Southeast Asia Detects Mutated Virus Strain Sweeping the World (bloomberg.com) 200
Southeast Asia is facing a strain of the new coronavirus that the Philippines, which faces the region's largest outbreak, is studying to see whether the mutation makes it more infectious. From a report: The strain, earlier seen in other parts of the world and called D614G, was found in a Malaysian cluster of 45 cases that started from someone who returned from India and breached his 14-day home quarantine. The Philippines detected the strain among random Covid-19 samples in the largest city of its capital region. The mutation "is said to have a higher possibility of transmission or infectiousness, but we still don't have enough solid evidence to say that that will happen," Philippines' Health Undersecretary Maria Rosario Vergeire said in a virtual briefing on Monday.
"People need to be wary and take greater precautions because this strain has now been found in Malaysia," the country's Director-General of Health Noor Hisham Abdullah wrote in a Facebook post, saying the strain can make it 10 times more infectious without citing a study. "The people's cooperation is very needed so that we can together break the chain of infection from any mutation." The strain "might be a little bit more contagious. We haven't yet got enough evidence to evaluate that, but there's no evidence that it's a lot more contagious," University of Hong Kong's Cowling said.
"People need to be wary and take greater precautions because this strain has now been found in Malaysia," the country's Director-General of Health Noor Hisham Abdullah wrote in a Facebook post, saying the strain can make it 10 times more infectious without citing a study. "The people's cooperation is very needed so that we can together break the chain of infection from any mutation." The strain "might be a little bit more contagious. We haven't yet got enough evidence to evaluate that, but there's no evidence that it's a lot more contagious," University of Hong Kong's Cowling said.
2020 Bingo (Score:3)
Re: 2020 Bingo (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unrelated, and not known to be more infectious (Score:2)
OK, who had second unrelated virus?
Not unrelated. It's a slightly mutant strain of the original coronavirus.
Yes, over two months ago when this strain was first identified as having become the dominant one across most of the world.
Yep. Misleading, this isn't really new.
And, no reason to think it's more infectious. From the article:
Hmmmm (Score:2)
Let me put on my Tin Hat and ruminate about how easily these outbreaks could be leveraged to implement near total control on populations and their movement given sufficient motivation by authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put on my tin foil hat and ruminate about how easily a lab-created virus, if accidentally released, could be tweaked to spread more quickly and be less deadly, then intentionally released so that it could mass-inoculate as much of the public as possible, given sufficient motivation by the authorities that created it to prevent the virus from wiping out their own country.
To be clear, I'm not seriously suggesting that it was lab-created; most scientists seem to think that it evolved naturally. But if
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
how easily a lab-created virus ... could be tweaked to spread more quickly and be less deadly
I love a good conspiracy theory, but there is no way that our current understanding of viruses or immunology is good enough to precisely design a pathogen with such specific characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
I love a good conspiracy theory, but there is no way that our current understanding of viruses or immunology is good enough to precisely design a pathogen with such specific characteristics.
Since when did understanding get in the way of a conspiracy theory?
Re: (Score:3)
Since when did understanding get in the way of a conspiracy theory?
I consider myself a connoisseur of conspiracy theories. They are not all the same. Some CTs are patently ridiculous (flat earth, Holocaust denial, global warming is a Chinese hoax, etc.). These are not only unsupported by evidence but also lack a plausible motivation.
But some others are plausible enough to make you think. Were the moon landings faked? Unlikely, but there is some evidence and plausible motivation. Did Covid come from a Chinese lab? There is evidence that it did and an obvious motivatio
Re: (Score:2)
I consider myself a connoisseur of conspiracy theories. They are not all the same.
If you're a connoisseur of conspiracy theories, you should be loving that one. What was suggested was that maybe there was a conspiracy to do good and stop the pandemic (in secret).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not ours, but what about... dum dum dum... Dr Professor Gold Specs in his mysterious UFO shaped laboratory perched on top of an island volcano outside the control of any major government.
Cue new James Bond flick in...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "unrelated". It's literally one base change (a D at position 614 changing into a G) that is hypothesized to have made the spike protein slightly more stable, which in turn might make it easier for the virus to infect people. It's not been proven though. The prevalence of this strain could also be merely due to chance, i.e. the mutation was introduced at a location that subsequently saw an explosive growth in cases because of other reasons (like poor preparedness).
