General / Off-Topic Some numbers and a shortage

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
China now has something to gain by letting it spread internationally.

And once it gets to his doorstep, methinks the story may not be so good as in a totalitarian centrally controlled country with an army administered health service (where there are no idiots drinking bleach.) If China can't control it, nowhere can.

We can project that the first country to gain population immunity will be China, that the centrally controlled recovery will be in China, and that when the rest of the industrial world is crippled and looking to try to cope, the resident expertise will be in China.

I fear that we shall measure Mr Ross' words soon. And he himself may be measuring his own lack of immunity. He can thank his own intelligence for that.

what a load of tosh. china having good labs and having done impressive advancement on the early days of the breakout (while terrible political action which mostly hurt their own population) doesn't preclude the rest of the world doing the same.

incidentally, people are only dying in china for now. that isn't conclusive, though: it's where infection hit worst, and their health care system is completely overwhelmed, while confirmed patients in the rest of the world are receiving the best care and attention their nations can afford. we'll see in a while.

if the last thing we need now is panic about the spread, i guess this daft political conspiranoia isn't warranted either. really, bleach would be better.
 
pub-093-72-virus-800x566.jpg
 
Yes, short term, diseases can win. But during history of warfare, humans killed billions of other humans.

Did you mean with cigarettes? ( of course not, /jk)

WW1 & 2 =< 50 million deaths.
Cigarettes > 100 million last century.
All of warfare would be a considerable number, certainly.

Back in the 1500's, news of the English attack pending against Puerto Rico reached the defending governer. Reknowned Englishmen Admirals Drake and Hawkins had planned to land out of gun range, and lead the marines on a jungle assault. The governor is reported to have shrugged and remarked that he had Admiral Yellow Fever and General Malaria on his side.

Hawkins and Drake both died of disease, never lived to see home. True story.
 
Did you mean with cigarettes? ( of course not, /jk)

WW1 & 2 =< 50 million deaths.
Cigarettes > 100 million last century.
All of warfare would be a considerable number, certainly.

Back in the 1500's, news of the English attack pending against Puerto Rico reached the defending governer. Reknowned Englishmen Admirals Drake and Hawkins had planned to land out of gun range, and lead the marines on a jungle assault. The governor is reported to have shrugged and remarked that he had Admiral Yellow Fever and General Malaria on his side.

Hawkins and Drake both died of disease, never lived to see home. True story.
Some year or two ago in a thread about... I don't know, something that needed proving... I actually spent about an hour doing a bodycount (I think it was about proving that 20th century was the most peaceful century in human history, now that I think about it).
The numbers were staggering. I only focused on AD, but on top of that before - especially eras like first dynasties of China, Greek era, beginnings of each major religion,... Hundreds of millions of people. Way, way off the charts when comes to comparison with the two world wars. And it wasn't staggering just by sheer numbers - the proportionality of it was also unbelievable. Whole nations reduced to half of their population within months or a couple of years.
...yeah, I don't believe there is a microorganism that could kill humans more efficiently. At least not as a natural plague-style spread. Not unless it's targeted and deployed on a large scale to begin with as a weapon, but then it's no longer the virus killing humans, right? Then it's back to humans killing themselves.

Anyway, this took a wrong turn. Sorry. I'll shut up and let you guys get back on topic.

edit: Okay, I found the post. :LOL:

It's actually not as bad as I remember it, but still - I don't think a virus can do this. And in the end, no matter what, we always bounce back. We're worse than rabbits.
 
Last edited:
WW1 & 2 =< 50 million deaths.
Cigarettes > 100 million last century.

I am always remembered how we became so used to anonymise the very business owner in charge of selling death when I hear people say that gun killed Peter, the cigarettes killed Paul.

Parasympathomimetic alkaloid dealer Phillip-Fürchtegott Reemtsma reaped profits from his colaboration with the Regime. At that time the largest cigarettes producer in Germany P.F. Reemtsma did not only kill by his very product, but production of the same by 28.000 adults and children in forced labour proson camps on Crimea.

By 1941 tobacco taxes accounted for a massive 1/12 of regime, and all in all Reemtsma family was one of the biggest donors to organisations, from Hitler youth to direct party donations and individuals like Göring who received one million per annum for his help with a case involving SA.

Always some lovely individuals responsible behind the products of death. Industrials and their history of war profiteering, players on the global chess board of power. Some things never changed.... but I guess you could also say, we allow that to happen.

https://momentmag.com/sheldon-adelson-playing-win/

Adelson-Head.jpg
 
Last edited:
The recent days the epidemic has started to deviate from exponential growth, approaching a growth pattern that more resembles a polynomial development.

1580556577522.png


1580556737009.png

The difference in R2 (~correlation) is not large, and it might change, but anything else than exponential growth is slightly promising, because exponential growth is the one that goes almost vertical very quickly. Also please note that R2 for exponential growth is still 0.9911, which is a high number. Said in another way, statistically exponential growth still correlates very well with data.

It's interesting to see how little we actually know about epidemics. Here is an article from 2015, describing something similar to what we see with 2019-nCoV:


There are several possible explanations for this, and honestly I don't know, but I'll continue to analyze the daily data, and keep you informed.
 
Last edited:
A virus doesn't survive for that long outside its host. In some cases up to 24 hours, but typically it won't survive more than half an hour. Another thing worth noting is that even though you could potentially get infected by one single virus, the amount of virus you're infected with also will have some effect on whether you get ill or not, because your immune system should be able to cope with smaller infections.

Personally I normally get a little tense in crowded places when people don't respect my "private sphere" with a radius of several meters, but these days I get all the space I want. If not, then a small cough quickly clears the area :)

Do we have any Idea yet what the survival conditions outside of host for 2019-nCoV are ?
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom