Fun with exponents

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 7:27:07 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 8:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020 20:15:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/27/2020 7:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020 13:35:50 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/27/2020 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:42:34 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:17:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I have a very low respect for doctors because so few
of them
want to be competent. Top of the list in that category
is Dr. Fauci
of the CDC who has continually acted an expert at
things he knows
very little about.

Dr Fauci has been director of the NIAID (National
Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases) since 1984. He does NOT work
for the CDC.
NIAID is part of the NIH (National Institute of
Health). He's has
been involved with controlling several previous
epidemics, which I
presume qualifies as experience:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/niaid-history

Can you provide the name of someone in the US who is
better qualified
to discuss pandemics than Dr Fauci?

There is a place for those who sit around, think and
read papers.
I do not deny Fauci that much. But he is not working in
the real world
as many other epidemiologists are and they often
interview them on
FOX and they ALL say what I've been saying. There isn't
much you can
do about a pandemic with a linear growth rate.

I see. You want to be advised on how to protect yourself
from a viral
epidemic by an epidemiologist via Fox News. I don't
think that's what
you intended to say, but that's what you wrote. You also
seem to have
changed your position on Dr Fauci from:

"Dr. Fauci of the CDC(sic) who has continually acted an
expert at things he knows very little about."

to:

"I do not deny Fauci that much."

That's quite a change from calling the leading expert on
infectious
diseases in the US an incompetent, to not denying him
something you
didn't bother to specify. Of course, you're entitled to
have an
opinion about anyone and anything, but I'm also entitled
to discount
your opinion as rubbish. Anyway, kindly stabilize your
opinion about
Dr Fauci. If it's critical, please provide the name of
someone in the
US that is equally or more qualified to advise on how to
handle a
pandemic. Incidentally, I could probably provide some
names in China
that are substantially more qualified and equally
experienced, but
such experts would not be considered as candidates for
advising our
president, who knows more than any or all of them,
Here's one
candidate that might have qualified had he not resigned
for having is
bureau eliminated by the Trump administration:
"A top pandemic expert is leaving the Trump
administration amid the
coronavirus crisis"
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pandemic-expert-leaving-the-trump-administration-amid-coronavirus-2020-5



No bicycle related content this time. Sorry(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The leading expert? Jeff, that is about the most foolish
thing that you could say. Fauci is NOT an expert. Sitting
around in hallowed halls of government does NOT make you
an expert. The epidemiologists in the field say the
opposite and that you like some sort of moron deny that
they know anything for the simple reason that they are
interviewed on FOX shows that you are nothing more than
some stupid biased punk.

Your homework, Tom:

!) Find or assemble a CV for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I say that
because you obviously know very, very little about him.

2) Find or assemble a CV for the guy you allude to whom Faux
News managed to dig up.

Analyze and compare those to prove to us that your guy with
his predictable complaints is more qualified than Fauci.

We'll even give bonus points for a little more work:

3) Give us your own CV. Show us why we should listen to your
opinions on epidemiology... and history, genetics, theology,
ballistics, human anatomy, politics, engineering, medicine,
sociology, geology, meteorology, technology, etc. You know -
all the other things about which you, as a high school
dropout, claim to be much smarter than hundreds of trained,
experienced, and recognized experts.


Fauci is probably a successful agency administrator and
political survivor who knows something but surely not
everything. Dr John Ionnidis who's no slouch in the area has
different opinions but gets no media traction:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ge-establishm/

Knows something? Yikes. That's like saying Patton knew something about war. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio I think what you're saying is that his opinion could still be wrong, which is true. Qualified experts can disagree, and the disagreement often results from different data, assumptions, models and experience, and even if the assumptions or models align, then you get differences based on risk tolerance.

The usual approach is to do a case/control study of some sort or clinical trial. We could have a no-lock-down state to see how that works, but I doubt any governor would accept the fall-out. Plus, you would have to make sure that people didn't voluntarily lock-down. It would be tough to control, and I don't think Sweden is enough like the US to be a good control. Personally, I don't care if a lot of people die, so long as I can get my hair cut -- and the people who die are not me and my friends. I can tolerate a lot of risk to other people who I don't know.

-- Jay Beattie.



I have no animus toward Dr Fauci. There just aren't enough
Italians in the world.