Probably the new normal (Score:2)
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Because, in capitalism, money is more important than human life.
That argument is growing long in its tooth. "The economy", and "money" are not abstract concepts that only politicians care about. Record numbers are unemployed as a direct effect of the lock-down and it is already poor who are hardest hit. The mass protests have sustained due to the unemployed rates. Unsurprisingly, upending all of society has a destabilizing effect.
By now it is very clear that the lives we're "saving" are senior citizens
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that this is more than an A/B situation right? This is one of the big issues I have with most of the people who are advocating closures. There can be measured responses.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't stop and isolate the virus becuse idiots keep insisting on going to huge parties, attending rallies, protest against wearing a simple masks, forbid their workers from wearing masks or protective equipment, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't stop and isolate the virus becuse idiots keep insisting on going to huge parties, attending rallies, protest against wearing a simple masks, forbid their workers from wearing masks or protective equipment, and so on.
When you carefully omit protests and riots from your list you reveal the political theater all of this actually is.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, riots are riots, you can't talk logic into them either. Riots from the right or left doesn't matter, because most of the riots aren't political but just taking advantage of the existing protest crowds. The protests I did think were a bad idea, but even then you would see protesters wearing masks, which seemed a bit silly given how big a crowd they got.
I think when it came to protests, the feeling was that it was more important to be out and protesting than to be hiding at home, and possibly because
Re: (Score:2)
Two short paragraphs are mental gymnastics? I'm guessing you don't grok that the world is more complex than what sound bites and tweets can explain.
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Informative)
By now it is very clear that the lives we're "saving" are senior citizens, often well above their life expectancy age. They would have died later this year anyway.
Once you hit 65 the death rate gets pretty significant. I expect most of them don't plan to die next year "anyway".
COVID is now the third leading cause of death in the US, after cancer and heart disease. Pretty quick for something that didn't even exist 8 months ago.
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, the malls and most restaurants have been open for months and they're often kind of empty. People aren't going to them because they don't want to get sick. This narrative that the lock down killed business is ridiculous, the pandemic killed business.
Most people I know won't eat in restaurants except in very restricted and limited circumstances, like preferring "deli style" ordering/delivery and only eating in open patios. Even when we generally agree its funny to see how much personal preference variation there is, seldom do people we know all agree on which specific open patios they will eat at.
For those businesses that managed to fill up with a clientele of fools and risk takers, they've served as a great example to everyone else why indoor dining and crowds are a bad idea with their many outbreaks.
I've noticed that as the denial message has flagged substantially as open-er-up states became hot zones.
Probably the new denial. (Score:2)
"I've noticed that as the denial message has flagged substantially as open-er-up states became hot zones."
Right up there with "there is no climate change" and "smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer".
Be direct, dammit (Score:2)
If the proponents would outright admit they believe we should sacrifice the sick and elderly to get the economy and incomes back to normal, they should directly say so. Instead, most are vague or in denial about the trade-offs. If they want full-out social Darwinism ("let the weak die"), they should say it outright rather than talk out of both sides of their mouth.
I'd respect their viewpoint for its honesty. I won't necessarily agree, but an honest stance is better than a dishonest stance that denies trade
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately whenever I see a mention of Jonathan Swift anymore, I think of this scene from Sealab 2021 [youtu.be].
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Interesting)
" Because, in capitalism, money is more important than human life."
The median businessman has no idea how capitalism works, and at the 90% percentile they are actively opposed.
An actual capitalist would recognize that a pandemic is bad for business. The data supports that enforced public health actions have less of a peak economic effect than individual fear of the pandemic, while also reducing the total effect of individual fear by reducing the time it covers (https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-sweden-gdp-falls-8pc-in-q2-worse-nordic-neighbors-2020-8).
Let's face it, Americans are bad at capitalism.
Probably the new sales figures. (Score:2)
"An actual capitalist would recognize that a pandemic is bad for business."
Says the poster not running a mask selling business.
Re: (Score:2)
More precisely, in capitalism value decreases as supply increases. So the value of human life would be a function of how many humans there are. And as it stands, there are quite a lot! So the value isn't all that high.
