Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

Bryn Mawr;1532254 wrote: No, his term of office ends the same day.

Nancy’s ends earlier iirc so it should be whoever replaces her?


Here's where I saw it.

Second up is Vice-President Mike Pence, and given that his term in office also ends on that day, he's in the same boat as the president.

Next in line is the Speaker of the House - currently Democrat Nancy Pelosi - but her two-year term is up at the end of December. The senior-most official eligible for the presidency in such a doomsday scenario would be 86-year-old Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the president pro tem of the Senate. That's assuming Republicans still control the Senate after a third of its 100 seats are vacated because of their own term expirations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52326166

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

How much sense does this make, where you live?

Air pollution may be ‘key contributor’ to Covid-19 deaths – study

The new research, published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, compared NO2 levels in January and February in 66 administrative regions with Covid-19 deaths recorded up to 19 March. Ogen also assessed the atmospheric conditions to see where pollution was being trapped over the regions.

He found that 78% of the 4,443 deaths were in four regions in northern Italy and one around Madrid in Spain. These five regions had the worst combination of NO2 levels and airflow conditions that prevented dispersal of air pollution.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... aths-study

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Well, Constitutionally, the election cannot be cancelled, at least not by the Pres. It would take a vote in both houses of Congress to even approach such a thing legally.

However, if there is no election, then only the Senators whose terms are not ending in January 3 2021 will still be in the gummint.

35 Senate seats are up for election, as well as all of the House seats.All of the House is up for election every two years, so without election, House of Representatives will have no active members after the close of the 116th congress, Jan 3, 2021.



The Pres and the VeeP and the remaining 65 Senators would have their way with the place until Jan 20, 2021, when his term ends. Then the Senators, 30 Republicans, 33 Dems, and 2 Independents, would be THE gummint. There is no constitutional provision for extending an active presidents term outside of election.

We would essentially be a rudderless ship. (well, there is an argument for the idea that we have been for a little over 3 years)



There would be no pres to re-assign cabinet members, so the bureaucracy would probably go into some sort of autorun.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

spot;1532257 wrote: Here's where I saw it.


I had presumed that when Nancy’s term ended someone else would take the post and they would be in line?
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6474
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by FourPart »

I was talking to my Brother over the weekend. He's the Senior Theatre Practioner & his Wife is an ICU Nurse in the Southport & Ormskirk Hospitals (near Liverpool), so they're very much in the front line :-( . He was saying that they've lost 70 patients so far. The strange thing is that in Southampton, which has a far higher population we've had a loss of 26.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1532261 wrote: I had presumed that when Nancy’s term ended someone else would take the post and they would be in line?


Well, if there is no election, Pelosi will be out on the street with all the other representatives.

Not that we can expect that to happen, but just following the "what if"
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1532282 wrote: Well, if there is no election, Pelosi will be out on the street with all the other representatives.

Not that we can expect that to happen, but just following the "what if"


So in December when her term comes to an end the post would just go into hiatus?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1532283 wrote: So in December when her term comes to an end the post would just go into hiatus?
Yup. along with 435 of her closest friends.

But, actually, it would be Jan 3, of 21, I believe.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1532284 wrote: Yup. along with 435 of her closest friends.

But, actually, it would be Jan 3, of 21, I believe.


OK, thanks
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1532286 wrote: OK, thanks


There are provisions for replacing a representative should they be unable to continue their elected session. But a failure to provide a replacement through the election for the next term was apparently never considered by the authors.

The only way defined for providing someone to take a seat in a new term is an election.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

I think what he's missing is that the entire set of Representatives lose their mandate at the same time, and with no election there's no remaining Representative to take over her job. The Senate, on the other hand, retains some members from one term to the next.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

spot;1532292 wrote: I think what he's missing is that the entire set of Representatives lose their mandate at the same time, and with no election there's no remaining Representative to take over her job. The Senate, on the other hand, retains some members from one term to the next.


So the HoR closes down nearly three weeks before the change of President?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1532296 wrote: So the HoR closes down nearly three weeks before the change of President?


No. Normally the newly elected HoR will be seated Jan 3rd, and awaiting the newly (hopefully) elected President.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1532297 wrote: No. Normally the newly elected HoR will be seated Jan 3rd, and awaiting the newly (hopefully) elected President.