But he is not omniscient. Give him the benefit of the doubt
and call it well intentioned, but his various positions (no
mask, maybe mask, mandatory mask etc etc) inspire no
confidence. His famous statements "Americans need not worry"
, "No worse than the flu" and so on are endlessly repeated
and need no further comment from me.

And we do indeed have real world real time policy
comparisons. Mr DeSantis rigorously and immediately
protected old age homes, rehab centers, assisted living
facilities and retirement communities ending with a small
fraction of NY deaths despite a 2 million larger populace
and without utterly destroying income, livelihood, savings
and hope of working citizens and small business owners.

In January, Tom Cotton was saying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i3LAV-Rgxk

As late as 8 March Dr Fauci wasn't.

Again, I'm no expert and I'm not condemning anyone but
humans are a widely variable lot and none are perfect.

(Me? hardly. I didn't go with Sen Cotton's warning either)

So what is the solution? Just say "**** it" and go on about your
business as normal?

As I believe I have previously written, Thailand has been able to
trace nearly every virus case to it's source and in the majority of
the early cases were traced to places and events where a large number
or people congregated.Once lock down was in force, and enforced, the
numbers of new cases dropped dramatically and were almost wholly
limited to single new infections between family members.


Again, it is not heartless or dismissive of the dead to
explain to adult citizen any facts, where known, and advise
them. Japan did that very successfully without forcibly
closing businesses and thereby ruining careers, savings,
investments and various supply chains. The US of A has among
us children and idiots. Treating all of us as children or
idiots is not a good start to any policy.

As bad as our situation is, exacerbated by draconian
(perhaps unconstitutional[1] ) abuses of liberty, the
butcher's bill is yet to come. Suffering so far is minor
compared to the next several years. Most people have
absolutely no inkling of the vast damages and lost wealth we
will struggle mightily to replace. And it's not us alone.
American Christians in South America and Africa are warning
already of diminished food/medical/infrastructure transfers.
The problems of a $trillion-plus lost US productivity is
larger and broader than you might at first imagine.

[1] There are several examples of quarantine laws or
vaccination rules upheld (Jacobson v MA). This is not that.
There aren't AFAIK prior examples of restricted liberty in
order to deflect the nation's attention from an actual problem.


As I have said before, it is easy to wave your hands in the air and
shout, "Oh! that's wrong. But what is the solution?

Keep the stores and factories open? And what happens?

Well, actually nobody knows but, and again I'm using something that
happened here and was documented, a single boxing match attended by a
large number of people resulted in spreading the virus to more than
hundred individuals. A single infected employee, who does not yet
display symptoms could, possibly, infect every customer that enters
your place of business as well as you and all your employees.

Is that a better solution?


Yes. It takes great discipline and fortitude to do nothing
where overaction makes the problem worse. Politicians
usually cannot resist compounding every error into a
debacle. It's what they do. DeSantis is such an outlier I
think history will be very kind to him. Ditto Mr Lofven.

Compare Florida with New York.
Or Sweden to other European countries.

As a counterpoint, Germany, whose experience was different
again.

There just is not a firm case for correlation.

Oh by the way, compare 1969 Hong Kong Flu in USA with
100,000 dead to the 2020 Wuhan Virus. The population was
some 35% smaller then as well. Very little was made of it.
Not in newspapers, not political speeches, not tavern
conversation. Certainly no shutdowns, business closures,
forced unemployment, travel bans and such. I, for one, was
very busy swapping spit with girls and, then as now, wore no
mask. YMMV.

There was a vaccine for the Hong Kong Flu in four months. It also had low lethality. But like I was saying, if you're O.K. with the death rate, do nothing. In 1969, we were O.K. with death. Social patterns were also a lot different in 1969. How often did families eat out or fly on a plane? One wonders what social distancing would have accomplished.

We don't know what the COVID-19 US death rate would be absent social distancing, etc. We've passed the Hong Kong Flu numbers even with it. So, the relevant question is: would we be O.K. with that death number? We should have a state and national referendum (if there were such a thing): "how many dead people is O.K. so you can keep working (assuming you can't work from home), dining out and getting a haircut?" Maybe we could do a Twitter poll or vote by mail. We could calibrate our response accordingly.