If we had a serious Mass Death that took the human population down to, say, a billion, we would expect something like an eightfold increase in the relative value of human life. In fact, if we get the population low enough, hum
Re: (Score:2)
Because, in capitalism, money is more important than human life.
You do understand that the root of the word capitalism, capital, means money. It's not called Vitaism or Bioism or Zoaism, no, it is called Capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, in capitalism, money is more important than human life.
You do understand that the root of the word capitalism, capital, means money.
No, it does not. That's a misunderstanding from the way that we use capital in the forms of stock ownership.
Capital is the physical means of production (that is, the factories and the equipment in the factories).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of understanding of the most basic things about how viruses work is partly what is keeping this pandemic going, as well as hubris, entitlement, and lack of empathy and caring for others.
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Informative)
We knew back in March that this thing is pretty benign for the young and healthy
Except when it isn't. Viral load has a lot to do with the severity of the infection. Young, healthy people have been knocked on their ass for weeks by this thing. There's also a growing body of evidence for long-term effects once the infection has passed. This isn't a simple binary proposition: 100% dead or 100% fine. There's a whole spectrum of being messed up between those two extremes. We'll be picking up the pieces from that for years to come.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be preferable than the damage we've already done to our economy, which I'm not sure will ever recover.
Watch, you'll see what I'm talking about. The vaccine is going to come out and not be anywhere near effective, but it'll be determined to be worth it to open back up...so we'll end up doing what I just said at some point anyway.
Speaking of herd immunity; there's evidence Sweden has already reached it, as well as NY. The sooner we can get the rest of us there the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of herd immunity; there's evidence Sweden has already reached it, as well as NY. The sooner we can get the rest of us there the better.
From what I understand, you need 60-70% of the population to be immune to get herd immunity.
According to this website: https://www.cityandstateny.com... [cityandstateny.com]
7.1M have been testing in New York State
426k people tested positive.
That gives a 6 percent of the population being immune. Am I doing something wrong with the numbers? Or are New York City numbers that much better? I can't seem to find the total number of people tested and positive in NY City.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I doing something wrong with the numbers?
Yes, you're relying on positive test numbers. A lot of people get over the virus on their own and don't get tested. I've seen articles indicating a 10x increase in actual infections over the reported numbers. 6% x 10 = 60% = almost herd immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
The economy was going to be damaged regardless. Fear of slow death by viral infection is a powerful motivator for decreased spending.
Letting a novel virus run unfettered through the population has to be the most idiotic idea I've ever seen. Nevermind the deaths, nevermind the taxed and overloaded medical system. No consideration for any unforeseen long term effects. Just let 'er rip so we can get back to making money! Who the fuck cares if we kill hundreds of thousands in the process.
Nevermind the fact
Re: (Score:2)
Letting a novel virus run unfettered through the population has to be the most idiotic idea I've ever seen.
Indeed it is.
You'll note that's not what I said, however. Try again?
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be preferable than the damage we've already done to our economy, which I'm not sure will ever recover.
It's beginning to look like the least economically-damaging way to handle the virus was to shut down, hard, for ~two months. Even now, we're probably doing more long-term damage to our economy by not shutting down than if we did.
This is a bit counterintuitive, but the reason shutdowns are good becomes clear when you consider the fact that the lack of a shutdown doesn't mean people will go about their business. A hard shutdown that actually controls the virus and is followed by aggressive contact tracing t
Re: (Score:2)
So impractical as to be impossible. There's no way to shutdown the entire country for 2 months, and it's even less likely to do the kind of contact tracing you mention.
Given how virulent this thing is, the only real solution is to let the healthy get it, get over it, at a pace that our health care systems can handle. All other "solutions" ultimately end up here anyway, so might as well get it over with as fast as possible to minimize the damage to the economy.
So; Quarantine the vulnerable, throw some vita
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be preferable than the damage we've already done to our economy, which I'm not sure will ever recover.
It's beginning to look like the least economically-damaging way to handle the virus was to shut down, hard, for ~two months.
Germany had the best results of all the countries in the EU-- and best by far. It looks like the least economically damaging way to handle it would have been to do what Germany did.
The TL:dr answer is: lots of testing and contact tracing.
From the New York Times: "by the time Germany recorded its first case of Covid-19 in February, laboratories across the country had built up a stock of test kits."