Sorry, I misspoke, that is what I meant.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

I'm left wondering whether President Trump hopes his inane thinking on his feet will increase his vote in November. Otherwise you'd imagine he might learn eventually that he sounds demented on these occasions, a word I use here in its technical sense.

During Thursday's White House coronavirus task force briefing, an official presented the results of US government research that indicated coronavirus appeared to weaken more quickly when exposed to sunlight and heat.

The study also showed bleach could kill the virus in saliva or respiratory fluids within five minutes and isopropyl alcohol could kill it even more quickly.

William Bryan, acting head of the US Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate, outlined the findings at the news conference.

While noting the research should be treated with caution, Mr Trump suggested further research in that area.

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light," the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, "and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it.

"And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting," the president continued.

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

"So it'd be interesting to check that."

Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177




This is all, presumably, proposed ways to kill the virus when it's already inside the body. Why only the virus should die and nothing else inside the body I'm not sure. He missed out that the virus would also die if you raised the body temperature to 150°F, or irradiated the body with 500 Sieverts, or subjected the body to space vacuum for half an hour.

I mean, you can see why he wants to kill the virus inside bodies. It would mean he could remove all the present restrictions which currently prevent the virus from entering bodies. The logic is impeccable. The injected or ingested disinfectant isn't, and neither is pumping large doses of UV next to the useful friendly home-grown DNA we all cart around with us. That's why we use sunblock, Mr President, and why we print "seek immediate medical help if swallowed" on disinfectant bottles.

Or - and I think this often happens - he might have been attempting humor. It's impossible to guess. I'm amazed he's not mentioned phone towers yet.

The Weasels have reacted to the outcry ...

The White House says the media has "irresponsibly" taken President Donald Trump's comments on injecting disinfectant into the human body to treat coronavirus "out of context".

At a briefing on Thursday, Trump hypothesised about using disinfectants or ultraviolet light inside the body as a treatment. His comments which have been widely criticised by doctors.

Disinfectants are hazardous substances and can be poisonous if ingested.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said: "President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasised again during yesterday's briefing.

"Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52391744




... but they seem not to have actually said what the context was, from their viewpoint. I have no idea what they thought the context was. What do the White House Weasels think the context was, other than that the President spoke nonsense. Someone ought to ask.

I expect his ratings have improved because of it. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Snooz »

I read that he's claiming he was being sarcastic. If you give him the benefit of the doubt which I'm not prone to do but let's pretend anyway, the coronavirus briefing isn't the place for attempts at humor.

And which is it, the media taking his comment out of context or Trump being funny? His new press secretary makes Sean Spicer look like a highly ethical, non-partisan public servant.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

We have a slight problem in the UK. There will be an additional three million or so Covid-19 tests next month, mostly repetitive for front-line workers, as ramped-up test kit production comes on stream. The "confirmed cases" report so far has been driven by hospital admissions testing. If these new low-severity positives are included from now on they'll be an excuse for the confirmed cases total to rise while the government claims the rate of infection is dropping so the lockdowns can be eased.

I think the ambiguity should be removed, and the hospital confirmed case total should be maintained for continuity.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Our local news, last night, was making a big deal of acquiring 150 thousand new Test kits for the bug from some outfit in South Korea.

One of the senators took the credit for the acquisition.

Though, really, that may be enough to re-test most of the healthcare workers, and maybe some new patients to see how they are doing with the bug.

We have over 4 million people in the state, and that will require a whole lot more.

I don't think it practical to try and test everyone, but we need to test a few more that 150,000
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Snooz »

I read a news article about someone bypassing the usual channels and buying PPE directly from South Korea, I assume it must be the same guy. Trump was PISSED and I have my own conspiracy theory why... the feds have been seizing states' purchases, never to be seen again. This is fact. There's speculation that Kushner is responsible and he's selling the goods to a third party to be resold to the feds. Trump gets a cut.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

I would like to offer a totally unacceptable suggestion, because I can't see how it is wrong. Where is my error?

If people getting infected with a larger viral load fare less well than those who only get a smaller initial dose, which I'm sure I've seen reputably suggested - do correct me if that's wrong;

And in the absence of a vaccine;

And if it turns out that the development of antibodies protects against re-infection;

Could we not use a small dose of live virus on less vulnerable people, to give them a better chance of survival than they would have if they caught the disease in an uncontrolled way?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Snooz;1532353 wrote: I read a news article about someone bypassing the usual channels and buying PPE directly from South Korea, I assume it must be the same guy. Trump was PISSED and I have my own conspiracy theory why... the feds have been seizing states' purchases, never to be seen again. This is fact. There's speculation that Kushner is responsible and he's selling the goods to a third party to be resold to the feds. Trump gets a cut.


