Airplane ownership CV19

[bonal]

6 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

For sure, western fires are a great example too, but I was talking building fires.  If I understand right though, even in western fires we do not retain unrestricted rights to go where and when we want and to do what we want.  I know if rights to stay in your home during a fire has been tested.  But if you are a way when the fire breaks out and the road is blocked, i don't think we retain the right to return.  Or businesses in towns on fire have the right to stay open, seat people at restaurants, and serve them.  That is a lot like what is going on now.  But clearly on a much greater scale.

My point was missed and sadly my sense of humor as well.

[Seymour]

On 4/18/2020 at 7:55 AM, Tony Starke said:

I think, though I could be wrong, that many of us are frustrated due to conflicting reports. Most of the links here come from sources that are no longer credible to many Americans. When we have been subjected to blatant propaganda over and over, how are we supposed to take anything they print seriously. It is a sad state of affairs that the public cannot get reliable data and information because the media have an agenda. 

 

19 hours ago, Tony Starke said:

Here's a story that claims 874,000 people died of poverty in 2011. 

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Poverty-Kills-More-People-than-either-cancer-or-heart-disease

Hi Tony,  

I agree that finding accurate information can be a challenge these days.  However, it's impossible to harmonize your complaint about reliable sources with your post from soapboxie.  

[PT20J]

The Kaiser Family Foundation has some testing data by state: https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/covid-19-testing/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

If you want to compare your views with a nationwide sampling, there is a new Wall Street Journal poll out (attached).

Skip

More Americans Fear Lifting Coronavirus Restrictions Too Soon, WSJ_NBC Poll Says - WSJ.pdf

[MooneyMitch]

One of the most beautiful things on earth !

[carusoam]

A Mooney...

As seen from the other GA planes around the globe.

Good to get a feel how the other pilots view our planes.

(A PP, Being humorous at best...)

-a-

[MooneyMitch]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

A Mooney...

As seen from the other GA planes around the globe.

Good to get a feel how the other pilots view our planes.

(A PP, Being humorous at best...)

-a-

When traveling cross country in the Ovation, I always got a silly little kick when ATC would alert another aircraft that there was a Mooney at their 7 o’clock position over taking them !

[MooneyMitch]

Having avidly watched Roy Rogers TV shows as a child, I never ever thought during my lifetime, I’d be able to walk into a place of business and get away with this !!

[PTK]

On 4/19/2020 at 1:31 AM, bonal said:

My point was missed and sadly my sense of humor as well.

This looks like it’s being mishandled in many levels but there are no good choices. To Pres. Trump's credit he is following what the epidemiologists are advising him. If we did nothing about 30 million would die worldwide. ¹ That’s all. I view this as a correction or population control. Assuming 8 billion world  population this translates to roughly +1 million deaths in the US. ²  Also a very small number. That mostly is composed of medically impaired individuals. Things like altered immune status, cardiac disease, immunosuppressed, respiratory distress, etc. etc. After this correction life would go on, as it has after previous pandemics, and the the rest of the population would have stronger immunity to it. Shutting down the country and the economy like this also has casualties and a “mortality rate” that no one talks about!

(¹ ²  Statistics only apply to populations. Not to the individual.)

[Tony Starke]

4 hours ago, Seymour said:

 

Hi Tony,  

I agree that finding accurate information can be a challenge these days.  However, it's impossible to harmonize your complaint about reliable sources with your post from soapboxie.  

I was wondering when someone would get that.

[Tony Starke]

18 hours ago, jonhop said:

Hmm. Some of @PT20J's sources are media but most aren't. Leaving out CNN and Wired as media sources, why are you discounting other sources of information?

Snopes -   When misinformation obscures the truth and readers don’t know what to trust, Snopes.com’s fact checking and original, investigative reporting lights the way to evidence-based and contextualized analysis. We always document our sources so readers are empowered to do independent research and make up their own minds. https://www.snopes.com/about-snopes/

Johns Hopkins University - “The encouragement of research . . . and the advancement of individual scholars, who by their excellence will advance the sciences they pursue, and the society where they dwell.” - https://www.jhu.edu/about/

Center for Disease Control - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/cio-orgcharts/pdfs/CDCfs-508.pdf

SSRN Journal - is devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of research and is composed of a number of specialized research networks. https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/

The data is out there, one just has to look for it. 

 

Snopes- no way. Agenda driven.

Johns Hopkins- depends on who’s funding the research

CDC- IDK, I would hope they would remain factual but then again look at the WHO.

 

[Seymour]

42 minutes ago, Tony Starke said:

Snopes- no way. Agenda driven.

Johns Hopkins- depends on who’s funding the research

CDC- IDK, I would hope they would remain factual but then again look at the WHO.

So your sources of reliable information don't include soapboxie but  you've also discounted many authorities that I consider trustworthy.   Where do you get information that you're confident is not agenda driven?    Do you check the funding for all research that you trust?     