(note that this is exactly the same time that the US FDC screwed up by failing with an American-developed test,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably not the case. There seems to be some evidence that antibody levels fall quickly, but there is also evidence that T-cell memory lasts. And none of it is conclusive yet.
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Informative)
Please look at the history of pandemics and tell me what happens to areas that refuse to quarantine. I mean, we have a lot of historical data, and the fact of the matter is: places that quarantine suffer the least long term damage to their economy.
Closing down is not hurting the economy, the pandemic is. Quarantine is the only thing proven to help economies recover quicker.
https://www.vox.com/future-per... [vox.com]
http://news.mit.edu/2020/pande... [mit.edu]
https://www.weforum.org/agenda... [weforum.org]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/p... [forbes.com]
If you believe differently, please back your opinion up with well researched facts, or admit that you base your opinions only on gut feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you have no citations whatsoever. Nothing with which to back up your claims. Why should we trust your opinion? You are just same random guy on the Internet. How do we know you aren't, oh say, working for America's enemies and trying to get us to open up early so won't recover as quickly as the rest of the world?
Sir, are you being paid to spread unverified claims that harm America? Or are you just doing it for shits and giggles?
Re: (Score:2)
Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
Will you expend any energy to provide citations to back up your claims for me?
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:4, Informative)
This one isn't even remotely as bad as 1918.
According to the "History of the 1918 Flu Pandemic", the initial wave in 1918 (first half of 1918) was significantly less lethal than the current one:
The first wave of the flu lasted from the first quarter of 1918 and was relatively mild. Mortality rates were not appreciably above normal; in the United States ~75,000 flu-related deaths were reported in the first six months of 1918...
The second wave started after August 1918:
The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much more deadly than the first. The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily. October 1918 was the month with the highest fatality rate of the whole pandemic. In the United States, ~292,000 deaths were reported between September-December 1918...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, please do get your data straight before stating something oviously wrong.
The total number of deaths during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic happened over the timeframe from March 1918 until April 1920 (the total duration of the pandemic).
So, currently we are still at the beginning - if we take the 1918 Pandemic as a reference point.
Re: (Score:2)
Very good points, and thanks for the references.
I think we have some room for optimism, at least as far as to believe we won't get to 1918 levels. The biggest one is that the fatality rate is falling. Mostly, I think, because we've gotten better at treating people.
Note that I'm not trying to minimize the risks, just point out that we are, in fact, far better equipped to treat people than we were a century ago, and doctors have been learning quickly. It's also likely that we won't have a third or fourth
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, but the reason it's not as bad is because of improvements in health care & epidemiological / medical knowledge coupled with the societal responses that you're complaining about.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, please update your information on Sweden. https://www.webmd.com/lung/new... [webmd.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
https://healthfeedback.org/cla... [healthfeedback.org]
They are not the country to model a pandemic response on. Sweden failed. Reason has a reason to push Sweden as a model, but it is simply libertarian propaganda, with no bearing on the real world. Free markets fanatics can go fuck themselves.
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Which one will ultimately cause more harm and grief?
Oh, oh, oh! I know this one:
The one where you just throw everything open while taking zero precautions to prevent new infections, don't absolutely require masks in public interactions to help curb the spread like we have seen has worked in many other countries ( even though there was precedent set, AND almost full scale American compliance in the 1918 pandemic already ), Have most of our political leaders stir up shit about wearing masks and other PPE and refuse to wear any themselves to set an example for citizens to follow, say "it's just going to disappear one day", take zero of the precautions that health professionals tell you to, and let everyone get infected causing the economy to dip and / or crash multiple times as huge outbreaks interrupt different sectors of both the economy and the nation at differing times - eroding what little investor credibility you had left instead of biting the bullet and taking a single hit on the chin and then recovering...
In other words, pretty much exactly as we have been doing in the U.S. the whole damn time.
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Insightful)
The pushback against masks is just so illogical. It's such an easy thing to do, the inconveniences are very minor compared to the alternative. But selfish people shout the loudest, they don't care about the economy for other people, they are only concerned about their personal economy.
