they are seeing, leaving beds open for COVID-19 patients and
cutting
out elective surgeries. According to Komodo, in the weeks following
the
first shelter-in-place orders, cervical cancer screenings were down
68%,
cholesterol panels were down 67%, and the blood sugar tests to detect
diabetes were off 65% nationally.
It doesnt stop there. The U.N. estimates that infant mortality rates
could
rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because of the global recession
and
diverted health care resources. Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism,
domestic violence and other detrimental reactions from job loss and
despair. Its tragic.
The benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown (if there really
are
any) have massively increased dangers in both the short term and the
long
term. Every day that businesses are shuttered, and people remain
unemployed
or underemployed, the economic wounds grow more deadly. The loss of
wealth
is immense, and this will undermine the ability of nations around the
world
to deal with true dangers for decades to come, maybe forever. We have
altered the course of economic growth.
Shutting down the private sector (which is where all wealth is
created) is
truly dangerous even though many of our leaders suggest we shouldnt
be
scared of it. Another round of stimulus is not what we need. Like a
Band-Aid on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit of the
bleeding,
but the wound continues to worsen, feeding greater and more elaborate
intervention. Moreover, we are putting huge financial burdens on
future
generations because we are scared about something that the data reveal
as
far less dangerous than many other things in life.
A shutdown may slow the spread of a virus, but it cant stop it. A
vaccine
may cure us. But in the meantime, we have entered a new era, one in
which
fear trumps danger and near-term risk creates long-term problems. It
appears many people have come to this realization as the data builds.
Hopefully, this will go down in history as a mistake that we will
never
repeat.
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020

Typical deluded, denial BS. Comparing Covid to shark attacks? Really?
And it wasn't social media that killed 100K in three months and had freezer
trailers in the streets of NYC holding the dead bodies. And that was WITH
the serious measures taken to contain it. This is the worst pandemic in
100 years and we still are in the middle of it, it's not clear what will
happen now that we're rapidly re-opening and people are being reckless.
And what spurs on the recklessness? Deniers.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 20:38:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

20:38?????? And you are STILL up and trolling ...after you started your sick
trolling at 03:07 last night? Are you COMPLETELY nuts? Well, of COURSE you
are!

--
Marland addressing senile Rodent's tall stories:
"Do you really think people believe your stories you come up with to boost
your self esteem."
Message-ID:

On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isn’t the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing “scary” with “dangerous.” They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?
There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It can be scary
but
not dangerous, scary and dangerous, dangerous but not scary, or not
dangerous and not scary.
Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale. A Google news search
on
the virus brings up over 1.5 billion news results. To date, the virus
has
tragically killed nearly 100,000 people in the United States, and more
lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous,
it
would still fall into the category of slightly to mildly dangerous for
most
people, excluding the elderly and those with preexisting medical
conditions.
In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is the
leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000
people
every year, 54,000 per month, or approximately 200,000 people between
February and mid-May of this year. This qualifies as extremely
dangerous.
But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
It’s critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger. Fear
is an
emotion, it’s the risk that we perceive. As an emotion, it is often
blind
to the facts. For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack
are
minuscule, but the thought still crosses most people’s minds when they
play
in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in the case of sharks, the
danger
is low, even if fear is sometimes high.
Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something that she
graded
it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This might be a
career-ending
mistake. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19:
making
decisions on fear and not data.
According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United
States are
people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add
in
55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55,
preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is
currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age
range.
Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or
roughly
one in 1.25 million, and yet we have shut down all schools and
day-care
centers, some never to open again! This makes it harder for mothers
and
fathers to remain employed.
All life is precious. No death should be ignored, but we have allowed
our
fear to move resources away from areas that are more dangerous, but
less
scary, to areas that are scary, but less dangerous. And herein lies
the
biggest problem.
Hospitals and doctors’ offices have had to be much more selective in
the
people they are seeing, leaving beds open for COVID-19 patients and
cutting
out elective surgeries. According to Komodo, in the weeks following
the
first shelter-in-place orders, cervical cancer screenings were down
68%,
cholesterol panels were down 67%, and the blood sugar tests to detect
diabetes were off 65% nationally.
It doesn’t stop there. The U.N. estimates that infant mortality rates
could
rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because of the global recession
and
diverted health care resources. Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism,
domestic violence and other detrimental reactions from job loss and
despair. It’s tragic.
The benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown (if there really
are
any) have massively increased dangers in both the short term and the
long
term. Every day that businesses are shuttered, and people remain
unemployed
or underemployed, the economic wounds grow more deadly. The loss of
wealth
is immense, and this will undermine the ability of nations around the
world
to deal with true dangers for decades to come, maybe forever. We have
altered the course of economic growth.
Shutting down the private sector (which is where all wealth is
created) is
truly dangerous even though many of our leaders suggest we shouldn’t
be
scared of it. Another round of stimulus is not what we need. Like a
Band-Aid on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit of the
bleeding,
but the wound continues to worsen, feeding greater and more elaborate
intervention. Moreover, we are putting huge financial burdens on
future
generations because we are scared about something that the data reveal
as
far less dangerous than many other things in life.
A shutdown may slow the spread of a virus, but it can’t stop it. A
vaccine
may cure us. But in the meantime, we have entered a new era, one in
which
fear trumps danger and near-term risk creates long-term problems. It
appears many people have come to this realization as the data builds.
Hopefully, this will go down in history as a mistake that we will
never
repeat.
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020