I'm O.K. with 100,000 people I don't know dying so long as I get my damned haircut. I also want to go back to working in my office so I'm not always getting thrashed by my neighbor/bike buddy on lunch rides. My legs hurt from COVID-19.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 5/27/2020 9:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 2:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:42:34 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:17:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I have a very low respect for doctors because so few
of them
want to be competent. Top of the list in that
category
is Dr. Fauci
of the CDC who has continually acted an expert at
things he knows
very little about.

Dr Fauci has been director of the NIAID (National
Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases) since 1984. He does NOT
work
for the CDC.
NIAID is part of the NIH (National Institute of
Health). He's has
been involved with controlling several previous
epidemics, which I
presume qualifies as experience:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/niaid-history

Can you provide the name of someone in the US who is
better qualified
to discuss pandemics than Dr Fauci?

There is a place for those who sit around, think and
read papers.
I do not deny Fauci that much. But he is not working in
the real world
as many other epidemiologists are and they often
interview them on
FOX and they ALL say what I've been saying. There isn't
much you can
do about a pandemic with a linear growth rate.

I see. You want to be advised on how to protect
yourself
from a viral
epidemic by an epidemiologist via Fox News. I don't
think that's what
you intended to say, but that's what you wrote. You
also
seem to have
changed your position on Dr Fauci from:

    "Dr. Fauci of the CDC(sic) who has
continually acted an
    expert at things he knows very little about."

to:

    "I do not deny Fauci that much."

That's quite a change from calling the leading expert on
infectious
diseases in the US an incompetent, to not denying him
something you
didn't bother to specify. Of course, you're
entitled to
have an
opinion about anyone and anything, but I'm also entitled
to discount
your opinion as rubbish. Anyway, kindly stabilize your
opinion about
Dr Fauci. If it's critical, please provide the name of
someone in the
US that is equally or more qualified to advise on how to
handle a
pandemic. Incidentally, I could probably provide some
names in China
that are substantially more qualified and equally
experienced, but
such experts would not be considered as candidates for
advising our
president, who knows more than any or all of them,
Here's one
candidate that might have qualified had he not resigned
for having is
bureau eliminated by the Trump administration:
"A top pandemic expert is leaving the Trump
administration amid the
coronavirus crisis"
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pandemic-expert-leaving-the-trump-administration-amid-coronavirus-2020-5




No bicycle related content this time. Sorry(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann   Â
150 Felker St #DÂ Â Â http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann    AE6KS   831-336-2558

The leading expert? Jeff, that is about the most foolish
thing that you could say. Fauci is NOT an expert. Sitting
around in hallowed halls of government does NOT make you
an expert. The epidemiologists in the field say the
opposite and that you like some sort of moron deny that
they know anything for the simple reason that they are
interviewed on FOX shows that you are nothing more than
some stupid biased punk.

Your homework, Tom:

!) Find or assemble a CV for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I say that
because you obviously know very, very little about him.

2) Find or assemble a CV for the guy you allude to whom
Faux
News managed to dig up.

Analyze and compare those to prove to us that your guy
with
his predictable complaints is more qualified than Fauci.

We'll even give bonus points for a little more work:

3) Give us your own CV. Show us why we should listen to
your
opinions on epidemiology... and history, genetics,
theology,
ballistics, human anatomy, politics, engineering,
medicine,
sociology, geology, meteorology, technology, etc. You
know -
all the other things about which you, as a high school
dropout, claim to be much smarter than hundreds of
trained,
experienced, and recognized experts.


Fauci is probably a successful agency administrator and
political survivor who knows something but surely not
everything. Dr John Ionnidis who's no slouch in the area
has
different opinions but gets no media traction:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ge-establishm/


Knows something? Yikes. That's like saying Patton knew
something about war.
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio I
think what you're saying is that his opinion could still
be wrong, which is true. Qualified experts can disagree,
and the disagreement often results from different data,
assumptions, models and experience, and even if the
assumptions or models align, then you get differences
based on risk tolerance.

The usual approach is to do a case/control study of some
sort or clinical trial. We could have a no-lock-down
state to see how that works, but I doubt any governor
would accept the fall-out. Plus, you would have to make
sure that people didn't voluntarily lock-down. It would
be tough to control, and I don't think Sweden is enough
like the US to be a good control. Personally, I don't
care if a lot of people die, so long as I can get my hair
cut -- and the people who die are not me and my friends.
I can tolerate a lot of risk to other people who I don't
know.