It's amazing that this has turned policial. One guy on the radio today from Idaho said that he didn't want health experts to make the rules because they were elitist, he wanted politicans to do this because they weren't (ha!) elitist. Then he divided the issue up between people who were afraid and those who were not afraid. Wow, machismo trumps science.
A major economic hit is happening. Each new spike in cases from "brave" idiots spreading the virus around will just hurt the economy more. The best thing to improve the economy is to take the pandemic seriously, wear the masks, and practice social distancing.
Re: (Score:2)
Each new spike in cases from "brave" idiots spreading the virus around will just hurt the economy more.
Are you sure this is the case? What would be the mechanism? Is the spike encouraging public leaders to shut down more economic activity? Is it causing people who track the case numbers to not buy as much?
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not completely effective, but it is effective in stopping the spread. The goal is not to be 100% compliant here either, there will always be a few idiots coming too close, or who pull the mask down below their nose, etc. But if you limit the number of idiots then you will get an effect. Let's say 95% are following the guidelines mostly correctly, that's going to have a much larger impact on slowing the spread than if only 35% are doing so. And certainly better than the 0% that some people advocate for because they think it's just the flu or that only old people have problems with it.
The point of the masks is to not filter viruses, that's impractical. The point is to stop the spray of water droplets, to slow down the speed of exhaled air, and so forth. The masks dont protect the wearerr, they protect those around the wearer. The N95 masks are about protecting the wearer (the nurse who has to visit a patient for example). The lesser masks are to protect others; as you might be infected and not know it and this can slow down the spread.
Even the difference between infecting 1.2 other people versus 1.4 other people will be immense.
Do not let the goal of a perfect system prevent implementing a good system.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuance is important. Initially there was a shortage of N95 masks and in order to preserve the supply for medical personnel the government gave out disinformation that masks are not needed. That has led to a distrust of the govt as well some people who are stuck on the first thing that the govt said. Now the govt is saying wear masks but they are not making it very clear its to protect others not you. People who just hear the official word will resume non socially distant behaviour because they think masks p
Re:Probably the new normal (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it was "disinformation". It was sound advice given the knowledge that existed at the time. They knew that wearing a lesser paper mask might be slightly helpful, but now they know that wearing the masks is greatly helpful. That knowledge has changed though, and so the advice that used to be sound is now known to be wrong. Nobody should be distrusting a government just because they change their minds now and then, it's very good to be changing your minds once new information shows up. Stubbornly sticking to outdated ideas is a major flaw in politicians.
I don't recall anyone forbidding the wearing of masks, or saying that they would not be helpful, only that it wasn't advised. In the meantime those that regularly wore masks when ill or when a family member was ill kept wearing them (it's very common in a lot of Asians, which also caused a bit of backlash by some who felt that wearing masks was a Chinese concept and thus un-American).
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese Govt based on their experience in Wuhan had very publicly announced way back in February everyone should wear masks but Fauci and friends kept telling the lie that masks dont work. Either it was the worst case of "not invented here syndrome" or it was disinformation to preserve the mask supply. Disinformation is the best case scenario, worst case is Fauci and friends are abunch of racists who dont believe non white doctors and public health officials
Re: (Score:2)
Wuhan also implemented a compulsory lockdown with people not allowed to leave to even buy food. Basic food ingredients were delivered in a box to each apartment by the army. The strictness of the lockdown meant they only had to lockdown for 2 months before getting the pandemic under control. US kept saying a lockdown is undemocratic till the epidemic got out of control and then did a lockdown but an half assed one with planes allowed to fly in and out of NYC and people allowed to go out and roam the streets
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've been modded flamebait, which is fair, and I shouldn't feed the Trolls but I think this point need addressed. Mutated viruses change everything because a) they completely take away the possibility of herd immunity and b) they mean there's a possibility the virus will change characteristics and increase virulence for young people meaning there's much more economic damage.
And you, and people like you, want to shut everything down and plunge the world entire into another Great Depression.
Nobody ever said that. Everybody has always wanted to get rid of the disease and then reopen as much as possible. In fact, this is
Probably the new globalization. (Score:2)
I'm seeing two things. One the nature of the way we do things is changing from telecommuting to online education.* The other is the patchwork of fixed economies vs not will be a big disruption to globalization because the fixed want to not get reinfected. Also a LOT of the world bases their economies around tourism. That means only citizens from the fixed economies can support tourism.
