The Wuhan virus—how are we doing? - Page 68 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
China is still following the same protocols, as is Vietnam, and other SE Asian countries. Pretending otherwise is what ignorant Westerners like to to, in order to promote an anti-mask, FreeDumb, narrative.

The West doesn't consequently quarantine/test travelers* and, of lesser importance, it doesn't mandate contact tracing apps. That's really why it fails to contain the virus as far I can tell.

*In the US you would probably have to restrict interstate travel if contact tracing is done by the states.
Here's the latest weekly update:


For Red State/Blue State:

US ave. deaths per million (increase, change in rate)
  • Red States 752.9 (34.0, +5.4)
  • Purple States 599.9 (38.4, +11.2)
  • Blue States 867.4 (25.3, +6.9)

If they were included on my weekly chart above, Blue States would rank 16th out of 90 (-1), Red States 28th (-2), and Purple States 40th (+0).
Drlee wrote:low self esteem incels who can't find any since Craigslist pulled the 'meet me in the park' ads.

That doesn't really land because it's just a standard canned internet insult. See my shit lands because I know exactly what you are, I know the difference between a mediocrity who's just in it for the status and a real expert who's passionate about their field of study. The babbitts are mediocrities of status and authority that go around making pronouncements, the real experts are the people who are fascinated with the questions and always have more questions than answers. The reason the babbitts always take over every field of study is because the real experts are too busy with actual science to bother with political wranglings and power trips. Mediocrity craves status while real scientists are just seeking to understand the world.
Here are some news items which refer to the presence of covid in sewage samples in different cities around the world before the pandemic started: ... ing-system ... index.html ... SKBN23Q1J9 ... SKBN23X2HQ
@ralfy Here are some news items which refer to the presence of covid in sewage samples in different cities around the world before the pandemic started:

What do you think we should conclude from this?
ralfy wrote:Here are some news items which refer to the presence of covid in sewage samples in different cities around the world before the pandemic started: ... ing-system ... index.html ... SKBN23Q1J9 ... SKBN23X2HQ

Okay but there was no pandemic going on at that time. Which means that that strain of Corona was probably harmless or had little to no negative effects on humans. Meaning that although the Covid virus might have existed before, the deadly/harmful version of Covid mutated in China since it was the place of the first outbreak.
Al Jazeera wrote:Rich countries block COVID-19 drugs rights waiver at WTO


Wealthy nations on Friday reiterated their opposition to a proposal to waive intellectual property rules for COVID-19 drugs, three trade sources said, despite pressure to make an exception to improve access to drugs for poorer countries.

Supporters of the waiver say existing intellectual property rules create barriers on access to affordable medicines and vaccines and they want restrictions to be eased, as they were during the AIDS epidemic.

But opposition from the European Union, the United States and some other wealthy nations at a meeting on Friday means the proposal set to go before the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) General Council next month is likely to fail.

“If rich countries prefer profits to life, they will kill it by tying it down in technicalities,” said a delegate supporting the motion who attended the closed-door meeting. ...

So while some developing countries are asking that COVID cures-controls-vaccines be made universally available, the rich countries want to make a lot of money off of them.

It's all about money for our rich, powerful leaders, which is one very good reason to be cynical of their so-called "good intentions."
I just found out that one of my patients, who by the way, was born in 1989, is still in the intensive care unit after three weeks. His condition is not good of course but for now he is somewhat stable.

@Doug64 but you and @Sivad already know that this disease is harmless to people under 60 and will, no doubt, accuse me of lying.

In an unrelated thought.....Dumb fuckers really get on my nerves.
Drlee wrote:Dumb fuckers really get on my nerves.

Yeah, like the pompous dildos that go around appealing to their own authority and fear mongering with dubious anecdotes that even if true wouldn't mean shit.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:What we see is that Alex Berenson is a brain-dead moron who cannot read or comprehend basic information

It might seem like that to an actual brain-dead moron who cannot read or comprhend basic information but because Berenson knows that asymptomatic spread is extremely rare, he knows that masks are basically useless as a protective measure.

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says ... -says.html
According to the conclusion of the Danish study by Bundgaard et al. (2020), there is a moderate level of protection of 15-20 percent for those who wear masks. In the non-face mask group, 2.1 percent of participants were infected with new coronavirus, while 1.8 percent of participants in the face mask-wearing group were infected. People are encouraged to wear masks in public because you could be an asymptomatic patient who is spreading the virus unknowingly. The majority of Covid-19 patients don't even know if they are infected.