There are a number of such instances. The States have been forced into an "Every man for himself" strategy by the Fed's lack of coherent policies.

Colorado Senator Cory Gardner scored 150 thousand test kits through his connection with officials in SK, and a governor in another state made a similar score through his wife's connections.

It's Every State for itself, now. it seems.

In fact, there was one story of a state beating out one of their neighbors for some PPE.

And now stories of the Feds trying to intercept shipments to states.

Almost like the days of Prohibition.

History does seem to repeat itself, no?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

spot;1532358 wrote: I would like to offer a totally unacceptable suggestion, because I can't see how it is wrong. Where is my error?

If people getting infected with a larger viral load fare less well than those who only get a smaller initial dose, which I'm sure I've seen reputably suggested - do correct me if that's wrong;

And in the absence of a vaccine;

And if it turns out that the development of antibodies protects against re-infection;

Could we not use a small dose of live virus on less vulnerable people, to give them a better chance of survival than they would have if they caught the disease in an uncontrolled way?


It seems logical. Of course, they first need to have enough data from people who have already been exposed, who can provide samples of blood with antibodies and verify a reliable immune response, I think.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Snooz »

Oh, Cory Gardner. Ef that guy, I hope he's run out of office. In his case, he probably had complete approval from the Trump admin to bypass the usual process, sniveling little toady that he is.

Signed,

Fairly new resident of Colorado that wants a new senator
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Snooz;1532364 wrote: Oh, Cory Gardner. Ef that guy, I hope he's run out of office. In his case, he probably had complete approval from the Trump admin to bypass the usual process, sniveling little toady that he is.

Signed,

Fairly new resident of Colorado that wants a new senator


Right there with ya.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

Snooz;1532364 wrote: Oh, Cory Gardner. Ef that guy, I hope he's run out of office. In his case, he probably had complete approval from the Trump admin to bypass the usual process, sniveling little toady that he is.

Signed,

Fairly new resident of Colorado that wants a new senator


I'm surpried they didn't ask your politics before they let you move there.

The Wshington Post mentioned Gardner this morning.

Colorado (Republican-held): Democrats put themselves in a good position to unseat Sen. Cory Gardner (R) by convincing former governor John Hickenlooper (D) to run after his failed 2020 presidential bid. Hickenlooper still has to win the primary, but he outraised Gardner in the first three months of 2020. Gardner has hitched himself to Trump, refusing to criticize the president or say much of anything during the impeachment trial. Will keeping his base intact be enough in a state that is trending Democratic and voted for Hillary Clinton?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Snooz;1532364 wrote: Oh, Cory Gardner. Ef that guy, I hope he's run out of office. In his case, he probably had complete approval from the Trump admin to bypass the usual process, sniveling little toady that he is.

Signed,

Fairly new resident of Colorado that wants a new senator


I'm surpried they didn't ask your politics before they let you move there.

The Wshington Post mentioned Gardner this morning.

Colorado (Republican-held): Democrats put themselves in a good position to unseat Sen. Cory Gardner (R) by convincing former governor John Hickenlooper (D) to run after his failed 2020 presidential bid. Hickenlooper still has to win the primary, but he outraised Gardner in the first three months of 2020. Gardner has hitched himself to Trump, refusing to criticize the president or say much of anything during the impeachment trial. Will keeping his base intact be enough in a state that is trending Democratic and voted for Hillary Clinton?


Colorado has a fairly large following of right-wing leaning folks, mostly out in the outback - the Eastern plains, and the far western region, as well as around the Colorado Springs area (A lot of retired Military - mostly Air Force) Though Hickenlooper is quite popular in much of the state.

We'll see how that plays out. Gardener got a lot of brownie points with his acquisition of those tests, and I expect that he will play it for all he can.

Hick's latest campaign ad basically plays off the fact that Cory is in Trump's pocket.

This will be the most interesting Senate race we've seen for a while.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

spot;1532377 wrote: I'm surpried they didn't ask your politics before they let you move there.

