bonal Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Welcome to Mooney Space Mr Wingtip, so do you fly a Mooney or just think they're great little flying machines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 hours ago, aviatoreb said: But why can I not expect to smoke on an airplane without saying that's the other guy's problem and if he/she doesn't like it he/she is free to debark the airplane? sure. In fact you could have a smokers airline. People could choose to fly on it or not. -Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said: sure. In fact you could have a smokers airline. People could choose to fly on it or not. -Robert How about naked people. What if naked people want to express their need to be free. Heck lets let them have sex since flying is boring and need to do something to pass the time. And lets just tell everyone else, people could choose not to fly or not. I want to fly with a big ol' boom box and rock my favorite tunes. People can choose not to fly if they don't like my music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, aviatoreb said: How about naked people. What if naked people want to express their need to be free. Heck lets let them have sex since flying is boring and need to do something to pass the time. And lets just tell everyone else, people could choose not to fly or not. I want to fly with a big ol' boom box and rock my favorite tunes. People can choose not to fly if they don't like my music. Back in the day I have seen all of the above on an airliner! Thats why I bought a mooney! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_elkhartian Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Welcome to Mooney Space Mr Wingtip, so do you fly a Mooney or just think they're great little flying machines. I’m in the market! Looking for an E or the right J....glad to be here!Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toto Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 On 5/11/2020 at 1:18 AM, carusoam said: Current Covid19 testing takes about a week to get results back... This is way outside my area of expertise, but they do apparently have "instant" (5min ish) tests for practitioner use somewhere in the approval pipeline. Given the current anxiety about testing, it seems like only a matter of time before something is available for rapid self-testing at home. https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-03-27-Abbott-Launches-Molecular-Point-of-Care-Test-to-Detect-Novel-Coronavirus-in-as-Little-as-Five-Minutes 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said: Back in the day I have seen all of the above on an airliner! Thats why I bought a mooney! ...which - the boom box music? :-O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, aviatoreb said: How about naked people. What if naked people want to express their need to be free. Heck lets let them have sex since flying is boring and need to do something to pass the time. And lets just tell everyone else, people could choose not to fly or not. I want to fly with a big ol' boom box and rock my favorite tunes. People can choose not to fly if they don't like my music. Exactly. In fact that probably does exist. Probably some nudist do have their own flights. If you sign up for the naked flight you have no room to complain. If the airline finds that the naked flights aren’t making money they’ll choose to do non naked flights. We don’t need govt making our choices. -Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_elkhartian Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Wasn’t this called Hooters Air? Or was that classier?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, wingtipwalker said: Wasn’t this called Hooters Air? Or was that classier? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Actually this is a good example. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-nudism-flight/fly-naked-on-germanys-first-nudist-holiday-flight-idUSL2975435320080129 -Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said: Exactly. In fact that probably does exist. Probably some nudist do have their own flights. If you sign up for the naked flight you have no room to complain. If the airline finds that the naked flights aren’t making money they’ll choose to do non naked flights. We don’t need govt making our choices. -Robert Just so you know - I am just debating. I am not actually in deep on this. But playing through. Ok - supposed I sign up for a "no smoking flight" and when I get there everyone on board is smoking. So I must deplane because (supposing) I were a severe asthmatic. So I deplane. Is that fraud if I was promised a flight on which I could breath? do I have recourse? Does government have a role in helping me recoup my cheated fare or is it buyer be ware? What if the airline forgets to inspect the pressurization system and we all die due to a pressurization failure. Is it buyer beware or does government have a role in certifying that the pressurization system and maintenance systems actually work? If there is some layer where yes we agree that the government does have a role in protecting our choices, then we are in a stage of discussing where that role stops and when it becomes buyer beware. What if I sign up for a naked flight and when I get there no one else is naked? Should I deplane in horror and embarrassment? And what about the sex? Edited May 13, 2020 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, RobertGary1 said: Actually this is a good example. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-nudism-flight/fly-naked-on-germanys-first-nudist-holiday-flight-idUSL2975435320080129 -Robert I suppose in the age of covid, they will be wearing masks but nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertGary1 Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 34 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: Just so you know - I am just debating. I am not actually in deep on this. But playing through. Ok - supposed I sign up for a "no smoking flight" and when I get there everyone on board is smoking. So I must deplane because (supposing) I were a severe asthmatic. So I deplane. Is that fraud if I was promised a flight on which I could breath? do I have recourse? Does government have a role in helping me recoup my cheated fare or is it buyer be ware? What if the airline forgets to inspect the pressurization system and we all die due to a pressurization failure. Is it buyer beware or does government have a role in certifying that the pressurization system and maintenance systems actually work? If there is some layer where yes we agree that the government does have a role in protecting our choices, then we are in a stage of discussing where that role stops and when it becomes buyer beware. What if I sign up for a naked flight and when I get there no one else is naked? Should I deplane in horror and embarrassment? And what about the sex? Aircraft safety is probably a different subject since passengers aren’t in a good place to evaluate that. if you get on a non smoking flight and there are smokers you can stay or leave as you please. It’s your liberty to decide. You can then decide if you want to fly that airline. If the govt allowed smoking on flights today few if any airlines would allow smoking, because customers don’t like it. I don’t see a need to impose an oppressive govt in the mix. Both sides lose when you do. however most of the data tells us that customers will put almost everything else aside for a few bucks less fare. And that is their choice. from the famous song ... ”Sure, we're concerned for our lives, just not as concerned as saving nine bucks on a round trip to Fort Myers.” -Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonal Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, aviatoreb said: How about naked people. What if naked people want to express their need to be free. Heck lets let them have sex since flying is boring and need to do something to pass the time. And lets just tell everyone else, people could choose not to fly or not. I want to fly with a big ol' boom box and rock my favorite tunes. People can choose not to fly if they don't like my music. And now we know why we have autopilots 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 7 hours ago, RobertGary1 said: Aircraft safety is probably a different subject since passengers aren’t in a good place to evaluate that. if you get on a non smoking flight and there are smokers you can stay or leave as you please. It’s your liberty to decide. You can then decide if you want to fly that airline. If the govt allowed smoking on flights today few if any airlines would allow smoking, because customers don’t like it. I don’t see a need to impose an oppressive govt in the mix. Both sides lose when you do. however most of the data tells us that customers will put almost everything else aside for a few bucks less fare. And that is their choice. from the famous song ... ”Sure, we're concerned for our lives, just not as concerned as saving nine bucks on a round trip to Fort Myers.” -Robert So we are agreed - there is some point where government intervention is justified and then we are only discussing where in the sand is that line. Smoking on airplanes and the power of free market to decide that issue, has a long and interesting history. Today we are used to no smoking on airplanes and many of us would be appalled if it became available again and yes perhaps simply by voting with our feet, market forces would suppress the idea without government intervention. The history of the topic shows that it took government intervention over many years to roll back that activity, eventually ending it entirely in 1999 by action of the FAA. https://web.archive.org/web/20140109011744/http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=334 Was smoking on airlines what people wanted. Some did certainly. Some did not. In any case, the then very very powerful Tobacco lobby fought tooth and nail to block any and all actions. Separate - your vision of - if people don't like it then too bad its up to them to just get off the airplane.... describes a world of choice as if most all people are flying for pleasure, to vacations and they have all the time and money in the world to choose their airlines, walk away from their tickets once paid, and buy a new one. Rent a car and drive to Kansas for that meeting with the regional sales rep? Buy a replacement ticket on another airline at last-minute fair rates out of pocket? Many people do a lot of business travel, and doing so is an integral part of their job function. They don't choose the airline. They just get handed a ticket and then go - don't forget your laptop and the powerpoint presentation. Balking could mean yes not sitting on a smoking flight, or a flight full of mask wearing fellow road warriors who may be much more packed in than the airline promised, but knowing full well that getting off that flight on a tight schedule carries the full implication resigning from your job. I doe enough airline travel for work every year that the last thing I want to do on my holidays is to get on an airplane. I have not been anywhere on my free time, with my own personal dollars for at least a decade. In