Ah, a public health policy critique from an economist! I suggest the
opinions of those who have studied public health, epidemiology, and
related disciplines and have successfully made that field their career
are more worth listening to. Heart disease is a terrible analogy to
use, as are most any analogies when presenting any argument. You can't
evade heart disease by quarantine, and contact tracing. However, the
public health literature is filled with historical examples of how those
techniques have been effective in the past when dealing with epidemics
and pandemics from quite a few disparate pathogens. Also, we currently
have dozens of effective medications and numerous surgical procedures
and lifestyle changes that have been proven to either control or
ameliorate the natural history of untreated heart disease. We have no
such medications, surgical procedures or lifestyle changes (short of
social distancing or actual quarantine) that are effective against the
novel corona virus. The goal here is not to cripple the economy but to
buy time until an effective treatment or immunizing vaccine renders this
pathogen less of a threat.

If you want to make a case during this pandemic for government subsidies
of businesses versus government guaranteed minimal income grants to
people in poverty as the more efficient means of restoring a functioning
economy, I'll listen to you, because I'll assume that your background
gives you enough expertise to know your subject matter and be able to
cite historical examples, etc., of data to support your positions. Of
course, as a professional, I'll also expect you to be forthright in your
disclosure of possible bias on account of your personal political
persuasion.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.Â* I take some
measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isnt the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€� They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?
There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It can be scary
but
not dangerous, scary and dangerous, dangerous but not scary, or not
dangerous and not scary.
Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale. A Google news search
on
the virus brings up over 1.5 billion news results. To date, the virus
has
tragically killed nearly 100,000 people in the United States, and more
lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous,
it
would still fall into the category of slightly to mildly dangerous for
most
people, excluding the elderly and those with preexisting medical
conditions.
In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is the
leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000
people
every year, 54,000 per month, or approximately 200,000 people between
February and mid-May of this year. This qualifies as extremely
dangerous.
But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger.. Fear
is an
emotion, its the risk that we perceive. As an emotion, it is often
blind
to the facts. For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack
are
minuscule, but the thought still crosses most peoples minds when they
play
in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in the case of sharks, the
danger
is low, even if fear is sometimes high.
Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something that she
graded
it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This might be a
career-ending
mistake. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19:
making
decisions on fear and not data.
According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United
States are
people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add
in
55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55,
preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is
currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age
range.
Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or
roughly
one in 1.25 million, and yet we have shut down all schools and
day-care
centers, some never to open again! This makes it harder for mothers
and
fathers to remain employed.
All life is precious. No death should be ignored, but we have allowed
our
fear to move resources away from areas that are more dangerous, but
less
scary, to areas that are scary, but less dangerous. And herein lies
the
biggest problem.
Hospitals and doctors offices have had to be much more selective in
the
people they are seeing, leaving beds open for COVID-19 patients and
cutting
out elective surgeries. According to Komodo, in the weeks following
the
first shelter-in-place orders, cervical cancer screenings were down
68%,
cholesterol panels were down 67%, and the blood sugar tests to detect
diabetes were off 65% nationally.
It doesnt stop there. The U.N. estimates that infant mortality rates
could
rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because of the global recession
and
diverted health care resources. Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism,
domestic violence and other detrimental reactions from job loss and
despair. Its tragic.
The benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown (if there really
are
any) have massively increased dangers in both the short term and the
long
term. Every day that businesses are shuttered, and people remain
unemployed
or underemployed, the economic wounds grow more deadly. The loss of
wealth
is immense, and this will undermine the ability of nations around the
world
to deal with true dangers for decades to come, maybe forever. We have
altered the course of economic growth.
Shutting down the private sector (which is where all wealth is
created) is
truly dangerous even though many of our leaders suggest we shouldnt
be
scared of it. Another round of stimulus is not what we need. Like a
Band-Aid on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit of the
bleeding,
but the wound continues to worsen, feeding greater and more elaborate
intervention. Moreover, we are putting huge financial burdens on
future
generations because we are scared about something that the data reveal
as
far less dangerous than many other things in life.
A shutdown may slow the spread of a virus, but it cant stop it.. A
vaccine
may cure us. But in the meantime, we have entered a new era, one in
which
fear trumps danger and near-term risk creates long-term problems. It
appears many people have come to this realization as the data builds.
Hopefully, this will go down in history as a mistake that we will
never
repeat.
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020



Ah, a public health policy critique from an economist! I suggest the
opinions of those who have studied public health, epidemiology, and
related disciplines and have successfully made that field their career
are more worth listening to. Heart disease is a terrible analogy to
use, as are most any analogies when presenting any argument. You can't
evade heart disease by quarantine, and contact tracing. However, the
public health literature is filled with historical examples of how those
techniques have been effective in the past when dealing with epidemics
and pandemics from quite a few disparate pathogens. Also, we currently
have dozens of effective medications and numerous surgical procedures
and lifestyle changes that have been proven to either control or
ameliorate the natural history of untreated heart disease. We have no
such medications, surgical procedures or lifestyle changes (short of
social distancing or actual quarantine) that are effective against the
novel corona virus. The goal here is not to cripple the economy but to
buy time until an effective treatment or immunizing vaccine renders this
pathogen less of a threat.

The other aspect they ignore is if we just let her rip, did nothing,
what kind of economy would we have had then? NYC hospitals did not have
enough beds, they were almost out of ventilators, there were refrigerated
trailers in the streets holding the bodies and that was with the
closures and sheltering in place, that worked. We saw whole meat plants
with a majority of workers infected. Had that accelerated, it's hard
to imagine an economy that would not have had a big impact anyway.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 28 May 2020 09:39:34 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

You know everyone on Usenet is at least 60 years old. I got the
reference but I admit, I've only seen them a little bit. i don't even
know where I could have seen them regularly. Ah, it's Italian and
British, no wonder I didn't see much of it.

On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection. I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently
expressed optimism about a vaccine against COVID-19 disease being
developed in the near future. However, the history of vaccines against
human corona virus diseases is not that encouraging.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds"). What's worse, the natural immunity that often
protects previously infected, recovered patients against recurrence for
many years and often for life after infection by many other viral
diseases caused by non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps,
German measles, roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed after
recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses. Neutralizing
antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in recovered
patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection. If a
vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster shots at
least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection. So, it's
impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and reasonably
long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be available;
but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's developed
in the near future.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 28 May 2020 11:19:51 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 28 May 2020 09:39:34 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

You know everyone on Usenet is at least 60 years old. I got the
reference but I admit, I've only seen them a little bit. i don't even
know where I could have seen them regularly. Ah, it's Italian and
British, no wonder I didn't see much of it.