*Even the way entertainment is being made will change.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than some minor restraints to beaches and bars, I don't see any "restrictions" in florida other than wear your mask and social distance.
Most everyone that can telework is already doing so.
You don't live here, I do, so shut your pie-hole.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Florida has not started arresting people for failing to comply with mask requirements [sun-sentinel.com]?
Note the date on the article; you're seeing the results of that push.
Masks, distancing, sanitization of frequently-used surfaces. And the closure of places where these measures aren't feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how the sudden infection of more people will make the economy recovery take longer. All things being equal infecting more people should result in a quicker end to the pandemic and a quicker economic recovery.
Note that I am not advocating for this as the solution. I'm merely pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Because infecting enough people to create herd immunity and sudden are not synonyms.
Historical evidence is that areas that clamp down harder on the virus recover their economy faster than those that let the virus spread because of keep the economy more open.
Re: (Score:3)
there will be no economic recovery until the pandemic is over.
We're already in 'economic recovery.' Jobless claims are falling and the unemployment rate will be under 10% soon. GDP recovery will soon follow.
And the AZ, CA (you left that one off... how petty,) FL, TX wave has already peaked; the daily case rate is falling in all four. They all peaked two weeks ago around the end of July. They're just following the same curve that happened in other states, differential lockdown policies not withstanding. Anyone capable of understanding a simple bar graph can see
Re: (Score:3)
How meany deaths until a thing is a problem to you?
I'll do something you won't. I'll actually take a stab at number.
Last year the flu killed 24-62K US citizens. So COVID-19 hasn't even managed to reach one order of magnitude more than a flu season, and the infection rate and mortality rate is dropping so fast that we'll probably not reach 250k by the end of the year. And that's conservative; there is a lot of bullshit in the official body count, as anyone that doesn't have their head up CNNMSNBCNPR's ass knows by now.
Show me a disease that kills US c
Re: (Score:3)
Show me a disease that kills US citizens 500K a year and that isn't most isolated to elderly and infirm — an actual threat to the functioning of civil society in other words — and I'll start to think "lockdown" isn't the fascistic power grab that Musk and I believe it is.
so half a million? thanks.
You read it here folks, the entire population of any single given city smaller than Atlanta Georgia deserves to die according to Tailhook.
Now, your turn. How few deaths are necessary for you to begin to value your now-lost liberties in life over the hysteria of virus theater?
For me, it's not about hard total numbers, but the rate (a rate that'd be even worse if it weren't for those evil fascists taking away are freeedums).
Assuming 170K and the first death on Feb 6, that's an average of 880 deaths per day.
Of course that doesn't even count people who aren't dead but have long term side effects, but I think that's gett
Re: Probably the new normal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is perfect and any demand for change is just {{insert conspiracy}}!!
Re: (Score:2)
unless humans are willing to change many behaviors.
Well the, adapting to new normals is likely to become the new normal.
People are actually rather good at adapting to change. They're just shit at accepting that they're going to have to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't imagine how much it would cost to test EVERY one, EVERY day and ensure those infected are isolated. America is not unified and committed enough to do wha
Re: (Score:3)
Countries where the populace has more faith in their leadership made quite a bit of headway, but they'll have to decide if they are just going to cut themselves off from American travelers indefinitely.
More than 80% of Canadians want to keep our borders closed to non-essential travel till at least the end of the year. I'm one of them.
https://globalnews.ca/news/718... [globalnews.ca]
You can put money before lives internally, that is your own business, just stay away from countries with more humanity. Thanks in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first lockdown was a good response to what we saw in NY and Italy. Once we saw how fast it could overwhelm a modern first world medical system, slamming the door hard was a perfectly wise thing to do. The second part is the problem. Once you have shored up your infrastructure, PPE, etc., then opening up slowly and keeping it under control should be completely possible (which is not the same as easy). But if many people think it's over and everything is back to normal then, you are kind of screwed.
One year later (Score:5, Funny)
I predict that after a year all the people who caught covid19 will turn into zombies overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. They will transform into vampires. And anyone who gets a COVID-19 vaccine will turn into a flesh-eating mutant.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. That will be those that take the vaccine. They will give it first to all of the healthcare workers, researchers, and truly important people. Therefore they will be the first to become zombies leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
I've seen this movie before.