part the Mooney helps a lot with this - but even so - that would change nothing if I had no airplane. I would love to go to Hawaii - but I'm not going until I can afford a Gulfstream. I would rather go to the ocean in Maine where I can drive (have done so many times with the family in the minivan) or fly thee Mooney (have done so many times with my wife) - and comparable places. Why - airlines have become so darned unpleasant. The seats are smaller than my legs at 6'4'' and keep shrinking. for one. So vote with my feet - yes I do. And yet about a dozen airline tickets a year are purchased with m name on them for work travel. Market forces are not strong enough to overcome the discomfort enough to force people to quit their jobs but they are strong enough for them to not want to go to Hawaii or Ft Laurderdale. I assert that airlines are not normal business. They are a semi-public business and public service part of our civil infrastructure. In the recent trillions of tax dollars bail outs, huge dollars were offered to the airlines. The runways and the airport infrastructure they use are paid by our tax dollars. For good reason - we need them functioning for a strong modern economy, My, and your, tax dollars are paying for them, so the laissez faire economics of it all is already distorted. $9 discount pilot guy video is cute. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just a few observations from 60 some years around aviation and the airline industry- For the first time in my career there really was a pilot shortage - until 90 days ago!!! It will be a long time before kids training to be airline pilots today will ever find airline pilot jobs. They maybe should go somewhere else for a career now. The airlines are shrinking their fleets massively, less airplanes = less pilots Warren Buffet dumped ALL of BH airline stocks, He's out of that industry No airline can survive with a "social distance" passenger cabin. Half of the entire airline fleet is sitting in storage right now. International travel is down 90%. The airline industry will languish for years due to soft demand from passengers after COVID The same with the cruising industry Now to COVID- JMO, shields are up For those 60 and under its almost a non-entity The real chance of dying from it is in fact very low Take Arizona for instance, If you take the states population and divide it into the number of fatalities as of May 8, the chances come out to 0.007% as the population as a whole. Being infected is another matter. With the ramp up of anti-body testing in AZ the numbers are pointing to 300,000 have been infected vs the official @ 11,000. Many never even know they have it which shows the concern in this thread of transmission to the more vulnerable. By far the majority of fatalities have been with in the older ranks BUT also having underlying disease issues. The real numbers are not available. It seems that anyone who dies for any reason and has ANY one or more of the possible symptoms of COVID gets a COVID death certificate. The death numbers are inflated. Why? That's not a discussion for here on MS. There has never been a vaccine developed for any SARS virus yet and COVID is a SARS virus. With new gene splicing we might get one. I am not too sure we will ever see one for COVID despite the current news cycle and even if we get one how many people will take the shot? On average only 50% of the population gets a flu shot every year. A vaccine won't kill the disease. It will be with us forever in one form or another. It will always be a risk factor. The big factor in the beginning was there was no treatment or vaccine. We now are finding treatments that work. For MOST of the population (the vast majority) COVID is not a death sentence, its just the flu, like any other. You get sick and you recover. If you are older you fit into grey area and if you have other medical issues you may have a big problem. Not unlike any other disease you might contract. I admit I'm not a DR but I have studied this extensively for several months now and I have numerous friends who are Drs and we converse and this is my opinion, Oh and BTW I did stay in a Holiday Inn a while back !! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis P Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 13 hours ago, wingtipwalker said: I’m in the market! Looking for an E or the right J....glad to be here! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I have an 1965 E model Coming up for sale after annual this month. Good times zero hours on overhaul 3 blade prop Located in Coolidge Arizona. Listed on barnstormers this week and it’s also on Mooney Pilots on Facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Welcome aboard Dennis... There is a more proper way to advertise a plane for sale around here... Let us know if you need help finding the guidelines... There are many people looking for Mooneys... Finding one for sale in the middle of the virus thread will be difficult at best... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, cliffy said: For those 60 and under its almost a non-entity The real chance of dying from it is in fact very low Take Arizona for instance, If you take the states population and divide it into the number of fatalities as of May 8, the chances come out to 0.007% as the population as a whole. Being infected is another matter. Yes the real numbers are not available and will likely not be reasonably accurate until about 10 years from now. But pointing to Arizona where it has not hit - yet? - strongly - is not very convincing to me as to the danger, or not, whatever the case may be, anymore than pointing to Arizona as a statement that snowmobiles are not dangerous (I forget the exact number but I think its about 21 deaths last year in this state). I am not afraid of snowmobiles but I would rather know the risk than use cherry picked data. And that said - very few of those deaths were in.. the summer. As of today, the deaths per 1M population in NY state as a whole from covid were 18k per 1M - but most of those deaths were concentrated in the city about 7.5 hrs drive from here, but in this rural county of 107k there have been 2 deaths. The thing that is relevant to questions like this is the idea of conditional probabilities. What is the probability of X given Y. P(X|Y) vs the P(X). What is the condition of X= death by smoking in the USA last year? Well P(X)=480,000/328,000,000 = 0.14%. Hey no problem right? Wait does that reflect the danger of smoking? I am more interested in death by smoking given a person is a smoker. There are 34.4M smokers or ~10% so that makes for the P(X|Y) to be much worse or about 1.4%. (There are some things here I am knowingly mucking up a bit just to keep it easier and also don't thoroughly trust the data I am citing since I found it on the CDC site but I didn't read the details). That's 1.4% or so per year. So that is pretty bad. That works out to 13% over ten years and 30% over 25 years (with the simplifying and perhaps false assumption of independence). Anyway there you go is a .14% for the general population not so bad that over 10 years for a smoker is more like 13%. In any case, I am just riffing on the 0.007% in arizona over a 2 month span theme as a reflection of the danger of the thing. I know there are strong reasons to carry on in any case, but there is no need to not realize that Pheonix, AZ has nothing special over Trenton, NJ. So the main thing I am asserting is the idea of conditional probability vs population probability. Often it is the conditional probability we care about. That is not an issue for an MD, but for an actuary to assert. Or a probabilist (ok a statistician would be ok too). Anyway I don't begrudge anyone who wants to get on a packed airplane right now but as for my own risk tolerance I think it is just asking for it, for a much greater chance of significant exposure and its not for me. Let people get on the airplanes if we allow, but don't tell them their risk of death will be 0.007% per 2 months doing so, when it has been dramatically higher for people living packed in like sardines in large buildings. One thing is for sure, I think is becoming clear - the Fed Chair said as much today - this economy is teetering. (My words not his). Edited May 13, 2020 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob E Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 On 5/12/2020 at 5:14 AM, tmo said: Thank you, Bob; that is in fact in support of mandatory vaccinations, I didn't miss anything, did I? That's right. It also contains a really good explanation of the legal basis for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob E Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Here's one of the more useful articles I've seen regarding risk assessment. It's based on science but it's practical and understandable. The factors it discusses are not specifically tailored to the flight instruction context but I think they're applicable. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 Nice paper, BobE. It gives a hint to how many virus particles can be ‘safely’ inhaled... (first one I have seen to say more than one virion) Not sure if they meant that some virions are killed off in a person’s lungs... randomly or any other way... Probably explains why 14 days occurs before some people get sick... some get sick much quicker... Stagnant air is bad... Air exchanges in the room is good... Hence.... Air exchanges in a Mooney with all the vents open is pretty high... Old rules still apply... Don’t share food, beverages... Don’t touch your face... Wash your hands... Avoid common surfaces like door knobs and handles... use a paper towel when needed. Use a mask to keep air flow from your lungs from projecting... Where you and your plane mates are, counts... Where they have been counts as well... Flattening the curve in the infected east coast seems to be working pretty well... Many people do seem to recover from this virus... If there is a wave of infection to come... get prepared to lock down... Better to be prepared for lock-down... then to lock-down any too soon... PP thoughts only... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 hours ago, aviatoreb said: Yes the real numbers are not available and will likely not be reasonably accurate until about 10 years from now. But pointing to Arizona where it has not hit - yet? - strongly - is not very convincing to me as to the danger, or not, whatever the case may be, anymore than pointing to Arizona as a statement that snowmobiles are not dangerous (I forget the exact number but I think its about 21 deaths last year in this state). I am not afraid of snowmobiles but I would rather know the risk than use cherry picked data. And that said - very few of those deaths were in.. the summer. As of today, the deaths per 1M population in NY state as a whole from covid were 18k per 1M - but most of those deaths were concentrated in the city about 7.5 hrs drive from here, but in this rural county of 107k there have been 2 deaths. The thing that is relevant to questions like this is the idea of conditional probabilities. What is the probability of X given Y. P(X|Y) vs the P(X). What is the condition of X= death by smoking in the USA last year? Well