[QUOTE=Snooz;1532364]Oh, Cory Gardner. Ef that guy, I hope he's run out of office. In his case, he probably had complete approval from the Trump admin to bypass the usual process, sniveling little toady that he is.

Signed,

Fairly new resident of Colorado that wants a new senator


I'm surpried they didn't ask your politics before they let you move there.

The Wshington Post mentioned Gardner this morning.

Colorado (Republican-held): Democrats put themselves in a good position to unseat Sen. Cory Gardner (R) by convincing former governor John Hickenlooper (D) to run after his failed 2020 presidential bid. Hickenlooper still has to win the primary, but he outraised Gardner in the first three months of 2020. Gardner has hitched himself to Trump, refusing to criticize the president or say much of anything during the impeachment trial. Will keeping his base intact be enough in a state that is trending Democratic and voted for Hillary Clinton?



Colorado has a fairly large following of right-wing leaning folks, mostly out in the outback - the Eastern plains, and the far western region, as well as around the Colorado Springs area (A lot of retired Military - mostly Air Force) Though Hickenlooper is quite popular in much of the state.

We'll see how that plays out. Gardener got a lot of brownie points with his acquisition of those tests, and I expect that he will play it for all he can.

Hick's latest campaign ad basically plays off the fact that Cory is in Trump's pocket.

This will be the most interesting Senate race we've seen for a while.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Snooz »

Hickenlooper has fracking in his resume which seems to upset a lot of people in this state. I'm kind of leaning toward Romanoff but I'd vote for my morning bowel movement before I'd vote for Gardner.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Trump rerouted some ventilators for California, if I remember correctly, and "gave" them to Colorado in Gardner's name. Gardner might have gotten some brownie points for the test kits but being connected to Trump has become more of a disadvantage than anything else. A lot of people he's endorsed have lost to dems lately.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Well, Gardener is on my "anyone but..." list, with DFT, and McConnell.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

Today's headline here: "UK military to operate coronavirus mobile testing units for frontline workers".

And a good thing too. That's why the country pays for the armed forces, to provide immediate defence within the homeland in response to major disruption within the homeland.

We do not pay them in order to send them abroad to kill foreigners. We pay them to respond to clear and present dangers to the British public, and that does not include regime change or notorious dodgy dossiers or military destabilization in foreign parts. It's about time the heads of the armed forces actually said no to some of the proposals of people like Tony Blair and David Cameron, when these rogue politicians want to stir things up with their rabid chums in Langley and the Pentagon.

And while I'm at it, can we please stop giving them lethal weapons? Is there no research unit capable of designing Star Trek stun technology yet? No soldier should ever kill anyone in any circumstance, on a battlefield or anywhere else, on pain of the same prosecution terms a civilian would receive. There you are, I just cured PTSD too. An international ban on ammunition and bladed accessories would do it, just like earlier successes made the use of land mines or germ warfare or chemical weapons a war crime. This is all additional to home-only deployment, you understand, I'm not condoning the notion of massed ranks of Imperial Troopers with stun weaponry blitzing through cowed villages in far-flung parts. It may be better than what we have now but it still wouldn't be acceptable. And I'm quite right about all this, it's time other people stood up and agreed with me now and then, I have no desire to be a lone voice.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Well, WHO has now released information that confirms something that has been suspected for a while.

Having once been infected by the COVID-19 is not a guarantee that one cannot be re-infected.

What this really means long term is still up in the air.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... f-covid-19

So many questions still waiting for answers. Some that I have:

1. If a person is exposed/infected, is there a reliable method to determine whether they have developed enough of the antibodies to ward off reinfection?

2. Does it require an actual symptomatic response to develop the antibodies?

3. If a person has developed the antibodies, can it be determined that they are now truly immune?

4. and if a person is immune to re-infection, can they still expose and infect others around them to potential infection?

The scary part is that none of those questions yet have satisfactory answers.

And many governments are still making decision based upon presumptions that still seem to be unproven.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

They're all important questions and I agree there's no answers out there yet that I've seen. If I find discussions around them I'll add a note later.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1532403 wrote: Well, WHO has now released information that confirms something that has been suspected for a while.

Having once been infected by the COVID-19 is not a guarantee that one cannot be re-infected.

What this really means long term is still up in the air.