-- Jay Beattie.



I have no animus toward Dr Fauci. There just aren't
enough Italians in the world.

But he is not omniscient. Give him the benefit of the
doubt and call it well intentioned, but his various
positions (no mask, maybe mask, mandatory mask etc etc)
inspire no confidence. His famous statements "Americans
need not worry" , "No worse than the flu" and so on are
endlessly repeated and need no further comment from me.

And we do indeed have real world real time policy
comparisons. Mr DeSantis rigorously and immediately
protected old age homes, rehab centers, assisted living
facilities and retirement communities ending with a small
fraction of NY deaths despite a 2 million larger populace
and without utterly destroying income, livelihood, savings
and hope of working citizens and small business owners.

In January, Tom Cotton was saying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i3LAV-Rgxk

As late as 8 March Dr Fauci wasn't.

Again, I'm no expert and I'm not condemning anyone but
humans are a widely variable lot and none are perfect.

(Me? hardly. I didn't go with Sen Cotton's warning either)

To me, this argument sounds similar to financial huxterism
that pops up occasionally on the web: "This man said to buy
Apple in 1990! See what he recommends TODAY!" It's
canonization by hindsight, and a good guess early on is no
guarantee of special knowledge.

Perhaps Cotton was perceptive, or made a good guess. But
some of the stuff he's said since has been off the rails.
Still, I'm sure we can't locate one individual who has
gotten every fact about this disaster correct. Not even Tom!

But people of Fauci's caliber have been using science,
evaluating data and adjusting strategy and recommendations
as more data became available. Of course information is
changing. That's how science is supposed to work! And even
Cotton has said “Using your own two eyes to see what’s
happening in our hospitals [is] the real acid-test for how
serious this virus is.�

People that say things like "It's all a hoax" or "I have a
good feeling about hydroxychloroquine..." are motivated by
something other than science.



If you review that, he said the media hype was a hoax, a
statement with which I agree (see 1969, which was not an
election year, and Hong Kong Flu).

And, as I've noted here before, hydroxychloroquine doesn't
kill the virus. In people who react with a cytokine cascade,
that or similar anti inflammatory treatment gets the victim
through his immediate pulmonary crisis such that he doesn't
die within minutes/hours. His immune system may respond
better later. Or not. But people who drown in the ER don't
get a second chance. Some large number of doctors and RNs
are using it prophylactically now but I haven't seen any
overall analyses of that. Early reports at the time were
indeed quite interesting, as the President noted.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 28.05.2020 um 16:29 schrieb AMuzi:

And, as I've noted here before, hydroxychloroquine doesn't kill the
virus. In people who react with a cytokine cascade, that or similar anti
inflammatory treatment gets the victim through his immediate pulmonary
crisis such that he doesn't die within minutes/hours. His immune system
may respond better later. Or not. But people who drown in the ER don't
get a second chance.* Some large number of doctors and RNs are using it
prophylactically now but I haven't seen any overall analyses of that.
Early reports at the time were indeed quite interesting, as the
President noted.

Now it is clear that using it prophylactically is a bad idea, especially
inthe combination with antibiotics: the death rate goes up significantly
compared to no treatment. This is the main reason why "experimental"
treatments should be carefully validated before the treament turns into
a treatment for the millions.

Advertising an experimental treatment is grossly negligent at the least:
you test experimental treatments in a controlled environment until you
have results that are sufficiently convincing to declare the treatment
as safe.

On 5/28/2020 10:21 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 9:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 4:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 1:43 PM, wrote:

Only someone in a financially secure position could ignore
the pain and suffering of people whose source of income
has been cut off...

Only a person who has no friend or family infected or
seriously at risk could ignore the pain and suffering of
those with COVID.

... for no reasons whatsoever.

That's the view of a person with zero qualifications,
despite strong disagreement from qualified experts in every
country worldwide.


It is not heartless to observe that there is no
correlation between punishment and mortality rates.

There are definitely fatal policy errors (and Mr Cuomo
made more than a few of them. He's not alone.) but
destroying lives, income, businesses, wealth, opportunity
and hope has not meant less death, just more suffering
among the living.