P(X)=480,000/328,000,000 = 0.14%. Hey no problem right? Wait does that reflect the danger of smoking? I am more interested in death by smoking given a person is a smoker. There are 34.4M smokers or ~10% so that makes for the P(X|Y) to be much worse or about 1.4%. (There are some things here I am knowingly mucking up a bit just to keep it easier and also don't thoroughly trust the data I am citing since I found it on the CDC site but I didn't read the details). That's 1.4% or so per year. So that is pretty bad. That works out to 13% over ten years and 30% over 25 years (with the simplifying and perhaps false assumption of independence). Anyway there you go is a .14% for the general population not so bad that over 10 years for a smoker is more like 13%. In any case, I am just riffing on the 0.007% in arizona over a 2 month span theme as a reflection of the danger of the thing. I know there are strong reasons to carry on in any case, but there is no need to not realize that Pheonix, AZ has nothing special over Trenton, NJ. So the main thing I am asserting is the idea of conditional probability vs population probability. Often it is the conditional probability we care about. That is not an issue for an MD, but for an actuary to assert. Or a probabilist (ok a statistician would be ok too). Anyway I don't begrudge anyone who wants to get on a packed airplane right now but as for my own risk tolerance I think it is just asking for it, for a much greater chance of significant exposure and its not for me. Let people get on the airplanes if we allow, but don't tell them their risk of death will be 0.007% per 2 months doing so, when it has been dramatically higher for people living packed in like sardines in large buildings. One thing is for sure, I think is becoming clear - the Fed Chair said as much today - this economy is teetering. (My words not his). I agree with what you have said here, Conditional Probability is different than what I was showing. My only point was that for those sitting at home, social distancing and limiting contact in AZ, the risk is really pretty low. Increase the risk by increasing close contact and yes we will have a rise in the curve. Riskier behavior has consequences. Different states will have different numbers NYC will have way different numbers. I showed similar numbers for Utah and Calif. Overall by population, the risk is low in gross numbers. Hot spots have different numbers but even there if one is not compromised or over 60 the risk is still very low. I am very skeptical of the numbers being shown on ANY site I can find that seems to have any "authority" because all the numbers gathered come from the same places. How the deaths are classified is the root cause of the discrepancies. Even Dr Brix said that they were taking a very broad approach to classifying COVID deaths. Anyone that dies with any (even one) of the COVID symptoms gets classified as a COVID death. Someone on a ventilator for days, with underlying heart and lung issues and gets a cough and dies is classified as a COVID death with or WITHOUT a confirming RNA test. The CDC just on a whim added 3700 deaths to their numbers a couple weeks ago because they assumed that those were COVID patients. No testing to confirm, just class them as COVID and add up the numbers. Take a look at the ratio of deaths due to Regular Flu A&B between this year and last, You will find that week by week last year and this year they were somewhat parallel until somewhere in or around March and you will see the Regular Flu numbers decrease and disappear while the COVID numbers just continue to rise, Are we to assume that this year the regular flu just decided to go away because its neighbor, COVID, was in the room? I think not. My theory is that because they both have similar symptoms that every Regular Flu case was reclassified as COVID. Why you ask? What was the old saying from the Watergate Era? "Follow the Money" All the COVID numbers have been cooked I'm certain of that. I'm in no way saying that COVID is not bad. People get sick from it but for the vast majority it is not a death sentence. COVID will NEVER go away. People will always be dying from COVID from now on. It is what it is. More will die this year. It is what it is. At sometime, someone will have to come out and decide how many COVID deaths we are to accept as the new normal and just go back to work and living as usual? That number will never be zero no matter what we do. My analogy is driving deaths. How many do we kill every year in cars? About 40,000. I can bring that number to zero tomorrow by stopping all driving. That is the cure for that death rate. But is the cure worse than the "disease"? At some point the cure becomes worse than the disease to the population as a whole. We will have to accept a certain number of COVID deaths each year just like we do with automobiles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, cliffy said: I agree with what you have said here, Conditional Probability is different than what I was showing. My only point was that for those sitting at home, social distancing and limiting contact in AZ, the risk is really pretty low. Increase the risk by increasing close contact and yes we will have a rise in the curve. Riskier behavior has consequences. Different states will have different numbers NYC will have way different numbers. I showed similar numbers for Utah and Calif. Overall by population, the risk is low in gross numbers. Hot spots have different numbers but even there if one is not compromised or over 60 the risk is still very low. I am very skeptical of the numbers being shown on