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentar ... f-covid-19

So many questions still waiting for answers. Some that I have:

1. If a person is exposed/infected, is there a reliable method to determine whether they have developed enough of the antibodies to ward off reinfection?

2. Does it require an actual symptomatic response to develop the antibodies?

3. If a person has developed the antibodies, can it be determined that they are now truly immune?

4. and if a person is immune to re-infection, can they still expose and infect others around them to potential infection?

The scary part is that none of those questions yet have satisfactory answers.

And many governments are still making decision based upon presumptions that still seem to be unproven.


Good questions but note that they say “there is no proof of immunity”. Equally there is no evidence that re-infection has or can occur.

In which case our best guide is experience and for coronavirus that show that immunity is the norm.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

Bryn Mawr;1532411 wrote: Good questions but note that they say “there is no proof of immunity”. Equally there is no evidence that re-infection has or can occur.

In which case our best guide is experience and for coronavirus that show that immunity is the norm.


It may be the best guide, yes, but without evidence in this specific case it's a lot of lives to trust on an assumption. It needs testing urgently before millions of recovered people start working side by side with no protective equipment, the way they used to.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

If anyone would like to see comment on the consequence of the last decade of Conservative austerity in the UK and the effect on welfare poverty, this article is just the thing.

The United Nations’ poverty expert Philip Alston has attacked the UK government’s coronavirus response as “utterly hypocritical” after successive administrations implemented policies of austerity and public-sector cuts.

[...] “The policies of many states reflect a social Darwinism philosophy that prioritises the economic interests of the wealthiest while doing little for those who are hard at work providing essential services or unable to support themselves,” Alston said, warning that the pandemic could push more than half a billion additional people into poverty globally.

“Governments have shut down entire countries without making even minimal efforts to ensure people can get by,” he said. “Many in poverty live day to day, with no savings or surplus food. And of course, homeless people cannot simply stay home.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rty-expert

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1532411 wrote: Good questions but note that they say “there is no proof of immunity”. Equally there is no evidence that re-infection has or can occur.

In which case our best guide is experience and for coronavirus that show that immunity is the norm.


Actually, there does seem to be evidence of re-infections occurring.

"KCDC deputy director Kwon Joon-wook said that so far, there's no indication that patients who retest positive are contagious, even though about 44% of them showed mild symptoms."

from : https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/s ... index.html

Though, encouraging that the evidence does not indicate reinfected are contagious.

We'll see.

The adventure continues.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1532423 wrote: Actually, there does seem to be evidence of re-infections occurring.

"KCDC deputy director Kwon Joon-wook said that so far, there's no indication that patients who retest positive are contagious, even though about 44% of them showed mild symptoms."

from : https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/s ... index.html

Though, encouraging that the evidence does not indicate reinfected are contagious.

We'll see.

The adventure continues.


Thanks, I’d not seen that
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

I have a suggestion regarding the wide difference in deaths to cases ratio across the world.

Some countries, like Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, possibly even South Africa, have a very low ratio of deaths to cases (10%), such as France, Germany, Italy, the UK and America.

The remainder mainly have no significant testing program, or are turning a blind eye like Indonesia, and just show whatever picture they choose.

I think there's a difference in the treatment of suspected cases in those two initial groups.

I think the countries in the first group have moved suspected cases into a medically monitored treatment setting as soon as they show symptoms.

And I think the countries in the second group have isolated suspected cases at home, and moved them to a hospital treatment setting only when they are sufficiently ill as to confirm a need for immediate intervention.

If this is true, then the early medical intervention of the first group may well be reducing the death toll of Covid-19 in their country by an order of magnitude compared to the second group. Part of that effect could be an improved outcome for equivalently ill people, part might be by keeping the overall number of infections lower.

It is a precondition for being in the first group that the country keeps case numbers low, by contact tracing and self-isolation before symptoms appear and by institutional isolation as soon as the suspect becomes symptomatic.

Italy, Spain, France and Germany are reducing their daily confirmed case count sufficiently fast that they could get into that position in the next four to six weeks.

Iceland, Australia and New Zealand are already there.

America and the UK quite simply can't, whatever policy they adopt at this point. Both are barely achieving a reduction in the daily confirmed case count, certainly under 10% a week. Both will relax restrictions long before they can immediately move all symptomatic people into a monitored treatment setting to permit early intervention.

