China Quarantines Millions After Thousands Exposed To Mutating Virus That Has Killed Many

[RBP]

Yeah.. I have about 13 more years until I'm 62...

There's no way I'll retire at that age. Maybe 70.

[Muddy]

There's no way I'll retire at that age. Maybe 70.

Im doing ok, its the kids colleges that scare me at this point.

[RBP]

Im doing ok, its the kids colleges that scare me at this point.

I hear ya. My cat's wet food is outrageous.

[lost in melb.]

I've had my eye on this 65 acres (yellow area on map) since before this mess. Completely surrounded by thousands of acres of National forest, half mile to Ouachita river.

Nice! We have 64 acres up in the Central Highlands. A creek through the middle and a little mud hut

[deebakes]

Nice! We have 64 acres up in the Central Highlands. A creek through the middle and a little mud hut

But does it have a creek?

[lost in melb.]

But does it have a creek?

Our property in Australia? Definitely

[lost in melb.]

[Godfather]

(CNN)The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now counting "probable" cases of coronavirus among its tabulations, according to the agency's website.
The inclusion of such cases will add thousands to the total number of patients and deaths by including people who didn't have a positive test but showed signs of having the virus.
It comes after the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists suggested the CDC and state health departments add probable cases.
Previously, the CDC was only counting cases that had been confirmed by them or cases where the agency had yet to confirm a test done by a local or private entity.

A probable case or death is defined as one that meets clinical criteria such as symptoms and evidence of the disease with no lab test confirming Covid-19. It can also be classified as a probable case if there are death or other vital records listing coronavirus as a cause. A third way to classify it is through presumptive laboratory evidence and either clinical criteria or evidence of the disease.

New York City's Health Department said Tuesday it is now reporting "probable" Covid-19 deaths of individuals who have not been tested for the coronavirus but are presumed to be positive. The 4,059 probable cases pushed the death toll in New York City to nearly 11,000 victims.
"The fact is, we have to be honest and always acknowledge the full impact," Mayor Bill de Blasio told CNN's "New Day."
"We think it is smart and really fair to those families and to everyone to say, look, a lot of these deaths ... the medical professionals ... they couldn't confirm it was Covid because there wasn't time do a test but they thought that's what it was."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Wednesday that the state will begin counting probable deaths, based on the CDC's guidance.

The CDC count is 605,390 cases of novel coronavirus in the United States and 24,582 people deaths.

According to Johns Hopkins University -- data used by CNN -- at least 637,000 people have contracted the novel coronavirus in the US, and 28,364 people have died.

The US recorded its highest number of coronavirus deaths in a day Tuesday after several days in which the death toll had fallen or was nearly flat.

The daily death toll was 2,405 on Tuesday, according to the Johns Hopkins tally.

============================

So they are intentionally inflating the numbers? And the new daily reports will be a different standard, so no way to compare trend lines?

I'll be curious to see in a few years how we look back on these death rates.

In New York, there are an average of one death every 9.1 minutes (2015) per Population Facts which is approximately 159 deaths per day (older data I found was about the same). Now many folks are staying home, presumably getting in fewer accidents (which is a top 3 cause of death), but they've had basically 2 weeks of 500+ deaths reported each day. We can presume some or many would've died regardless of COVID-19, but how many, if I'm correct that the average daily deaths are greatly outpacing what's normal?


Again though, deaths are the sexy thing to talk about but slowing down hospitalization rates is the reason we're quarantining. Some people are going to die from COVID-19 whether they get it now or later, but if the virus all spreads at once, before healthcare can catch up, some who could've been saved will die. We've already seen the data from 1919 and how cities that ended precautious sooner fared worse. The models still project that here in BC (see below published today). I'm tired of quarantines, but preparing for weeks more of this.

[Pony]

I'll be curious to see in a few years how we look back on these death rates.