[Andy95W]

In this day and age, it seems most people trust the news sources that support their own opinion.

[bonal]

12 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

In this day and age, it seems most people trust the news sources that support their own opinion.

Unfortunately in this modern age of news it's hard to find a news source that doesn't editorialize and call it reporting. Biased reporting from one ideology or another is almost impossible to avoid these days. Or maybe I should say unbiased reporting is almost impossible to find these days.

Edited April 19, 2020 by bonal

[Guest]

With this virus taking a toll on older members of the population and especially those with pre-existing conditions, you guys should take this very seriously.

Most of you are older grey haired individuals, aviation is a pre-existing medical condition, I worry about you.

Clarence 

[bradp]

The virus doesn’t seem to care too much about whether you have a first class or have to basic med it.  

I wasn’t going to post anything until this gentleman said it better than I could:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/problem-thinking-know-experts

[skydvrboy]

On 4/18/2020 at 8:40 PM, David_H said:

Post any prediction model that shows how the current data fit curves agree with ANY of the prediction models (the actual Mathematical modeling equation(s)).

I created a very simple exponential model early on that tracked reality almost perfectly for a little over a week.  My exponent was 0.32.  However, once people started taking this seriously, things closed, hands were washed, things were sanitized, etc., the exponent dropped and my model started greatly exaggerating cases and then deaths.  Last I checked, which has been a while, both were still climbing at an exponential rate.

[DXB]

On 4/16/2020 at 6:32 PM, bonal said:

Why has California had so few cases compared to areas on the eastern end of the country we have 40 million people in this state the most likely answer is that we were exposed to this virus possibly as early as last December and have already acquired some level of immunity.  

A lot to unpack here in your comments, some of which I agree with. But as a PhD immunologist and a physician, I can say this one point is almost certainly false - the lower incidence in CA almost certainly stems from earlier, more aggressive government action, and possibly warmer temps.  Once we have a reliable test of humoral immunity (it is a mess right now but will get better), I think we'll find that far less than 10pct of people in the US in any population, typically more like 2-5pct, shows evidence of prior infection after the first spike of cases. That is a huge problem in my view - no where near the 70% typically cited as necessary for herd immunity, and no easy way to get there without accepting either huge number of deaths or economic devastation until we have a vaccine. Unfortunately we are only in the first inning of this horrible game. Will CA be best served in the end by their faring better early on?  I have little cofidence that will be true. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by DXB

[PT20J]

53 minutes ago, skydvrboy said:

I created a very simple exponential model early on that tracked reality almost perfectly for a little over a week.  My exponent was 0.32.  However, once people started taking this seriously, things closed, hands were washed, things were sanitized, etc., the exponent dropped and my model started greatly exaggerating cases and then deaths.  Last I checked, which has been a while, both were still climbing at an exponential rate.

Here's an interesting visualization of some of the John Hopkins data. http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?fbclid=IwAR2_C3vUo0__61K-5sfF0riiWPw6zvUO8Cd8QlLjK--j5YEPxqqNA7SjBfc

Skip

[DXB]

I find deaths per capita to be the single most informative statistic.  Comparing total cases among countries, states, or cities is meaningless. And # positive cases is so sensitive to both the number of cases being tested and the testing criteria in any particular population. Death reporting is still error-prone, and in a few  places it is complete BS (e.g. China and Russia), but it is probably the best comparative data we have right now.  Will the places that had the fewest deaths early on be in the best shape going forward? I seriously doubt it - those deaths are closely linked to total numbers of cases and immunity in the population.  Note where the US sits right now in the global scheme of things.  I predict this will be over for Belgium, Spain, and Italy long before it ends for us.  I would estimate 20% of Belgium's population has already been infected and has some immunity, vs. a paltry 5% for us.  

 

[bonal]

38 minutes ago, DXB said:

A lot to unpack here in your comments, some of which I agree with. But as a PhD immunologist and a physician, I can say this one point is almost certainly false - the lower incidence in CA almost certainly stems from earlier, more aggressive government action, and possibly warmer temps.  Once we have a reliable test of humoral immunity (it is a mess right now but will get better), I think we'll find that far less than 10pct of people in the US in any population, typically more like 2-5pct, shows evidence of prior infection after the first spike of cases. That is a huge problem in my view - no where near the 70% typically cited as necessary for herd immunity, and no easy way to get there without accepting either huge number of deaths or economic devastation until we have a vaccine. Unfortunately we are only in the first inning of this horrible game. Will CA be best served in the end by their faring better early on?  I have little cofidence that will be true. 