Yep, it's an old people joke. I don't think I actually ever saw it, but I
used to read a lot when I was younger and saw references to it.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isnt the first
deadly
virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way
we
did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News
and
narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.
This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and
historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and
seemed to
be accepted with little question.
We think the world is confusing €œscary€� with €œdangerous.€� They are not
the
same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is
one of
the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the
most
dangerous? Or even close?
There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It can be scary
but
not dangerous, scary and dangerous, dangerous but not scary, or not
dangerous and not scary.
Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale. A Google news search
on
the virus brings up over 1.5 billion news results. To date, the virus
has
tragically killed nearly 100,000 people in the United States, and more
lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous,
it
would still fall into the category of slightly to mildly dangerous for
most
people, excluding the elderly and those with preexisting medical
conditions.
In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is the
leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000
people
every year, 54,000 per month, or approximately 200,000 people between
February and mid-May of this year. This qualifies as extremely
dangerous.
But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search
for
heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under
one-fifteenth the
results of the COVID-19 search.
Its critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger. Fear
is an
emotion, its the risk that we perceive. As an emotion, it is often
blind
to the facts. For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack
are
minuscule, but the thought still crosses most peoples minds when they
play
in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in the case of sharks, the
danger
is low, even if fear is sometimes high.
Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something that she
graded
it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This might be a
career-ending
mistake. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19:
making
decisions on fear and not data.
According to CDC data, 81% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United
States are
people over 65 years old, most with preexisting conditions. If you add
in
55-64-year-olds that number jumps to 93%. For those below age 55,
preexisting conditions play a significant role, but the death rate is
currently around 0.0022%, or one death per 45,000 people in this age
range.
Below 25 years old the fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.00008%, or
roughly
one in 1.25 million, and yet we have shut down all schools and
day-care
centers, some never to open again! This makes it harder for mothers
and
fathers to remain employed.
All life is precious. No death should be ignored, but we have allowed
our
fear to move resources away from areas that are more dangerous, but
less
scary, to areas that are scary, but less dangerous. And herein lies
the
biggest problem.
Hospitals and doctors offices have had to be much more selective in
the
people they are seeing, leaving beds open for COVID-19 patients and
cutting
out elective surgeries. According to Komodo, in the weeks following
the
first shelter-in-place orders, cervical cancer screenings were down
68%,
cholesterol panels were down 67%, and the blood sugar tests to detect
diabetes were off 65% nationally.
It doesnt stop there. The U.N. estimates that infant mortality rates
could
rise by hundreds of thousands in 2020 because of the global recession
and
diverted health care resources. Add in opioid addiction, alcoholism,
domestic violence and other detrimental reactions from job loss and
despair. Its tragic.
The benefits gained through this fear-based shutdown (if there really
are
any) have massively increased dangers in both the short term and the
long
term. Every day that businesses are shuttered, and people remain
unemployed
or underemployed, the economic wounds grow more deadly. The loss of
wealth
is immense, and this will undermine the ability of nations around the
world
to deal with true dangers for decades to come, maybe forever. We have
altered the course of economic growth.
Shutting down the private sector (which is where all wealth is
created) is
truly dangerous even though many of our leaders suggest we shouldnt
be
scared of it. Another round of stimulus is not what we need. Like a
Band-Aid on a massive laceration, it may stop a tiny bit of the
bleeding,
but the wound continues to worsen, feeding greater and more elaborate
intervention. Moreover, we are putting huge financial burdens on
future
generations because we are scared about something that the data reveal
as
far less dangerous than many other things in life.
A shutdown may slow the spread of a virus, but it cant stop it. A
vaccine
may cure us. But in the meantime, we have entered a new era, one in
which
fear trumps danger and near-term risk creates long-term problems. It
appears many people have come to this realization as the data builds.
Hopefully, this will go down in history as a mistake that we will
never
repeat.
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Strider Elass, Senior Economist
RealClear Politics, May 22, 2020



Ah, a public health policy critique from an economist! I suggest the
opinions of those who have studied public health, epidemiology, and
related disciplines and have successfully made that field their career
are more worth listening to. Heart disease is a terrible analogy to
use, as are most any analogies when presenting any argument. You can't
evade heart disease by quarantine, and contact tracing. However, the
public health literature is filled with historical examples of how those
techniques have been effective in the past when dealing with epidemics
and pandemics from quite a few disparate pathogens. Also, we currently
have dozens of effective medications and numerous surgical procedures
and lifestyle changes that have been proven to either control or
ameliorate the natural history of untreated heart disease. We have no
such medications, surgical procedures or lifestyle changes (short of
social distancing or actual quarantine) that are effective against the
novel corona virus. The goal here is not to cripple the economy but to
buy time until an effective treatment or immunizing vaccine renders this
pathogen less of a threat.

The other aspect they ignore is if we just let her rip, did
nothing, what kind of economy would we have had then?

Very likely what Sweden currently has, not very different from
what you had before the virus showed up, but with something
like ten times the number of corpses due to the virus.

NYC hospitals did not have enough beds, they were
almost out of ventilators, there were refrigerated trailers
in the streets holding the bodies and that was with the
closures and sheltering in place, that worked.