The UK appears to have an unspoken policy of processing infected people in need of immediate intervention through hospitals while keeping the numbers some way below the capacity of the system, intending to let the most people get back to work while not returning to exponential growth. I think the consequence of aiming for that, rather than aiming for sufficient suppression of numbers that medical treatment can be offered to everyone from their first symptoms developing, will be a higher death toll by the time vaccinations are complete.

America's sole objective is clearly to get companies back into profit regardless.

The WHO recommended strategy is, and has been for decades, to get and keep the numbers low enough to isolate every infection and trace and test every contact. Neither the UK nor America has aimed to do that, not since the number of confirmed cases passed a hundred. In my opinion, that WHO objective should never have been let go of.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15941
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Today is the day that the ONS publish the figures for total deaths due to covid-19 in the UK and, up to 17/04 there were 19112.

Given that this is date of registration rather than date of death and it takes on average ?4? days for the registration to go through this figure should be compared to the data released on 13/04 which was 11329. This suggests that, at that point, 40% of covid-19 deaths were taking place outside of hospital.

If we carry this forward to today that would imply that today’s real figure is about 35150 deaths in the UK :-(
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

That sounds as close as matters, yes.

If the country's a tenth of the way into the outbreak's cases and deaths, it also shows where we're headed. To bring down the final figures you'd have to bring down the weekly totals for the next twelve months, and if we're re-opening businesses and getting back to work then we're not going to make much headway in bringing down the weekly totals. You can't do both. If the UK does not reduce the current level of deaths and were to just plane along flat around 4500 a week, the country would saturate in 60 weeks.

Or do you think the nation will become fully infected before we get that far because of unseen asymptomatics, and the weekly totals will die down because there's nobody left to infect? That's quite possible too. Nobody can tell until tests are published on random samplings of the population around the country. I've seen no such UK testing published yet.

Or will the NHS central-reporting contact tracing app be a magic bullet? Who on earth is going to install that.

The UAE "has rolled out one of the world’s most comprehensive testing regimes" (Guardian). It's reported 11,380 cases and 89 deaths. That's a ratio of 0.78% and it's not based on counting just hospitalized cases, the UAE appears to be mass testing all symptomatic reports. At the same rate, 60% infection of the UK would equate to 300,000 deaths. Do we really think there's a high proportion of totally asymptomatic cases hiding behind the UAE count, which would significantly reduce that figure? Without a reliable trustworthy random study, preferably in the UK, there could be but there might not. I do think it ought to be discovered and reported sooner rather than later. "Luxembourg has announced an ambitious plan to test its entire population for coronavirus in a single month" will be helpful.

Here are the two types, as examples. Notice that the world, US and UK are roughly flattened, the successful lockdowns are the others that follow. The World,US and UK are not reducing enough to warrant relaxation any time soon. Okay? The graphs are all copied today from Johns Hopkins.

BAD examples

World






US






UK






GOOD examples

New Zealand






Australia






Spain






Luxembourg






Switzerland






Italy






Iceland






Norway






Germany


Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

spot;1530002 wrote: Could I ask what-if?

If there are fifty thousand deaths in America from this by polling day in November, will it increase or decrease the President's prospect of re-election?

I can''t see him being damaged by that, but I can definitely see him being boosted if foreign peril is prominent in the mind of the electorate. It's why so many previous national leaders have engineered a war during their first term of office.


That was from 2nd February. We went past the figure this week.

As for foreign peril, "GOP memo urges anti-China assault over coronavirus: The Senate Republican campaign arm distributed the 57-page strategy document to candidates".

The PDF can be downloaded there and yes, I red all of it this morning. That's the campaign in a nutshell.

It all smacks of trade tariffs for the next four years. The world can live with a jingoist American embargo on all imports from China or from anywhere else for that matter. Eventually America is going to ask for world solidarity against the nominated enemy of the day and be told to take a running jump by everyone except Honduras and Poland.

If I recall, I chose the number while recalling the cost to America of the war in Vietnam. It seemed relevant to presidential popularity.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
devist8me
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:38 pm

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by devist8me »

There are no answers because it hasn't been here long enough to study and form opinions/hypothesis. I've been watching for this info because I think I had it back in February. I've read everything from "you can't get it again" to "symptoms will be 10x worse next time".



spot;1532404 wrote: They're all important questions and I agree there's no answers out there yet that I've seen. If I find discussions around them I'll add a note later.
I probably posted that in an ambien trance-soryy
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

devist8me;1532508 wrote: There are no answers because it hasn't been here long enough to study and form opinions/hypothesis. I've been watching for this info because I think I had it back in February. I've read everything from "you can't get it again" to "symptoms will be 10x worse next time".


