Coronovirus III

[smokingman]

Remember the helping when and where you can?

A great story of that happening. Did you have ancestors from Ireland? Do you feel like just reaching out and helping someone?

Helping each other when and where we can is how we get through this.






During this difficult time, in 1847, the Choctaw Nation provided $170 of relief aid to the Irish to help them (today that is the equivalent of $5,000). Not long before the Great Hunger Famine in Ireland, 60,000 Native Americans, including the Choctaw people, had suffered through the experience of the Trail of Tears. The death of many people on the Trail of Tears sparked empathy for the Irish people in their time of need. Thus, the Choctaw extended $170 of relief aid.

173 years later to today, the favor is returned through generous donations from the Irish people to the Navajo Nation during our time of crisis. A message from Irish donor, Pat Hayes, sent from Ireland across the ocean: “From Ireland, 170 years later, the favor is returned! To our Native American brothers and sisters in your moment of hardship.”

The heartache is real. We have lost so many of our sacred Navajo elders and youth to COVID-19. It is truly devastating. And a dark time in history for our Nation.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/NHFC19Relief

My great grandmother would be happy to see this and likely would have cried ,she was a proud Choctaw woman. https://www.choctawnation.com/news-events/press-media/sculpture-ireland-honors-choctaw-nation
[FONT=&quot]MIDLETON, COUNTY CORK, IRELAND – On Sunday, June 18 the Choctaw Nation was honored at a dedication of the sculpture Kindred Spirits in Midleton, County Cork, Ireland. Kindred Spirits is a breathtaking sculpture comprised of nine stainless steel eagle feathers that reach almost twenty-three feet towards the sky. Representing a bowl of food for the hungry, the piece evokes the story of how the Choctaw people came to the aid of the Irish in 1847 during that country’s Great Famine of 1845-1852. When Choctaws became aware of the famine, they gathered $170 (the equivalent of $4,400 today), and sent it across the Atlantic Ocean to help feed the starving nation of Ireland.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Chief Gary Batton and Assistant Chief Jack Austin Jr. were a part of the Choctaw delegation that attended the special ceremony in Bailick Park.[/FONT]

Of course local food banks can use your help as well.
https://www.gleaners.org/donate/give-funds/

An act of kindness can last generations. Especially those in need helping others in need.
Be well,be safe,you are loved.

 

[smokingman]

Great video explaining why sars-cov-2 is most likely not a natural virus. Based on actual data and history of the science.
[video=youtube;uZUJhKUbd0k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJhKUbd0k[/video]














And the official response in less than 24 hours. They are tightening control of the information that pretty much proves this is lab made.
For those running our 'ncov' pipeline locally, GISAID has requested that we stop sharing the metadata.tsv file via GitHub, and instead move this file to their system. You can find information on how to access this file and incorporate it into your runs at https://github.com/nextstrain/ncov/blob/master/docs/running.md#obtaining-global-data-through-gisaid

https://twitter.com/nextstrain/status/1257917543244681217

 

[ghuns]

I always figured my smokeless tobacco habit would kill me, not save me...

Nicotine appears to protect against coronavirus, French researchers find

 

[Snapdragon]

In four U.S. state prisons, nearly 3,300 inmates test positive for coronavirus -- 96% without symptoms


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...gfTuVJ6SFSHdGTb_1emLoR_ST_Uy5isbB7bxA5_Jai5fs

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not sure there is the same incentive. I often say if you act like you're hiding something, I have a good reason to think you're hiding something. The climate change zealots act an awful lot like they're trying to hide something. Probably too early to tell, but I don't really have any reason to think that the people developing the models to predict COVID-19 have some other motive. And they don't need a motive to be wrong. It could be that they just happen to be making a lot of bad assumptions that stack up to a hockey stick.

I think that it's mostly that the models were stuffed with data from some unreliable sources. Like China. And also stuff with more data from sources that aren't close enough to our society to be as applicable. Like Italy. And, mostly, it's a really hard problem to model. I would expect that if the people doing the models are just trying to make an accurate model, and they're smart, and we get better information for the inputs, the models will get closer to reality. I don't think we're talking about anything on the scale of climate models.