Yes, lots more corpses would have resulted.

We saw whole meat plants with a majority of workers
infected. Had that accelerated, it's hard to imagine an
economy that would not have had a big impact anyway.

Yes, but not as badly as with a lockdown.

Its always been a tradeoff between far more
corpses or a smaller effect on the economy.

On Fri, 29 May 2020 05:09:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus. I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection.

Doesn’t really need long term protection. Tetanus doesn’t have
that. Its no big deal to have repeats when that is necessary.

I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently expressed optimism about a
vaccine against COVID-19 disease being developed in the near future.

And it remains to be seen if he has got that right.

However, the history of vaccines against human corona virus diseases is
not that encouraging.

Yes, but they stopped attempting one when SARS died out.

There are viable coronavirus vaccines for animals.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against any
of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and some
"common colds").

But have been for animals.

What's worse, the natural immunity that often protects previously
infected, recovered patients against recurrence for many years and often
for life after infection by many other viral diseases caused by non-corona
viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps, German measles, roseola, polio,
etc., has not been observed
after recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses.

That’s not true with animals.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in
recovered patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection.

But it would be no big deal if it needed an annual booster.

If a vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster shots
at least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection.

No big deal if that turns out to be the case with this virus.

So, it's impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and
reasonably long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be
available; but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's
developed in the near future.

But is still possible given the number attempting it and the
different approach to getting it done quickly this time.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

You can turn that off.

On Fri, 29 May 2020 05:38:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

Ed Pawlowski pretended :
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.Â* I take some
measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

I can't do that unfortunately, that's where I store all the TP and PPE
stockpiles.

on 5/28/2020, Jim Joyce supposed :
On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

I deny knowing who they are.

On 2020-05-28 1:05 p.m., FromTheRafters wrote:
on 5/28/2020, Jim Joyce supposed :
On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take
some measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

I deny knowing who they are.

hi

On 2020-05-28 1:04 p.m., FromTheRafters wrote:
Ed Pawlowski pretended :
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.Â* I take
some measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

I can't do that unfortunately, that's where I store all the TP and PPE
stockpiles.

hi

On Thu, 28 May 2020 14:16:19 -0400, Peter
wrote:

On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection. I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently
expressed optimism about a vaccine against COVID-19 disease being
developed in the near future. However, the history of vaccines against
human corona virus diseases is not that encouraging.

There is work progressing on a "pre-emptive strike" "virus shield"
that is not virus specific and would prevent the virus from reaching
and infecting the lungs - would even theoretically block "germs". It
would not provide long term immunity but would significantly reduce
the chance of airway infection. The chances of thisworking are
somewhat better than the chance of coming up with an effectove and
safe vaccine, in the short to medium term and would help protect the
vulnerable even from the common cold. One "positive effect" of
something like this pandemic is it gets the creative juices flowing in
some of the most creative minds in the scientific community, and gets
them thinking "outsidethe box"

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds"). What's worse, the natural immunity that often
protects previously infected, recovered patients against recurrence for
many years and often for life after infection by many other viral
diseases caused by non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps,
German measles, roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed after
recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses. Neutralizing
antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in recovered
patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection. If a
vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster shots at
least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection. So, it's
impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and reasonably
long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be available;
but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's developed
in the near future.

On 2020-05-28 1:19 p.m., Clare Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 14:16:19 -0400, Peter
wrote:

On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.Â* I take some
measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection. I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently
expressed optimism about a vaccine against COVID-19 disease being
developed in the near future. However, the history of vaccines against
human corona virus diseases is not that encouraging.