ANY site I can find that seems to have any "authority" because all the numbers gathered come from the same places. How the deaths are classified is the root cause of the discrepancies. Even Dr Brix said that they were taking a very broad approach to classifying COVID deaths. Anyone that dies with any (even one) of the COVID symptoms gets classified as a COVID death. Someone on a ventilator for days, with underlying heart and lung issues and gets a cough and dies is classified as a COVID death with or WITHOUT a confirming RNA test. The CDC just on a whim added 3700 deaths to their numbers a couple weeks ago because they assumed that those were COVID patients. No testing to confirm, just class them as COVID and add up the numbers. Take a look at the ratio of deaths due to Regular Flu A&B between this year and last, You will find that week by week last year and this year they were somewhat parallel until somewhere in or around March and you will see the Regular Flu numbers decrease and disappear while the COVID numbers just continue to rise, Are we to assume that this year the regular flu just decided to go away because its neighbor, COVID, was in the room? I think not. My theory is that because they both have similar symptoms that every Regular Flu case was reclassified as COVID. Why you ask? What was the old saying from the Watergate Era? "Follow the Money" All the COVID numbers have been cooked I'm certain of that. I'm in no way saying that COVID is not bad. People get sick from it but for the vast majority it is not a death sentence. COVID will NEVER go away. People will always be dying from COVID from now on. It is what it is. More will die this year. It is what it is. At sometime, someone will have to come out and decide how many COVID deaths we are to accept as the new normal and just go back to work and living as usual? That number will never be zero no matter what we do. My analogy is driving deaths. How many do we kill every year in cars? About 40,000. I can bring that number to zero tomorrow by stopping all driving. That is the cure for that death rate. But is the cure worse than the "disease"? At some point the cure becomes worse than the disease to the population as a whole. We will have to accept a certain number of COVID deaths each year just like we do with automobiles. I am not meaning to be arguing or come off arguing here but just discussing. Tone is very difficult to tune in a typing way. SO I was asserting that conditional probability is the thing that should matter to us, especially as individuals, when assessing our own risks of behaviors. Flying, snowmobiles, and on and on. However deaths attributed to a disease are counted, and I know this has now been a politicized thing too, I will just say that classically, years after the event, historians attribute deaths to a cause based in part by counting excess deaths. This is what was done for counting the effect of 1918, or the tragedy of WWII, and so on. But it is hard to get the numbers right even there, so estimates vary significantly. Already there are excess death counting going on for this event and they are suggesting numbers higher than those that go with the event based counting that is going into the worldometer or the Johns Hopkins counting. Excess death counting in NYC is significantly higher than the CV19 counting, so I am not on board with the story that CV19 deaths are counting everything under the sun and they are in error systematically, whether on purpose or by bad process. Here is a statement of excess death counting at the CDC website. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e5.htm and it comes out with a somewhat higher number than attributed cases. In part for the home death cases, but for whatever reason its larger. I am far from buying "the so-called experts" are all wrong, and generally experts are always wrong camp. I promise the CDC is doing nothing on a whim. Gee whiz I think I'll add 3700 because I'm in the mood- that is what a whim is I agree that 40k people would no longer die of cars if no one got in a car ever again. So goes the statement the cure worse than the disease. What if the disease were to be one million, or ten million dead. I don't know. At some point the cure is not worse than the disease. I don't know what the true numbers will be and since I am not a decision maker all I can do is point at reported numbers, but it seems that it is about 85K dead today and will pass 100k this month, and this is with social distancing intensity in what will be, at the end of the month, then 3 months and in wave one. How big will it be in the end and with social distancing now relaxing significantly. Without using a specific number, I will say, very big number - fill in your best guess. In terms of economics it may be good to open up and the cure may be worse than the disease argument is plausible for a population if we say suck it up and get out there. What's good for the population may not be good for the individual. And I am an individual, so as for my own behaviors and needs, I can do without an ice cream, a trip to applebees and so forth, so I'm holding off for now. We need food, so grocery stores - limited. Edited May 13, 2020 by aviatoreb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted May 13, 2020 Report Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 hours ago, carusoam said: Nice paper, BobE. IOld rules still apply... Don’t share food, beverages... But 5 second rule still applies if drop a french fry on the ground I can still eat it if I pick it up before 5 seconds - right? 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.