campermon wrote:

Fallible wrote:M-O-O-N. That spells Covid-19.

The first time i heard 'covid' I heard it as 'corvid', as in crow

aufbahrung wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-buttress-fears-about-high-coronavirus-fatality-rate-who-expert-says/

On the more serious thread thought I was fear mongering with my casual questioning of mortality rates, so here's a link to some proof that it might be higher than the low (but still high) range of deaths.

Spearthrower wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-buttress-fears-about-high-coronavirus-fatality-rate-who-expert-says/

On the more serious thread thought I was fear mongering with my casual questioning of mortality rates, so here's a link to some proof that it might be higher than the low (but still high) range of deaths.

Proof?



Point to the proof in that link.

aufbahrung wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-buttress-fears-about-high-coronavirus-fatality-rate-who-expert-says/

On the more serious thread thought I was fear mongering with my casual questioning of mortality rates, so here's a link to some proof that it might be higher than the low (but still high) range of deaths.

Proof?



Point to the proof in that link.

Precise figures I'm a certain fan of also...which is why say 'some' rather than 'definitive' so lets...wait and see...likein the movie.

gobshite wrote:What about Ebola? That was a fizzer.

Spearthrower wrote:If you cannot highlight the supposed proof, would you instead like to acknowledge that you dramatically overplayed your assertion?

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:If you cannot highlight the supposed proof, would you instead like to acknowledge that you dramatically overplayed your assertion?

No?

Not even an acknowledgement of your error?

aufbahrung wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:If you cannot highlight the supposed proof, would you instead like to acknowledge that you dramatically overplayed your assertion?

No?

Not even an acknowledgement of your error?

I'll admit 'prove' could cause confusion for those who mostly use it in the arena of math etc and not common usage. Does derive from common usage old french 'to experience a thing' and didn't start out as a precision linguistic device...

aufbahrung wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:If you cannot highlight the supposed proof, would you instead like to acknowledge that you dramatically overplayed your assertion?

No?

Not even an acknowledgement of your error?

I'll admit 'prove' could cause confusion for those who mostly use it in the arena of math etc and not common usage.

aufbahrung wrote:Does derive from common usage old french 'to experience a thing' and didn't start out as a precision linguistic device...

aufbahrung wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/25/new-data-from-china-buttress-fears-about-high-coronavirus-fatality-rate-who-expert-says/

On the more serious thread thought I was fear mongering with my casual questioning of mortality rates, so here's a link to some proof that it might be higher than the low (but still high) range of deaths.

“What [the data] support is that sure, there may be a few asymptomatic cases … but there’s probably not huge transmission beyond what you can actually see clinically,” Aylward said.

The claim was quickly challenged by an infectious diseases expert who serves on a committee that advises the WHO’s health emergencies program.

Gary Kobinger, director of the Infectious Disease Research Center at Laval University in Quebec, said it would be highly unusual for there not to be mild or symptom-free cases that are being missed. He pointed to the fact that outbreaks have popped up in countries far from China — including Iran and Italy — because people with mild infections were not detected and traveled to other places.

“There are mild cases that are undetected. This is why it’s spreading. Otherwise it would not be spreading because we would know where those cases are and they would be contained and that would be the end of it,” said Kobinger, who insisted that mild, undetected infections cannot be ruled out until people who haven’t been diagnosed with the illness can be tested for antibodies to the virus.

Those kinds of tests, called serology tests, are just becoming available in China, Aylward said.

“As long as we do not have good serology data, I think that it is completely speculative to say that there are no undetected cases,” Kobinger said.

aufbahrung wrote:OK I admit defeat, nothing to say about that. My bad for not thinking before typing. That's all I'm gonna say, move on now. This virus got its legs and we're still barely past argumentation clinic for terms and their meaning.

Found this article. Interesting. Anyone with ideas to add?

https://www.sciencealert.com/if-an-extr ... you-can-be

aufbahrung wrote:my worry is a isolated island would be like that cruise ship and suffer a explosion of cases. Safety is probably a city or town isolated by a farming landscape where the locals instantly put outsiders on the road out of town....sort of island, not a true island where there's no means of escape if it goes lame.

aufbahrung wrote:My bad for not thinking before typing.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:my worry is a isolated island would be like that cruise ship and suffer a explosion of cases. Safety is probably a city or town isolated by a farming landscape where the locals instantly put outsiders on the road out of town....sort of island, not a true island where there's no means of escape if it goes lame.

aufbahrung wrote:My bad for not thinking before typing.

Would you be so kind as to suggest an example of where you think before you type? I know: It feels like thinking, to you.