Again, "punishment" is a deliberately loaded word. Things
like social distancing orders and travel restrictions were
intended to protect, not punish.

And again, those measures have worked extremely well in many
places. Look how excellently Hawaii has done! Less than 20
deaths last I looked. Isn't it obvious that can only be due
to the 'stay-at-home' orders?

;-)

That is not at all obvious. New York?? Chicago??

IOW, you mean that despite attempts at protective regulations, New York
and Chicago had lots of cases.

And I mean that because of protective regulations, Hawaii, Nevada, New
Mexico, Maine, Kansas etc. did really well. They did exceptionally well
in their rural areas.

So perhaps we should look at less extreme outliers? Is there a chance
that the regulations did have significant benefit, but that in
super-dense cities other factors contributed to super-spreading? Perhaps
one factor was ignoring the regulations?

And is there a chance that without those regulations, the
super-spreading would have been far, far worse?

That's what epidemiologists around the world seem to think.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2020 11:25 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 28.05.2020 um 16:29 schrieb AMuzi:

And, as I've noted here before, hydroxychloroquine doesn't kill the
virus. In people who react with a cytokine cascade, that or similar
anti inflammatory treatment gets the victim through his immediate
pulmonary crisis such that he doesn't die within minutes/hours. His
immune system may respond better later. Or not. But people who drown
in the ER don't get a second chance.* Some large number of doctors and
RNs are using it prophylactically now but I haven't seen any overall
analyses of that. Early reports at the time were indeed quite
interesting, as the President noted.

Now it is clear that using it prophylactically is a bad idea, especially
inthe combination with antibiotics: the death rate goes up significantly
compared to no treatment.* This is the main reason why "experimental"
treatments should be carefully validated before the treament turns into
a treatment for the millions.

Advertising an experimental treatment is grossly negligent at the least:
you test experimental treatments in a controlled environment until you
have results that are sufficiently convincing to declare the treatment
as safe.

Exactly. You don't use the first rumors from a tiny incompetent study to
"prove" that "I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do
you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2020 11:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 10:21 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 9:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 4:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 1:43 PM, wrote:

Only someone in a financially secure position could
ignore
the pain and suffering of people whose source of income
has been cut off...

Only a person who has no friend or family infected or
seriously at risk could ignore the pain and suffering of
those with COVID.

... for no reasons whatsoever.

That's the view of a person with zero qualifications,
despite strong disagreement from qualified experts in
every
country worldwide.


It is not heartless to observe that there is no
correlation between punishment and mortality rates.

There are definitely fatal policy errors (and Mr Cuomo
made more than a few of them. He's not alone.) but
destroying lives, income, businesses, wealth, opportunity
and hope has not meant less death, just more suffering
among the living.

Again, "punishment" is a deliberately loaded word. Things
like social distancing orders and travel restrictions were
intended to protect, not punish.

And again, those measures have worked extremely well in many
places. Look how excellently Hawaii has done! Less than 20
deaths last I looked. Isn't it obvious that can only be due
to the 'stay-at-home' orders?

;-)

That is not at all obvious. New York?? Chicago??

IOW, you mean that despite attempts at protective
regulations, New York and Chicago had lots of cases.

And I mean that because of protective regulations, Hawaii,
Nevada, New Mexico, Maine, Kansas etc. did really well. They
did exceptionally well in their rural areas.

So perhaps we should look at less extreme outliers? Is there
a chance that the regulations did have significant benefit,
but that in super-dense cities other factors contributed to
super-spreading? Perhaps one factor was ignoring the
regulations?

And is there a chance that without those regulations, the
super-spreading would have been far, far worse?

That's what epidemiologists around the world seem to think.


In my county there has been widespread disregard for the
"Because I Said So" rules with almost no fatal events[1].

You could posit that we all enjoy super immune systems but
there's so far no correlation between punishment of the
citizenry and positive outcomes. Again, Japan advised her
citizens and then stopped short of destroying the society,
with good results. New York, especially NYC, tried to
micromanage life to the smallest detail with abysmal outcome.