I think there's a straightforward race inside a body. The body tries to ramp up recognizing the virus so it can target and destroy, the virus tries to build enough numbers that most will survive and swamp the body.

If the body retains enough recognition that the virus is to be killed on sight, it can ramp up a reaction quicker and wipe out the few invaders before they get a numerical foothold.

I can't see a flip side where the virus can learn to dodge recognition, not unless it's mutated. Maybe your 10x worse is if it improves and then returns. True it could be worse, but there's no headlines yet screaming new variations.

I reckon having had it is a benefit and I think you could be quite relieved you got through that.

The published numbers of cases and of deaths are meant, in civilized countries, to only include people and bodies which test positive for the virus - nobody's meant to add to the total through guesswork. We have thousands of bodies in the UK which aren't included in the published death toll for the sole reason that they weren't tested.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by LarsMac »

I am not offering any opinions on any of these pieces. Just sharing.

Opinions to follow

Some interesting stuff:

https://amp.ft.com/content/6bd88b7d-338 ... ssion=true

https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/why-us-ou ... -to-wuhan/



one comment: Listen to the first 1 minute, and stop, and think for a minute or two. Then go on.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

From the FT report

If the same level of underreporting observed in these countries was happening worldwide, the global Covid-19 death toll would rise from the current official total of 201,000 to as high as 318,000


The "60 per cent higher [death toll] than reported in official counts" may well be true in the developed countries analyzed, it would be very surprising if it were not the case. The UK recognized this week that as many deaths have happened this month in care homes as have happened in hospitals, and the care home figures were not in the officially published UK death total.

What would very much surprise me would be a figure as low as 60% higher in all the other countries with less infrastructure, less monitoring and far fewer medical staff per million population, and it's those countries which make up well over half the world population.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

So, the Californian Dr Erickson in the video. I'm six minutes in and so far he's completely wrong.

He's extrapolated a positive to test ratio to the whole state. He can't do that. The people tested aren't a random selection of the population, they're tested primarily because they're in a high risk environment or they're presenting as ill. The extrapolation is not rational, the rest of the population is neither.

He's also equating the number of tests performed with the number of people tested, which is also clearly mistaken.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

And as for who was paying for that research and its gain-of-function nature, it's very easily proven in court but it's not going to stop the electioneering this year from blaming China.

It does sound an entirely feasible source but then, it would whether it's true or it isn't. The real test is to produce clear evidence of whose research it was and, if it's true, investigators and analysts will certainly do that.

What is clear about the report is that it's exactly the same story the Republican activist instruction document gives, but with a different paymaster. Other than who commissioned the research and why, the stories dovetail precisely. That Asia Times report is very cleverly constructed, right down to the articles it chooses to cite as it goes along.

The location of the outbreak has always been a shockingly improbable coincidence. All within one square mile, just by chance, out of the entire country?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

spot;1532475 wrote: As for foreign peril, "GOP memo urges anti-China assault over coronavirus: The Senate Republican campaign arm distributed the 57-page strategy document to candidates".


From the Guardian this evening:



US president Donald Trump, in an Oval Office interview with Reuters, has said he is looking into different options for the consequences China might face for its handling of the coronavirus pandemic. “I can do a lot,” he said.

Trump said that coronavirus has “upset very badly” the US trade deal with China, and that China “will do anything they can to have me lose in 2020.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... 7d8fdd6eb8

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by Snooz »

Yeah, I saw someone on twitter mention how we're going to be saddled with even more tariffs. Trump still doesn't understand (or care) how this hurts American consumers.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 39234
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Not with a Bang, but with a Sneeze?

Post by spot »

I believe he wants to substitute American Homeland producers for those in China.

Either wages offered by these American Homeland producers will become equivalent to those in China (assuming they can achieve that level of productivity), or your price may vary.

Tooling up might take several years too, but it will Make America Great Again.

To understand American patriotism you have to become an American patriot. Believing American patriots to be more valuable, worthy and exceptional than foreigners, beatniks and sympathizers comes with the territory.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!

Return to “Current Events”