Re: (Score:3)
So, can we get all the politicians lined up for a vaccine?
Re: One year later (Score:2)
Can't be. They already are.
Go.find me somebody who still thinks for himself. I mean truly. No opions based on news and blind emotions, but on own observations and reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on how people are approaching the pandemic the zombie process has happened before COVID-19 even hit the USA.
Unlike COVID-19, this one likely *IS* transmitted by 5G.... assuming you're using your 5G to stream Fox News that is.
Old news: already the dominant strain (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope so (Score:2, Insightful)
This namby pamby nonsense of 1,200 dead every day in this country is pathetic for a pandemic.
I've been saying for a long time we need to reduce the population and what better way than through a pandemic? Everything stays intact (unlike with nuclear war), and once it's run its course, the people left will see an increase in their salary and availability of buying a home, not to mention cleaner air and water and overall less pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. In the same post you say our response to the pandemic is pathetic, and also that we need to reduce the population. The best way to reduce the population would be to do _nothing_ about the virus.
Our current response fits your tag line nicely: We are bankrupting ourselves in the quest for absolute security (protection) from the virus.
Re: (Score:3)
and without lockdowns and other protective measures, that many people would still die on a daily basis, plus an expanded death count due to COVID.
What's your point?
Not a new mutation (Score:2)
It's universal (Score:3)
FTA:
"The strain, earlier seen in other parts of the world and called D614G, was found in a Malaysian cluster of 45 cases that started from someone who returned from India and breached his 14-day home quarantine."
It's good to know that even during a pandemic, they have entitled assholes in other affected countries too.
Standard Zombie Flick (Score:2)
Foreign country has a plague, denies it.
It eventually spreads internationally.
Most of the world takes actions, some idiots trying to slowly fight it off.
Plague mutates, but standard counter-measures should keep risk low.
SOMEONE. BREAKS. QUARANTINE.
Super plague spreads, causing inexplicable rage... like rabies in the infected. That's what we call them now... The Infected.
People begin fleeing the cities. They're being horrible to each other.
Infections continue to increase.
The military is called in to keep ord
Welcome to the times of hyper-awareness! (Score:2)
This is nothing out of the ordinary, and neither is Corona. Which is not saying it isn't harmful. Just that previously, we may have given too little of a fuck, and now we give to much of a fuck.
But relax. This will end, as soon as the media finds some other... ***SQUIRREL!!!*** ... to obsess over. :)
Don't believe me? Go bach in news history, and make a list or previous and forgotte things that are still active. It's not like Islamic terrorism somehow vanished, for example, now is it?
Not COVID 19 (Score:2)
Re:I caught it (Score:5, Funny)
It's now been 39 days since your " statistics and logic" predicted the US 7 day average death rate would hit zero. Sure is nice now that nobody in the US is dying of covid anymore.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's because so many of the remaining Trump supporters keep repeatedly ignoring everyone who tells them that the CDC death reports have a three-week lag time, so their last three weeks of data always have a lower death count than objective reality. One week, they showed fewer than California's deaths alone. But all they see is a graph going down, as "proof" that their dear leader is right.
Re: I caught it (Score:2)
That's because so many of the remaining Trump supporters keep repeatedly ignoring everyone who tells them that the CDC death reports have a three-week lag time, so their last three weeks of data always have a lower death count than objective reality. One week, they showed fewer than California's deaths alone. But all they see is a graph going down, as "proof" that their dear leader is right.
Shhhh!
They still havenâ(TM)t figured out that, since Dear Leader has demonized Vote By Mail, every Trump supporter who dies before November 3rd is tantamount to a vote for Biden.
So let them dance; let them party. Just think of it as them doing their part to preserve democracy...
Party on, Trumpsters! Don't let them deny you your Freedom!!! And don't forget to Vote In Person on November 3rd!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. As I understand it, this "D614G" is just another naming convention for the G614 strain that took over in march, and is responsible for the majority of cases in UK, US, and Italy.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking out of your ass, there is zero evidence what you claim is happening. They are still reporting cases, and two weeks ago finished a very large quarantine of 18,000 people. Not of that would be known if the sci-fi movie between your ears was reality.