[1]One death on 29 March in an elder care facility, none since.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 11:25 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 28.05.2020 um 16:29 schrieb AMuzi:

And, as I've noted here before, hydroxychloroquine doesn't kill the
virus. In people who react with a cytokine cascade, that or similar
anti inflammatory treatment gets the victim through his immediate
pulmonary crisis such that he doesn't die within minutes/hours. His
immune system may respond better later. Or not. But people who drown
in the ER don't get a second chance.Â* Some large number of doctors and
RNs are using it prophylactically now but I haven't seen any overall
analyses of that. Early reports at the time were indeed quite
interesting, as the President noted.

Instead of risking cloroxqueen diarrhea, he could as well have taken zinc
lozenges to fight off infection. But why take medicine now instead of using
the past FOUR mounths to lose two pounds a week exercising, lick a
paint-stripped Audi for all-natural zinc supplementation daily, get on a
healthier diet, and improve one's immune system? Or at least do it the
American way and supplement vitamins A, C, D3+K2, as well as Se, Mg, and Zn
(pill form) minerals?

Now it is clear

Rolf, you sound like the smug mayor from Appleville. Post a link! You can
do it if I could post a Destatis one here two days before Walter Kraemer[1]
did at Achgut. And my next one actually looks like fun for a mathematician
to debunk, come on:
https://mobile.twitter.com/raoult_didier/media/grid?idx=3

that using it prophylactically is a bad idea, especially
in the combination with antibiotics: the death rate goes up significantly
compared to no treatment.Â* This is the main reason why "experimental"
treatments should be carefully validated before the treament turns into
a treatment for the millions.

I hope you hold the same standard to Bill the Barbarian's vaccination for
the billions.

Advertising an experimental treatment is grossly negligent at the least:
you test experimental treatments in a controlled environment until you
have results that are sufficiently convincing to declare the treatment
as safe.

I'm awaiting this notice in Slow England Journal of Medicine, Y2023:
"-- Pages intentionally left blank -- The 2019/2020 corona virus season was
over before Rolf Mantel could finish his study and start advising the Prime
Minister."

Exactly. You don't use the first rumors from a tiny incompetent study to
"prove" that "I really get it… every one of these doctors said, ‘how do
you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability."

President Frank would publicly admit to having received secret intelligence
briefings. And now, Frank, show us your large, competent, independent
study! Is it this one?
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/early-diagnosis-and-management-of-covid-19-patients-a-real-life-cohort-study-of-3737-patients-marseille-france/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZFN3DryH68



--
[1]
https://www.achgut.com/artikel/die_sogenannte_uebersterblichkeit_was_bleibt_davon

AMuzi writes:

On 5/27/2020 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:42:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/27/2020 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:17:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I have a very low respect for doctors because so few
of them
want to be competent. Top of the list in that category
is Dr. Fauci
of the CDC who has continually acted an expert at
things he knows
very little about.

Dr Fauci has been director of the NIAID (National
Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases) since 1984. He does NOT work
for the CDC.
NIAID is part of the NIH (National Institute of
Health). He's has
been involved with controlling several previous
epidemics, which I
presume qualifies as experience:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/niaid-history

Can you provide the name of someone in the US who is
better qualified
to discuss pandemics than Dr Fauci?

There is a place for those who sit around, think and
read papers.
I do not deny Fauci that much. But he is not working in
the real world
as many other epidemiologists are and they often
interview them on
FOX and they ALL say what I've been saying. There isn't
much you can
do about a pandemic with a linear growth rate.

I see. You want to be advised on how to protect yourself
from a viral
epidemic by an epidemiologist via Fox News. I don't
think that's what
you intended to say, but that's what you wrote. You also
seem to have
changed your position on Dr Fauci from:

"Dr. Fauci of the CDC(sic) who has continually acted an
expert at things he knows very little about."

to:

"I do not deny Fauci that much."