There is work progressing on a "pre-emptive strike" "virus shield"
that is not virus specific and would prevent the virus from reaching
and infecting the lungs - would even theoretically block "germs". It
would not provide long term immunity but would significantly reduce
the chance of airway infection. The chances of thisworking are
somewhat better than the chance of coming up with an effectove and
safe vaccine, in the short to medium term and would help protect the
vulnerable even from the common cold. One "positive effect" of
something like this pandemic is it gets the creative juices flowing in
some of the most creative minds in the scientific community, and gets
them thinking "outsidethe box"

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds"). What's worse, the natural immunity that often
protects previously infected, recovered patients against recurrence for
many years and often for life after infection by many other viral
diseases caused by non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps,
German measles, roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed after
recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses. Neutralizing
antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in recovered
patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection. If a
vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster shots at
least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection. So, it's
impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and reasonably
long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be available;
but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's developed
in the near future.

hi

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 28 May 2020 13:50:43 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2020 11:19:51 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 28 May 2020 09:39:34 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

You know everyone on Usenet is at least 60 years old. I got the
reference but I admit, I've only seen them a little bit. i don't even
know where I could have seen them regularly. Ah, it's Italian and
British, no wonder I didn't see much of it.

Yep, it's an old people joke. I don't think I actually ever saw it, but I
used to read a lot when I was younger and saw references to it.

I'm talking about maybe 2 to 5 minutes on 1 or 2 occasions.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 28 May 2020 14:16:19 -0400, Peter
wrote:

On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection. I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently
expressed optimism about a vaccine against COVID-19 disease being
developed in the near future. However, the history of vaccines against
human corona virus diseases is not that encouraging.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds").

I can't reply to your other points but they say they stopped trying wrt
SARS and MERS because the diseases had faded away and they had other
thigns to do.


A lot of people all over the world are working on possible vaccines.

BTW. people who used to be doing something else (This is because the
disease is a nothingburger aand they want to be remembered as someone
who cured nothing. Rarther thna for what they had been doing.)



What's worse, the natural immunity that often
protects previously infected, recovered patients against recurrence for
many years and often for life after infection by many other viral
diseases caused by non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps,
German measles, roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed after
recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses. Neutralizing
antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in recovered
patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection. If a
vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster shots at
least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection. So, it's
impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and reasonably
long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be available;
but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's developed
in the near future.

On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it.

Wrong. The covid virus CAN kill just like the flu, contracting it in
itself, is not a guarantee death sentence. That scare tactic is why the
lemmings are crying the sky is falling.

People with a suppressed immune system are at the highest risk of death,
but still not a guarantee as many have overcome. And if death occurs,
it's caused by complication of their system with the virus, but not
directly the virus itself. The same applies with the flu. Resolving this
issue by hiding behind glass partitions and mask is not the answer
except for those who have failing health. Healthy lifestyles is the
answer. Increasing your immune system is the answer. Proper eating and
exercise is the answer. The lemmings are making it easy for the
government and manufacturers alike to capitalize on the scare tactic
that everyone has to remain inside a plastic bubble. Bull!

So many followers in this world, so few leaders.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 16:05:31 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

on 5/28/2020, Jim Joyce supposed :
On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:28:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Same here. I've named the dust bunnies Punch and Judy, and every evening
before I fall asleep they put on a little show for me.

Probably no one will get the Punch and Judy reference, but I'm leaving it
in.

I deny knowing who they are.

:-)

On 05/28/2020 02:32 PM, micky wrote:
I can't reply to your other points but they say they stopped trying wrt
SARS and MERS because the diseases had faded away and they had other
thigns to do.


When I'm frustrated by an unsuccessful project I often find I have other
things to do also.

micky wrote

I can't reply to your other points but they say they stopped trying wrt
SARS and MERS because the diseases had faded away and they had other
thigns to do.

MERS hasn’t faded away.

On Fri, 29 May 2020 13:41:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On 5/28/2020 3:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take
some measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine
providing long-term protection.

Doesn’t really need long term protection. Tetanus doesn’t have
that. Its no big deal to have repeats when that is necessary.

I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently expressed optimism about
a vaccine against* COVID-19 disease being developed in the near future.

And it remains to be seen if he has got that right.

However, the history of vaccines against human corona virus diseases
is not that encouraging.

Yes, but they stopped attempting one when SARS died out.

There are viable coronavirus vaccines for animals.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds").

But have been for animals.

What's worse, the natural immunity that often protects previously
infected, recovered patients against recurrence for many years and
often for life after infection by many other viral diseases caused by
non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps, German measles,
roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed
after recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses.

That’s not true with animals.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected
in recovered patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical
infection.

But it would be no big deal if it needed an annual booster.

If a vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster
shots at least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection.

No big deal if that turns out to be the case with this virus.

So, it's impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and
reasonably long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be
available; but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if
it's developed in the near future.