Bottom line is all the numbers are based on one assumption or another. For example using your average deaths number, lets assume that the vast majority of those currently dying from "covid" have some serious underlying condition (a lot of numbers support this) and were literally on their deathbeds before this. Time will show that after the covid death rate goes way down they should show a period where the average deaths drop off too because all those that were gonna die in the coming months succumbed to the virus already.

Also, about the possibility of resurgence... sure, it may happen. but at least here in the city (where the bulk of the cases are) many people are going out anyway despite the lockdown. Where do they go? They pack into Walmart, grocery and Home Depot because everything else is closed. Sure they are being careful and despite everyone going to the same few stores, the numbers are leveling off and dropping.

My point is.... So if the numbers are dropping because people are being careful while still going out shopping, would the numbers have dropped if we had kept most of the businesses open but had careful guidelines to protect the public? People would have at least been spread out more. We may find out if they start to re-open stuff and the numbers continue to fall.

Here, they have been pushing hard for people to go out and find a new "essential" job. Tens of thousands of jobs are available!!! So literally they are telling me that it's safe to go get a job at Walmart or Amazon where I would come into contact with hundreds of people a day but it's not safe for me to work at my "non-essential" job where I would come into contact with a handful of people a day at most. /rant

[lost in melb.]

Well, the quick decisive leadership of our leaders and collective sacrifice of Australians seems to have worked. Deaths are now in single figures.

They're talking about plans on the way to begin opening up slowly. If we can maintain collective discipline and trust in authority I think I've got this

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Bradford Betz | Fox News


A newly uncovered claim, from a Chinese-produced program broadcast to the Arab world last month, suggested the U.S. may be responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a transcript released Friday from a media research group.

The debunked charges were made by a “Ms. V,” a Chinese vlogger, during an episode of “China View,” broadcast on CGTN Arabic TV, a subsidiary of a state-owned media organization in China. The channel has had at least 14 million viewers.

On the March 17 episode, Ms. V told Arab audiences that COVID-19, which has infected more than 2.4 million and killed at least 165,000 globally, did not come from a seafood market in Wuhan as originally thought.

“Chinese researchers reported in a new research that the transmission of the new coronavirus had started since last December outside this market,” she said, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which has monitored TV and social media throughout the Arab world.

“The virus may have transmitted from a source or other sources to the seafood market, where the rapid spread of transmission began due to the presence of a large number of close contacts within this place, and the research also reported that the virus had started spreading after the Wuhan International Military Games ended in October 2019. So, it is expected that the ‘patient zero’ in China has come from outside China,” she reportedly said.

“Ms. V” attributed some of her claims to a recent report from the Asahi Corp. of Japan indicating that a surge of coronavirus in the United States was sparked by influenza infections.

“This news has caused a widespread debate on social media about the possibility of the virus being transmitted to China from abroad during the period of the Military Olympic Games in Wuhan, which was attended by 109 countries, including the United States,” Ms. V said.

However, in an article published earlier this month in the South China Morning Post, reporter Robert Boxwell quoted Asahi Corp. as denying the existence of any such report.

Also, no evidence has emerged showing the U.S. military was responsible for transferring the coronavirus during the Military Olympic Games in Wuhan last October.

The baseless allegations went in hand with China’s massive public-relations campaign to avoid blame for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Last month, China’s Foreign Ministry controversially suggested – without evidence – that the U.S. Army had brought the coronavirus into China and demanded that the U.S. make its data transparent.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

[deebakes]

i'm getting really tired of the daily headline of the u.s. leads in coronavirus cases/deaths. we get it, we don't need the daily update of our dominance

[lost in melb.]

Open letter from 222 Australian economists: don’t sacrifice health for ‘the economy’

In recent weeks a growing chorus of Australian commentators has called for social distancing measures to be eased or radically curtailed.

Some have claimed the lives saved by the lockdowns are not worth the damage they are causing to the economy.

Others have claimed the case for easing is strengthened by the fact many of the hardest hit by COVID-19 are elderly or suffering from other conditions.