A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

The primary outcome occurred in 42 participants (1.8%) in the mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio [OR], 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33) in favor of the mask group (Supplement Figure 1). When this analysis was repeated with multiple imputation for missing data due to loss to follow-up, it yielded similar results (OR, 0.81 [CI, 0.53 to 1.23]; P = 0.32). Table 2 provides data on the components of the primary end point, which were similar between groups.

In a per protocol analysis that excluded participants in the mask group who reported nonadherence (7%), SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 40 participants (1.8%) in the mask group and 53 (2.1%) in the control group (between-group difference, −0.4 percentage point [CI, −1.2 to 0.5 percentage point]; P = 0.40) (OR, 0.84 [CI, 0.55 to 1.26]; P = 0.40). Supplement Figure 2 provides results of the prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary composite end point. No statistically significant interactions were identified.
ThirdTerm wrote:According to the conclusion of the Danish study by Bundgaard et al. (2020), there is a moderate level of protection of 15-20 percent for those who wear masks.

Where are you getting 15-20% from? It's crazy how all in the same post you make claims and then you include information and links that totally debunk those claims. WTF?
So far as I know, the CDC hasn’t updated its September infection fatality rates:

  • 0-19: 0.003%
  • 20-49: 0.02%
  • 50-69: 0.5%
  • 70+: 5.4%

If anyone knows of any newer estimates from the CDC, let us know.
Sivad wrote:It might seem like that to an actual brain-dead moron who cannot read or comprhend basic information but because Berenson knows that asymptomatic spread is extremely rare, he knows that masks are basically useless as a protective measure.

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says ... -says.html

Right after that June quote:

top World Health Organization official clarified on Tuesday that scientists have not determined yet how frequently people with asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 pass the disease on to others, a day after suggesting that such spread is “very rare.”

The clarification comes after the WHO’s original comments incited strong pushback from outside public health experts, who suggested the agency had erred, or at least miscommunicated, when it said people who didn’t show symptoms were unlikely to spread the virus.

Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead on the Covid-19 pandemic, made it very clear Tuesday that the actual rates of asymptomatic transmission aren’t yet known. ... -covid-19/

So, a comment from 5 months ago that was quickly clarified is not much use. More recently:
5th Nov:
Up to 50% of people who had COVID-19 in Iceland were asymptomatic after health officials did broad lab testing of the population there.
Nearly 40% of children ages 6 to 13 tested positive for COVID-19, but were asymptomatic, according to just published research from the Duke University BRAVE Kids study. While the children had no symptoms of COVID-19, they had the same viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal areas, meaning that asymptomatic children had the same capacity to spread the virus compared to others who had symptoms of COVID-19.
And, a study from Singapore early in the COVID-19 pandemic showed that people who were asymptomatic still were spreading SARS-CoV-2 to others.
“Asymptomatic spread definitely plays a role in community spread,” said Dr. David Beckham, an infectious disease specialist who studies viruses in a lab he runs at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

Wearing masks helps prevent asymptomatic spread of COVID-19
That means it’s all the more critical for people to follow public health measures that clearly work, chief among them wearing masks, staying far apart from people and washing hands frequently.

“The closer we can get to 100% mask wearing, the quicker we can end this outbreak and get out of the current spike of the disease,” Beckham said. ... -covid-19/

Now, evidence suggests that about one in five infected people will experience no symptoms, and they will transmit the virus to significantly fewer people than someone with symptoms. But researchers are divided about whether asymptomatic infections are acting as a ‘silent driver’ of the pandemic.

Although there is a growing understanding of asymptomatic infections, researchers say that people should continue to use measures to reduce viral spread, including social distancing and wearing masks, regardless of whether they have symptoms.

The issue with putting a reliable figure on the rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 is distinguishing between people who are asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic, says Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious-disease researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. “Asymptomatic is someone who never developed symptoms ever throughout the course of their disease, and pre-symptomatic is somebody who has mild symptoms before they do go on to develop symptoms,” Kuppalli says. There is also no standardized accepted definition of that, she says.

(and in terms of how useful masks are, it's the spread by both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people that it's about)
(CNN)Most coronavirus infections are spread by people who have no symptoms, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in newly updated guidance.

It's one of the main reasons mask use is so important, the CDC said.

"Most SARS-CoV-2 infections are spread by people without symptoms," the agency said in a section of its website devoted to explaining the science of how to use masks to control the spread of the virus.

"CDC and others estimate that more than 50% of all infections are transmitted from people who are not exhibiting symptoms," it added in the guidance posted Friday.

"This means at least half of new infections come from people likely unaware they are infectious to others."