That's quite a change from calling the leading expert on
infectious
diseases in the US an incompetent, to not denying him
something you
didn't bother to specify. Of course, you're entitled to
have an
opinion about anyone and anything, but I'm also entitled
to discount
your opinion as rubbish. Anyway, kindly stabilize your
opinion about
Dr Fauci. If it's critical, please provide the name of
someone in the
US that is equally or more qualified to advise on how to
handle a
pandemic. Incidentally, I could probably provide some
names in China
that are substantially more qualified and equally
experienced, but
such experts would not be considered as candidates for
advising our
president, who knows more than any or all of them,
Here's one
candidate that might have qualified had he not resigned
for having is
bureau eliminated by the Trump administration:
"A top pandemic expert is leaving the Trump
administration amid the
coronavirus crisis"
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pandemic-expert-leaving-the-trump-administration-amid-coronavirus-2020-5



No bicycle related content this time. Sorry(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The leading expert? Jeff, that is about the most foolish
thing that you could say. Fauci is NOT an expert. Sitting
around in hallowed halls of government does NOT make you
an expert. The epidemiologists in the field say the
opposite and that you like some sort of moron deny that
they know anything for the simple reason that they are
interviewed on FOX shows that you are nothing more than
some stupid biased punk.

Your homework, Tom:

!) Find or assemble a CV for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I say that
because you obviously know very, very little about him.

2) Find or assemble a CV for the guy you allude to whom Faux
News managed to dig up.

Analyze and compare those to prove to us that your guy with
his predictable complaints is more qualified than Fauci.

We'll even give bonus points for a little more work:

3) Give us your own CV. Show us why we should listen to your
opinions on epidemiology... and history, genetics, theology,
ballistics, human anatomy, politics, engineering, medicine,
sociology, geology, meteorology, technology, etc. You know -
all the other things about which you, as a high school
dropout, claim to be much smarter than hundreds of trained,
experienced, and recognized experts.


Fauci is probably a successful agency administrator and
political survivor who knows something but surely not
everything. Dr John Ionnidis who's no slouch in the area has
different opinions but gets no media traction:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ge-establishm/

And yet, countries that did institute a lock down, in a timely manner,
have noticeably lower cases and deaths.
(please note the phrase "timely manner")


Italy did and lost many. Japan did not and lost few.
Sweden is not out of line to her neighbors and yet still has some GDP
remaining.

There's no correlation. You can imply one as you will but it's not
clear at all that such relationship exists.

You might like this article from the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0

They show excess mortality statistics for countries where they are
available, and plot versus infections per million on "lockdown day". In
the absence of a legal lockdown, they use the day when transit usage
fell to 50% of pre-pandemic levels. It's not clear to me how comparable
the "infections per million" figures are, given the wide variation of
testing capabilities over space and time.

They claim to find a correlation between early lockdown and lower excess
deaths, but their points are very widely scattered.

Spain comes off worst in excess mortality, followed by the UK, and then
Italy.

Food for thought:
https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0

On Wed, 27 May 2020 21:12:18 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
a quick search gives many results for buying pasticizers.
This seems relevant but I can't view past the 1st paragraph:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...suits-science/

"But plasticizers eventually leach out of plastic as acidic,
corrosive outgassing, and speed plastic breakdown."

The article is interesting, but doesn't explain anything about the
chemistry involved, which plastics are affected, or if anything can be
done to fix the problem or salvage the plastic.

My main interest is in the decomposition of the rubberized paint found
on many computer accessories, laptops, phones, and similar products.
The rubber depolymerizes into a sticky black goo. I suspect this is
intentional where some companies (i.e. Logitech) are using it as a
sales enhancer. (Everything is a conspiracy).

Oddly, various LDPE plastics show fairly low volatiles. See:
NASA Outgassing Materials
https://outgassing.nasa.gov/index.cgi
https://outgassing.nasa.gov/cgi/uncgi/search/search_html.sh
https://outgassing.nasa.gov/help/og_help.html
TML = Total Mass Loss
CVCM = Collected Volatile Condensable Material

I'll dig some more when I have time.

I barely tolerate paywalls. Delete the National Geographic related
cookies from your web browser and hit refresh. That should give you 3
more articles that you can view before the paywall bites you again.
Hmmm... that didn't work too well with the National Geographic
paywall. I get a pop-up for creating an account. After removing the
related cookies, when I hit refresh, the pop-up appears again after 15
seconds. So, I speed read, refresh, speed read, etc. Sigh.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/28/2020 3:00 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 5/27/2020 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:42:30 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/27/2020 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 11:42 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:17:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-7, Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:30:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I have a very low respect for doctors because so few
of them
want to be competent. Top of the list in that category
is Dr. Fauci
of the CDC who has continually acted an expert at
things he knows
very little about.