But that's the problem, we don't know how many people have actually had the virus and were without or had minor symptoms and never sought treatment. A very recent study done in Santa Clara county has determined that the antibody was present in between 50 to 80 times more than previously thought. I can't recall the name but I believe it was Stanford that did the research. I still believe that CA was probably dealing with this infection much sooner as it is a major point of entry for people traveling from China. And please educate me regarding vaccines have we ever developed a cure for a viral infection treatment yes but a cure last time I checked there is still no cure for the common cold,  right or am I mistaken. By isolating the population all we have done is prolong the inevitable. At least it did allow the needed gearing up of medical preparedness.  CA  only began state wide isolation two days before NY not much of a head start.  I have no lettered credentials and truly respect your much more informative position. But sadly most folks are more like me than you and all we are hearing from the medical professionals is the only thing we can do is stay away from each other let our businesses crash and burn and hang in there until we have a vaccine by best estimates 12 to 18 months from now. Not very reassuring if you ask me.

[DXB]

Just now, bonal said:

. A very recent study done in Santa Clara county has determined that the antibody was present in between 50 to 80 times more than previously thought. I can't recall the name but I believe it was Stanford that did the research....

.......By isolating the population all we have done is prolong the inevitable. At least it did allow the needed gearing up of medical preparedness. 

I'd be interested to pick apart the first piece of data if you can post it.  I agree with the second statement fully...

[MooneyMitch]

4 minutes ago, DXB said:

I'd be interested to pick apart the first piece of data if you can post it.  I agree with the second statement fully...

Here's one article on the Stanford study.

https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/04/17/stanford-study-more-than-48000-santa-clara-county-residents-have-likely-been-infected-by-coronavirus

[bonal]

Thanks I was just trying to find a link not very good with an iPad 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

A lot to unpack here in your comments, some of which I agree with. But as a PhD immunologist and a physician, I can say this one point is almost certainly false - the lower incidence in CA almost certainly stems from earlier, more aggressive government action, and possibly warmer temps.  Once we have a reliable test of humoral immunity (it is a mess right now but will get better), I think we'll find that far less than 10pct of people in the US in any population, typically more like 2-5pct, shows evidence of prior infection after the first spike of infections. That is a problem in my view - no where near the 70% typically cited as necessary for herd immunity.  We are only in the first inning of this game. Will CA be best served in the end by their faring better early on?  I have little cofidence that will be true. 

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s most recent study suggests the current infection rate (at least in Santa Clara Co, CA) is roughly in line with your 2-5% (2.8-4%).  Indeed, not enough for heard immunity but it also suggests the infection is far more prevalent than the numbers currently being used to determine mortality rates (we’ve never had a real denominator).  The study also suggests we’ve a long way to go as this works through the population but with a mortality rate of .1% -.2%.  If his numbers hold (and I have no idea if they will) it looks very much like what the flu would look like without a vaccine.

The thing that I think has people’s heckles up regarding the experts is that there has been a lot of information that has not aged well. One can look at old W.H.O. tweets to see how wrong they got things out of the gate. Fauci said recently that this virus is 10x deadlier than the flu. How could he or anyone possibly make such a statement with any confidence?  The truth is we’re just starting to understand this virus and we need many more antibody test studies. I think history is going to judge the policy reactions to harshly. The “cure” is going to be devastating, especially for the poor.  I think when the dust settles there will be many powerful and credentialed people pointing fingers and claiming that “mistakes were made but”...

edit- I believe this is the study to which @bonal was referring.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Shadrach

[DXB]

6 hours ago, bonal said:

Thanks I was just trying to find a link not very good with an iPad 

 

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s most recent study suggests the current infection rate (at least in Santa Clara Co, CA) is roughly in line with your 2-5% (2.8-4%).  Indeed, not enough for heard immunity but it also suggests the infection is far more prevalent than the numbers currently being used to determine mortality rates (we’ve never had a real denominator).  The study also suggests we’ve a long way to go as this works through the population but with a mortality rate of .1% -.2%.  If his numbers hold (and I have no idea if they will) it looks very much like what the flu would look like without a vaccine.

The thing that I think has people’s heckles up regarding the experts is that there has been a lot of information that has not aged well. One can look at old W.H.O. tweets to see how wrong they got things out of the gate. Fauci said recently that this virus is 10x deadlier than the flu. How could he or anyone possibly make such a statement with any confidence?  The truth is we’re just starting to understand this virus and we need many more antibody test studies. I think history is going to judge the policy reactions to harshly. The “cure” is going to be devastating, especially for the poor.  I think when the dust settles there will be many powerful and credentialed people pointing fingers and claiming that “mistakes were made but”...

edit- I believe this is the study to which @bonal was referring.

Ah - 2-4%   That's right in the range I'd expect for an average population in the US. Considerable error in that measurement derives from variable sensitivity and specificity of that assay, and the multiple competing serologic tests in use at the moment, making it hard to compare directly to other populations (e.g. NYC, which I'm guessing should end up like 10%).  The point is the numbers are all quite small and should confer negligable population level resistance.