You're missing the forest for the trees a bit here. My point is: what if the virus behavior proves to have been essentially unaffected by whatever social policies were implemented? That is, what if there is no statistically significant variation in virus curves for different regions, when controlling for non-policy-related factors?

 

[foszoe]

You're missing the forest for the trees a bit here. My point is: what if the virus behavior proves to have been essentially unaffected by whatever social policies were implemented? That is, what if there is no statistically significant variation in virus curves for different regions, when controlling for non-policy-related factors?

Let's take it one step further. Has there been an instance of such a virus as you describe, specifically, one that would spread at the same rate if everyone stays at home? If we minus off the social policies/distancing, I guess the virus would have to survive much longer on surfaces, be less affected by UV light, etc. I admit to taking for granted, without any scientific proof (what some would call common sense which is a notion I disagree with), that if I clean common surfaces more often, stay away from kids during the school year, staying away from someone who comes into work sick, and washing hands/using hand sanitizer ALWAYS affect virus spread/mortality, which is how I am interpreting the word behavior. You may have more packed into that word than I am taking away from it.

 

[chipbennett]

Tell me this has anything at all to do with "safety", rather than a leftwing judge upset that a free individual expressed appropriate contempt for his wanna-be tyranny:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...d-to-7-days-in-jail-for-remaining-open-during

Moye told Luther that he would consider not ordering jail time if she admitted that her actions were selfish and apologized to the officials whose orders she defied. But Luther responded by arguing that it is "not selfish" to continue working to feed her children.


"I have to disagree with you sir, when you say that I’m selfish because feeding my kids — is not selfish," Luther said. "I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with you decision but I am not going to shut the salon.”

Here's the Zoom video of her response:

[video]https://twitter.com/i/status/1257791119393533953[/video]

I particularly enjoyed the Obama-pal judge virtue signaling by wearing an N95 mask (improperly fitted, natch, since he was wearing it over a beard) in an empty courtroom during a video hearing.

If any of this had anything to do with "safety", the judge's contempt order would include a civil fine only, and perhaps house arrest. This is nothing more than a vassal refusing to kiss the ring of her big-government feudal lord.

 

[chipbennett]

Let's take it one step further. Has there been an instance of such a virus as you describe, specifically, one that would spread at the same rate if everyone stays at home? If we minus off the social policies/distancing, I guess the virus would have to survive much longer on surfaces, be less affected by UV light, etc. I admit to taking for granted, without any scientific proof (what some would call common sense which is a notion I disagree with), that if I clean common surfaces more often, stay away from kids during the school year, staying away from someone who comes into work sick, and washing hands/using hand sanitizer ALWAYS affect virus spread/mortality, which is how I am interpreting the word behavior. You may have more packed into that word than I am taking away from it.

The behavior I'm referring to is the virus behavior, not human behavior - specifically how it spreads and kills (infection/mortality rates).

I suspect that, when dealing with a novel virus such as this one (much like comparing the Spanish flu epidemic), when human immunity has not had the chance to develop, the virus is going to do what it is going to do, with little to no meaningful change based on human implementation of policy (social distancing). I think that the original models understood and accepted that as true. The original "flatten the curve" models didn't change the area under the curve - meaning they didn't change how many were infected or would die - rather, they merely changed the time period over which the inevitable outcomes occurred. (On the argument that doing so would minimize overwhelming of our healthcare system capacity.)

If by some miracle, one of the outcomes of the current pandemic is that people actually start practicing commonsense personal behaviors and hygiene practices in response to cold, flu, and other "normal" disease-causing agents, I will consider that a very good thing.

 

[drillsgt]

- armchair patriot #1; "Hey guys lets go show some force and open carry our AR-15's and wear chest rigs and stand string and show the government they can't push around small businesses and the people."

-armchair patriot #2's through 6; "(random grunting & chest bumps) yeah lets go. We will show'em"

- cops (in their armored vehicle); "stop this illegal activity under penis code: pandemic! you are all under arrest by order of the king. Surrender your firearms"

- Patriots #1 through 6; OK. Here you go, it's not loaded"

In the end wouldn't that qualify as a peaceful protest?

 

[JettaKnight]

Ignoring the question for now on whether china let this virus out "accidentally" or "intentionally".

That question is akin to, "Did you stop beating your wife yet?"

 

[singlesix]

If by some miracle, one of the outcomes of the current pandemic is that people actually start practicing commonsense personal behaviors and hygiene practices in response to cold, flu, and other "normal" disease-causing agents, I will consider that a very good thing.

You give people too much credit.

 

[HoughMade]

In the end wouldn't that qualify as a peaceful protest?

It may also qualify as idiocy.

I understand, thoroughly, open carry at a, well, gun rights protest....

 

[nonobaddog]

The behavior I'm referring to is the virus behavior, not human behavior - specifically how it spreads and kills (infection/mortality rates).

I suspect that, when dealing with a novel virus such as this one (much like comparing the Spanish flu epidemic), when human immunity has not had the chance to develop, the virus is going to do what it is going to do, with little to no meaningful change based on human implementation of policy (social distancing). I think that the original models understood and accepted that as true. The original "flatten the curve" models didn't change the area under the curve - meaning they didn't change how many were infected or would die - rather, they merely changed the time period over which the inevitable outcomes occurred. (On the argument that doing so would minimize overwhelming of our healthcare system capacity.)

If by some miracle, one of the outcomes of the current pandemic is that people actually start practicing commonsense personal behaviors and hygiene practices in response to cold, flu, and other "normal" disease-causing agents, I will consider that a very good thing.

The virus doesn't spread on its own. It takes human behavior to spread the virus - breathing, sneezing, clustering, etc.

Also why would you assume the area under the curve is the same?

 

[Alpo]

Unless there is a vaccine or permanent isolation of non-infected individuals, Chip is correct. The number of individuals who are exposed to the virus will, eventually, be the same no matter what temporary measures are employed. Time is the only variable.

 

[chipbennett]

The virus doesn't spread on its own. It takes human behavior to spread the virus - breathing, sneezing, clustering, etc.

Wow, really?!?

Also why would you assume the area under the curve is the same?

It always was, and it was explained to be at the time that "flatten the curve" became the policy focus.

It is also obvious. So-called "herd immunity" only develops once the virus spreads enough for said herd immunity to be built up. That only happens through spread of viral infection. Mortality is a function of infection. If you get infected, you have the same risk of dying, regardless of how quickly the virus is spreading when you get infected. Even if you "flatten the curve" until the virus spreads to no more than one person at a time, the area under the curve will be the same.

 

[ljk]

Legit or not?

[video=youtube_share;R57I0Fft2pg]https://youtu.be/R57I0Fft2pg[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

...Even if you "flatten the curve" until the virus spreads to no more than one person at a time, the area under the curve will be the same.

I learned on Facebook that if we all just stay home, the virus will magically disappear some day and no one will ever die of anything again.

 

[nonobaddog]

Wow, really?!?

Yes, Really! You said "virus behavior, not human behavior". Just what "virus behavior" were you talking about? Viruses don't really have a behavior except while inside a human body.

 

[nonobaddog]

Wow, really?!?



It always was, and it was explained to be at the time that "flatten the curve" became the policy focus.

It is also obvious. So-called "herd immunity" only develops once the virus spreads enough for said herd immunity to be built up. That only happens through spread of viral infection. Mortality is a function of infection. If you get infected, you have the same risk of dying, regardless of how quickly the virus is spreading when you get infected. Even if you "flatten the curve" until the virus spreads to no more than one person at a time, the area under the curve will be the same.

That is an assumption. Personally I don't believe in that assumption.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, Really! You said "virus behavior, not human behavior". Just what "virus behavior" were you talking about? Viruses don't really have a behavior except while inside a human body.

I explained, exactly, what I meant by virus behavior: infection and mortality. And my statements regarding virus behavior were precisely within the context of virus infection and mortality. I don't understand the nit you're attempting to pick here.

That is an assumption. Personally I don't believe in that assumption.

I'm just going to leave these here:

Unless there is a vaccine or permanent isolation of non-infected individuals, Chip is correct. The number of individuals who are exposed to the virus will, eventually, be the same no matter what temporary measures are employed. Time is the only variable.

I learned on Facebook that if we all just stay home, the virus will magically disappear some day and no one will ever die of anything again.