But is still possible given the number attempting it and the
different approach to getting it done quickly this time.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

You can turn that off.
Rod Speed is downplaying the issue of frequent (every 1 or 2 year)
booster shots. He mentions Tetanus, but boosters for that are only
required every 10 years. OK, he's motivated enough to get the boosters
if it turns out they're needed. So am I. But the problem is community
compliance. Just look at the statistics for annual flu shots. We know
that they don't provide reliable, high protection each year, but even
so, even though there's plenty of left-over vaccine at the end of each
flu season, many people don't get their flu shots. Best estimates at
this time are that 70%-80% of a population needs to be immune to the
novel corona virus to provide the desired "herd" immunity that can
preclude future epidemics without requiring the extreme isolation
measures we've all been enduring for the past few months. You think
70%-80% of the population would voluntarily get annual booster shots? I
don't.

On Fri, 29 May 2020 11:05:58 -0400, Peter
wrote:

On 5/28/2020 3:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.* I take
some measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine
providing long-term protection.

Doesn’t really need long term protection. Tetanus doesn’t have
that. Its no big deal to have repeats when that is necessary.

I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently expressed optimism about
a vaccine against* COVID-19 disease being developed in the near future.

And it remains to be seen if he has got that right.

However, the history of vaccines against human corona virus diseases
is not that encouraging.

Yes, but they stopped attempting one when SARS died out.

There are viable coronavirus vaccines for animals.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds").

But have been for animals.

What's worse, the natural immunity that often protects previously
infected, recovered patients against recurrence for many years and
often for life after infection by many other viral diseases caused by
non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps, German measles,
roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed
after recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses.

That’s not true with animals.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected
in recovered patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical
infection.

But it would be no big deal if it needed an annual booster.

If a vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster
shots at least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection.

No big deal if that turns out to be the case with this virus.

So, it's impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and
reasonably long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be
available; but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if
it's developed in the near future.

But is still possible given the number attempting it and the
different approach to getting it done quickly this time.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

You can turn that off.
Rod Speed is downplaying the issue of frequent (every 1 or 2 year)
booster shots. He mentions Tetanus, but boosters for that are only
required every 10 years. OK, he's motivated enough to get the boosters
if it turns out they're needed. So am I. But the problem is community
compliance. Just look at the statistics for annual flu shots. We know
that they don't provide reliable, high protection each year, but even
so, even though there's plenty of left-over vaccine at the end of each
flu season, many people don't get their flu shots. Best estimates at
this time are that 70%-80% of a population needs to be immune to the
novel corona virus to provide the desired "herd" immunity that can
preclude future epidemics without requiring the extreme isolation
measures we've all been enduring for the past few months. You think
70%-80% of the population would voluntarily get annual booster shots? I
don't.
Maybe in Canada. Or in a FEW states, but derinitely not country wide
in the US of A

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2020 3:38 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus. I take some
measure to do so.

And that’s what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection.

Doesn’t really need long term protection. Tetanus doesn’t have
that. Its no big deal to have repeats when that is necessary.

I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently expressed optimism about a
vaccine against COVID-19 disease being developed in the near future.

And it remains to be seen if he has got that right.

However, the history of vaccines against human corona virus diseases is
not that encouraging.

Yes, but they stopped attempting one when SARS died out.

There are viable coronavirus vaccines for animals.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds").

But have been for animals.

What's worse, the natural immunity that often protects previously
infected, recovered patients against recurrence for many years and often
for life after infection by many other viral diseases caused by
non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps, German measles,
roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed
after recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses.

That’s not true with animals.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in
recovered patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection.

But it would be no big deal if it needed an annual booster.

If a vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster
shots at least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection.

No big deal if that turns out to be the case with this virus.

So, it's impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and
reasonably long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be
available; but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's
developed in the near future.

But is still possible given the number attempting it and the
different approach to getting it done quickly this time.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

You can turn that off.

Rod Speed is downplaying the issue of frequent (every 1 or 2 year) booster
shots.

We'll see...

He mentions Tetanus, but boosters for that are only required every 10
years.

But flu shots are annual and occasionally
more than annual when they guess the
most commonly seen strains wrong.