Dr Fauci has been director of the NIAID (National
Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases) since 1984. He does NOT work
for the CDC.
NIAID is part of the NIH (National Institute of
Health). He's has
been involved with controlling several previous
epidemics, which I
presume qualifies as experience:
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/niaid-history

Can you provide the name of someone in the US who is
better qualified
to discuss pandemics than Dr Fauci?

There is a place for those who sit around, think and
read papers.
I do not deny Fauci that much. But he is not working in
the real world
as many other epidemiologists are and they often
interview them on
FOX and they ALL say what I've been saying. There isn't
much you can
do about a pandemic with a linear growth rate.

I see. You want to be advised on how to protect yourself
from a viral
epidemic by an epidemiologist via Fox News. I don't
think that's what
you intended to say, but that's what you wrote. You also
seem to have
changed your position on Dr Fauci from:

"Dr. Fauci of the CDC(sic) who has continually acted an
expert at things he knows very little about."

to:

"I do not deny Fauci that much."

That's quite a change from calling the leading expert on
infectious
diseases in the US an incompetent, to not denying him
something you
didn't bother to specify. Of course, you're entitled to
have an
opinion about anyone and anything, but I'm also entitled
to discount
your opinion as rubbish. Anyway, kindly stabilize your
opinion about
Dr Fauci. If it's critical, please provide the name of
someone in the
US that is equally or more qualified to advise on how to
handle a
pandemic. Incidentally, I could probably provide some
names in China
that are substantially more qualified and equally
experienced, but
such experts would not be considered as candidates for
advising our
president, who knows more than any or all of them,
Here's one
candidate that might have qualified had he not resigned
for having is
bureau eliminated by the Trump administration:
"A top pandemic expert is leaving the Trump
administration amid the
coronavirus crisis"
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-pandemic-expert-leaving-the-trump-administration-amid-coronavirus-2020-5



No bicycle related content this time. Sorry(tm).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The leading expert? Jeff, that is about the most foolish
thing that you could say. Fauci is NOT an expert. Sitting
around in hallowed halls of government does NOT make you
an expert. The epidemiologists in the field say the
opposite and that you like some sort of moron deny that
they know anything for the simple reason that they are
interviewed on FOX shows that you are nothing more than
some stupid biased punk.

Your homework, Tom:

!) Find or assemble a CV for Dr. Anthony Fauci. I say that
because you obviously know very, very little about him.

2) Find or assemble a CV for the guy you allude to whom Faux
News managed to dig up.

Analyze and compare those to prove to us that your guy with
his predictable complaints is more qualified than Fauci.

We'll even give bonus points for a little more work:

3) Give us your own CV. Show us why we should listen to your
opinions on epidemiology... and history, genetics, theology,
ballistics, human anatomy, politics, engineering, medicine,
sociology, geology, meteorology, technology, etc. You know -
all the other things about which you, as a high school
dropout, claim to be much smarter than hundreds of trained,
experienced, and recognized experts.


Fauci is probably a successful agency administrator and
political survivor who knows something but surely not
everything. Dr John Ionnidis who's no slouch in the area has
different opinions but gets no media traction:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ge-establishm/

And yet, countries that did institute a lock down, in a timely manner,
have noticeably lower cases and deaths.
(please note the phrase "timely manner")


Italy did and lost many. Japan did not and lost few.
Sweden is not out of line to her neighbors and yet still has some GDP
remaining.

There's no correlation. You can imply one as you will but it's not
clear at all that such relationship exists.

You might like this article from the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0

They show excess mortality statistics for countries where they are
available, and plot versus infections per million on "lockdown day". In
the absence of a legal lockdown, they use the day when transit usage
fell to 50% of pre-pandemic levels. It's not clear to me how comparable
the "infections per million" figures are, given the wide variation of
testing capabilities over space and time.

They claim to find a correlation between early lockdown and lower excess
deaths, but their points are very widely scattered.

Spain comes off worst in excess mortality, followed by the UK, and then
Italy.

Food for thought:
https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-...2-648ffde71bf0


Regarding testing, I read a report yesterday interviewing
RNs who have tested both positive and negative on different
days, back and forth, for weeks.

I don't know but I'm reasonably certain that any conclusion
based on large population testing is inaccurate.

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you generally, just stopping
short of accepting ratios dependent on current testing.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971