That's a little early for it to be likely that you were exposed to coronavirus and not suffering from some illness superficially similar to COVID-19.
An antibody test would be useful here.
General / Off-Topic The safest place
- Thread starter Robin of Spiritwood
- Start date
- Status
That's a little early for it to be likely that you were exposed to coronavirus and not suffering from some illness superficially similar to COVID-19.
An antibody test would be useful here.
Possible candidates :
Human Coronavirusses :
- 229E (alpha coronavirus)
- NL63 (alpha coronavirus)
- OC43 (beta coronavirus)
- HKU1 (beta coronavirus)
Human Coronavirus Types | CDC
CDC Human Coronavirus Types: Information about the six types of coronaviruses including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV.
www.cdc.gov
Influenza Virusses :
Influenza A
- (A)H1N1
- (A)H3N2
- (B) Victoria
- (B) Yamagata
Types of Influenza Viruses
Learn more about the types of influenza viruses that cause seasonal flu illness in humans each year.
www.cdc.gov
Probably easier to test for any of the above, than going for a SARS - CoV -2 antibody test .
What testing? Wasn't even being thought of at my local level, yet. Doubt I'll see it until this fall. Like, the first Wednesday in November...
I might had it as well and my daughter too, last half of January - first half of February
I dont remember having fever, but sore throat, head aches, body aches plus a nasty dry cough that lasted more than 2 weeks.
My daughter had the same, but with some fever episodes too.
Could have been a normal flu tho.
As i said, i would really want some antibodies testing...
Same, plus GI issues. Lambert Field had a large number of international flights, and many local large companies like Mastercard used them.
At least, they used to....
The stuff was running rampant in December in China, some reports suggest earlier. Given the air travel between China and the rest of world that happens on a daily basis, why does anyone discount the possibility of the virus infecting people globally in late January or beyond? I wouldn't just say that it was possible but rather that it was highly likely.
What testing? Wasn't even being thought of at my local level, yet. Doubt I'll see it until this fall. Like, the first Wednesday in November...
I didn't mean to imply a test was available, but when they are, it could show if you had ever been infected.
You can work half your usual hours very well (if the system wants it).If you can live in today's world without any money, then you must tell me your secret!
There is a lot of money on this planet.
A few small% of capitalist thieves hold more than 90% of the world's wealth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 3.9 billion people, half the world's population, are now confined.
It is Thailand which makes it possible to reach this 50% threshold.
-------------------------------------------
It is Thailand which makes it possible to reach this 50% threshold.
-------------------------------------------
I surely wouldn't mind that!
I also believe that is the future to combat unemployement, people working less hours per day
That is true, but those 90% of wealth after being divided by everybody on this planet would end up being an insignificant amount of money to each person.
It would allow to finance the reduction of working time.
But this is not the subject of the thread here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 500 richest people on the planet (the top 0.000001% or thereabouts) have a combined net worth of roughly 6 trillion USD and the top 10% of people by net worth command ~85% of the world's capital, or over 300 trillion dollars.
300+ trillion/~7.8 billion is enough to give everyone about 38k USD, which is more than twice the world average per-capita GDP (PPP). My household is distinctly above the mean in of one of the wealthiest nations in the world and a 38k USD windfall would be a life changing amount of money for us. For the vast majority of the world, it would be a phenomenal amount of money.
Not making any comments about the practicality, viability, morality, side-effects, or whatever, of a radical redistribution, just pointing out that the combined wealth of the top 10% is astounding and not insignificant, even if split eight billion ways.
Last edited:
So, let's take all the rich peoples money and divide it up. Say there's 38k per household to hand out. A year from now and there is none of that windfall left, and all the evil rich people are now paupers. What are you guys going to eat, drink, power your phones, heat yourselves with then? The answer of course revolves around another question: how many jobs have you ever gotten from a poor person?
Find's CoViD- 19 diagnostic backgrounder
What will happen is that the poor people will squander it and the previously rich people will start hoovering it up and become rich again. Take a look at the companies that were privatised in the UK many years ago, the stocks are undervalued and max buy limits are set so lots of average joes can get into the shares market, the stock gets released and it rises rapidly, most people sell to make a quick buck and the intelligent ones buy them all, then they get accused of being capitalised pigs when they sit at the top of the chain where the others have already spent the profit on a holiday or new tv
Congratulations. You are now one of only five people on this entire forum who don't pretend like poor people are unicorns.
Not a situation anyone is considering and you're ignoring my last sentence.
Not per household, per person.
Assuming everyone would away their windfall in your hypothetical scenario is a stretch, even if many might.
And the formerly rich wouldn't be paupers, they'd have $38k, and whatever know how they had before.
Infrastructure, means of production, and businesses wouldn't vanish, even if the capital and control behind them became dramatically more widely distributed.
Poor people buy goods and services all the time, and proportionally more of their money flows up than the other way around. Employment doesn't just go one way. Jeff Bezos doesn't serve people richer than himself...there aren't any such people. He makes his living and grows his company by profiteering off the labor of paupers while helping to make sure they also pick up more of taxation and other financial burdens that would otherwise eat into his bottom line. In a very real sense, I employ Jeff Bezos, as do tens of millions of other people. His position doesn't make him necessary though, if he dropped dead today, Amazon would do fine without him.
Indeed, without any radical changes to the underlying systems, this would happen to a significant degree. There would be massive and probably rapid reconsolidation, though not all the same people would rise to the top again...plenty of people of wealth and power, quite probably the majority, who inherited what they have or the opportunity to build it, rather than earning it themselves.
Last edited:
The rich in the UK were still rich, so they had the capital to buy the stock. This would be more like the privatization of Russia, after 70 years of communism.
Political power, corruption and strong arm tactics were the tools that lead to mega riches. It wasn't a clean and pretty flow back to the previously rich and skilled.
Forced wealth distribution rarely works well.
Education works though. If you make that cheap or free, the people that have potential will lift them self out of poverty.
I agree but the end result will be the same.
Some people will float to the top and others will resent them doing so.
Currently in the UK people are resenting footballers for still getting paid while backroom staff are being laid off/paid the government 80% handout. A lot of footballers come from average / lower backgrounds but they are not going to empathise and give their pay check away, why should they.
- Status