Some might expect economists, of all people, to endorse this calculus.

But as economists we categorically reject these views, and we believe they do not represent the majority of our profession.

We believe a callous indifference to life is morally objectionable, and that it would be a mistake to expect a premature loosening of restrictions to be beneficial to the economy and jobs, given the rapid rate of contagion.

It is wishful thinking to believe we face a choice between a buoyant economy without social distancing and a deep recession with social distancing.

In a world with COVID-19, there are no good choices.

The best we can do is limit the spread of COVID-19 as much as practicable and rely on the strength of the government’s balance sheet to cushion the impact on the workers and businesses hardest hit.

Our success to date is a direct result of the measures taken, but we cannot afford to be complacent.

We recognise there are trade-offs on some margins, but we urge the government to work closely with public health experts to carefully determine at what time, in what ways, and in which sectors, to begin lifting restrictions.

There should be no doubt the cost of getting this wrong is very high.

Open Letter from Australian Economists
19 April, 2020

Dear Prime Minister and Members of the National Cabinet,

The undersigned economists have witnessed and participated in the public debate about when to relax social-distancing measures in Australia. Some commentators have expressed the view there is a trade-off between the public health and economic aspects of the crisis. We, as economists, believe this is a false distinction.

We cannot have a functioning economy unless we first comprehensively address the public health crisis. The measures put in place in Australia, at the border and within the states and territories, have reduced the number of new infections. This has put Australia in an enviable position compared to other countries, and we must not squander that success.

We recognise the measures taken to date have come at a cost to economic activity and jobs, but believe these are far outweighed by the lives saved and the avoided economic damage due to an unmitigated contagion. We believe strong fiscal measures are a much better way to offset these economic costs than prematurely loosening restrictions.

As has been foreshadowed in your public remarks, our borders will need to remain under tight control for an extended period. It is vital to keep social-distancing measures in place until the number of infections is very low, our testing capacity is expanded well beyond its already comparatively high level, and widespread contact tracing is available.

A second-wave outbreak would be extremely damaging to the economy, in addition to involving tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

Sincerely,

Professor Alison Booth, Australian National University

Professor Jeff Borland, University of Melbourne

Professorial Research Fellow Lisa Cameron, Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne

Professor Efrem Castelnuovo, University of Melbourne

Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark, University of Sydney

Assistant Professor Ashley Craig, University of Michigan

Professor Chris Edmond, University of Melbourne

Professor Nisvan Erkal, University of Melbourne

Professor John Freebairn, University of Melbourne

Professor Renée Fry-McKibbin, Australian National University

Professor Joshua Gans, University of Toronto

Professor Jacob Goeree, UNSW Business School

Professor Quentin Grafton, Australian National University

Professor Simon Grant, Australian National University

Professor Pauline Grosjean, UNSW Business School

Distinguished Professor Jane Hall, University of Technology Sydney

Assistant Professor Steven Hamilton, George Washington University

Professor Ian Harper, Melbourne Business School

Professor Richard Holden, UNSW Business School

Professor David Johnston, Monash University

Professor Flavio Menezes, University of Queensland

Professor Warwick McKibbin, Australian National University

Assistant Professor Simon Mongey, University of Chicago

Professor James Morley, University of Sydney

Professor Joseph Mullins, University of Minnesota

Professor Abigail Payne, Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne

Professor Bruce Preston, University of Melbourne

Emeritus Professor Sue Richardson, Flinders University

Professor Stefanie Schurer, University of Sydney

Professor Kalvinder Shields, University of Melbourne

Professor John Quiggin, University of Queensland

Associate Professor Simon Quinn, Oxford University

Economic Advisor James Vickery, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Professor Tom Wilkening, University of Melbourne

Professor Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan

Professor Yves Zenou, Monash University

https://theconversation.com/open-let...economy-136686

[PorkChopSandwiches]

There's no way I'll retire at that age. Maybe 70.

There is no retiring