OK, he's motivated enough to get the boosters if it turns out they're
needed. So am I. But the problem is community compliance. Just look at
the statistics for annual flu shots. We know that they don't provide
reliable, high protection each year, but even so, even though there's
plenty of left-over vaccine at the end of each flu season, many people
don't get their flu shots.

But they are a lot better than nothing and more are likely to get
an annual shot with this virus because its so much more deadly.

And you don’t know how long the vaccine last with this virus either.

Best estimates at this time are that 70%-80% of a population needs to be
immune to the novel corona virus to provide the desired "herd" immunity
that can preclude future epidemics without requiring the extreme isolation
measures we've all been enduring for the past few months.

That estimate is on the high side.

You think 70%-80% of the population would voluntarily get annual booster
shots?

You don’t know that annual will be required.

I don't.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

On Sat, 30 May 2020 04:53:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 2:16:29 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
On 5/28/2020 10:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 5:53 AM, GatesTattooInc wrote:
On 5/28/20 1:50 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I can have some control over getting or giving a virus.Â* I take some
measure to do so.

And thats what a lockdown does.


How much longer will you hide under your bed?


Until vaccination is available. Its cozy under there.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a highly effective vaccine providing
long-term protection. I greatly respect Dr. Fauci and he's recently
expressed optimism about a vaccine against COVID-19 disease being
developed in the near future. However, the history of vaccines against
human corona virus diseases is not that encouraging.

A proven vaccine licensed by the FDA has never been developed against
any of the corona viruses that produce human disease (SARS, MERS and
some "common colds").

But how much effort around the world was put into any of those?
SARS, MERS were extinguished in short order, pretty much exinguishing
any profit potential for developing a vaccine. Common cold is caused
by many different viruses, not one specific one, making a vaccine
there far more difficult and it's generally not a serious illness.



What's worse, the natural immunity that often
protects previously infected, recovered patients against recurrence for
many years and often for life after infection by many other viral
diseases caused by non-corona viruses, e.g., smallpox, measles, mumps,
German measles, roseola, polio, etc., has not been observed after
recuperation from any of the other corona viral illnesses. Neutralizing
antibodies against SARS and MERS have not been detected in recovered
patients more than about 2 1/2 years after clinical infection. If a
vaccine against those viruses is eventually available, booster shots at
least every 2 years would be needed to maintain protection.

So? The flu vaccine is issued each year. Also, with a vaccine it's possible
we could extinguish Covid completely, not need to continue vaccinating.


So, it's
impossible to say how soon, if ever a safe, effective, and reasonably
long-lasting vaccine against the novel corona virus will be available;
but it would be the exception to the rule, especially if it's developed
in the near future.



That's certainly true. But there are promising results, testing has
shown that at least one vaccine provides immunity in small animals
and monkeys and that humans tested are showing Covid antibodies.

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 4:58:21 PM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 5/27/2020 8:17 PM, wrote:
Miscalculating Risk: Confusing Scary With Dangerous
The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it.

Wrong. The covid virus CAN kill just like the flu, contracting it in
itself, is not a guarantee death sentence. That scare tactic is why the
lemmings are crying the sky is falling.

Wrong. The concern is logical, because Covid is far more deadly than
the flue. No responsbile authority or the media ever suggested that
it's a death sentence, it's you who's spinning here.





People with a suppressed immune system are at the highest risk of death,
but still not a guarantee as many have overcome. And if death occurs,
it's caused by complication of their system with the virus, but not
directly the virus itself. The same applies with the flu. Resolving this
issue by hiding behind glass partitions and mask is not the answer
except for those who have failing health. Healthy lifestyles is the
answer.

And yet we have many cases of healthy kids, healthy 40 year olds that
are dead from Covid. I agree that getting people to adopt healthier
lifestyles would save lives. How do you suggest we do that? I think
this is a missed opportunity, that public health officials, medical
authorities should be using Covid to deliver the message about losing
weight, not eating junk foods, stop smoking, etc.




Increasing your immune system is the answer. Proper eating and
exercise is the answer. The lemmings are making it easy for the
government and manufacturers alike to capitalize on the scare tactic
that everyone has to remain inside a plastic bubble. Bull!

So many followers in this world, so few leaders.

Watch what this does to Brazil. I would bet that as a country, Brazilians
are far less likely to be overweight, to have diabetes, etc. We'll see
how they fair. Their moronic right wing nut job president is a Covid
denier.