According to the CDC, 24% of people who transmit the virus to others never develop symptoms and another 35% were pre-symptomatic. It also said 41% infected others while experiencing symptoms.

Peak infectiousness comes five days after infection, the agency said on the website. "With these assumptions, 59% of infections would be transmitted when no symptoms are present but could range (from) 51%-70% if the fraction of asymptomatic infections were 24%-30% and peak infectiousness ranged 4-6 days." ... index.html
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:So, a comment from 5 months ago that was quickly clarified is not much use.

"We will continue to update our findings as Wall Street releases more information."
"We will continue to update our findings as Wall Street releases more information."

Thank you for putting ignorance in quotes. :roll:

Wishing everyone a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving. My brother and I will be following the example of Governor Newsom and Mayors Hancock, Lightfoot, and Bowser and joining our family in southern Utah for the holiday. It's not like there's any real risk that we aren't facing already, as it is my brother and I are all but hermits right now and the family in Utah practically live in each other's pockets.
Pants-of-dog wrote:To respond to the question in the title:

Worse than ever.

Highest number of cases ever.

Highest number of deaths.

And the beds in the ICU ward have almost run out.

Doesn't matter where this is from. But not nice. Just to help some Covid deniers understand the scope and the problem.

After 10 years of being a paramedic, today I had to decide between living and dead for the first time due to a lack of resources. Intensive care units are full, we are starting triage in Austria. Sometimes I hate my job... Pls wear your masks!!!
To add to the blatant hypocrisy of Governor Newsom’s party? At the same table were lobbyists from the California Medical Association. As Bill Maher noted, “That’s like getting shitfaced with Mothers Against Drunk Driving.”

And in Barrett’s first publicly discernible vote, a return to sanity for restrictions on church attendance:

Supreme Court blocks N.Y. coronavirus limits on houses of worship
As coronavirus cases surge again nationwide the Supreme Court late Wednesday barred New York from enforcing certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus.

The justices split 5-4 with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority. It was the conservative’s first publicly discernible vote as a justice. The court‘s three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.

The move was a shift for the court. Earlier this year, when Barrett’s liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was still on the court, the justices divided 5-4 to leave in place pandemic-related capacity restrictions affecting churches in California and Nevada.

The court‘s action Wednesday could push New York to reevaluate its restrictions on houses of worship in areas designated virus hot spots. But the impact of the court‘s action is also muted because the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish groups that sued to challenge the restrictions are no longer subject to them.

The Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America have churches and synagogues in areas of Brooklyn and Queens previously designated red and orange zones. In those red and orange zones, the state had capped attendance at houses of worship at 10 and 25 people, respectively. But the those particular areas are now designated as yellow zones with less restrictive rules neither group challenged.

The justices acted on an emergency basis, temporarily barring New York from enforcing the restrictions against the groups while their lawsuits continue. In an unsigned opinion the court said the restrictions “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” the opinion said.

The opinion noted that in red zones, while a synagogue or church cannot admit more than 10 people, businesses deemed “essential,” from grocery stores to pet shops, can remain open without capacity limits. And in orange zones, while synagogues and churches are capped at 25 people, “even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.”

Roberts, in dissent, wrote that there was “simply no need” for the court‘s action. “None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions,” he said, adding that New York‘s 10 and 25 person caps “do seem unduly restrictive.”

“The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic,” he wrote.

Roberts and four other justices wrote separately to explain their views. Barrett did not.

The court‘s action was a victory for the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish synagogues that had sued to challenge state restrictions announced by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Oct. 6.

The Diocese of Brooklyn, which covers Brooklyn and Queens, argued houses of worship were being unfairly singled out by the governor’s executive order. The diocese argued it had previously operated safely by capping attendance at 25% of a building’s capacity and taking other measures. Parts of Brooklyn and Queens are now in yellow zones where attendance at houses of worship is capped at 50% of a building’s capacity, but the church is keeping attendance lower.

“We are extremely grateful that the Supreme Court has acted so swiftly and decisively to protect one of our most fundamental constitutional rights - the free exercise of religion,” said Randy Mastro, an attorney for the diocese, in a statement.

Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America, wrote in an email: “This is an historic victory. This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution.”

Two lower courts had sided with New York in allowing the restrictions to remain in place. New York had argued that religious gatherings were being treated less restrictively than secular gatherings that carried the same infection risk, like concerts and theatrical performances. An email sent early Thursday by The Associated Press to the governor’s office seeking comment was not immediately returned.

There are currently several areas in New York designated orange zones but no red zones, according to a state website that tracks areas designated as hot spots.
  • 1
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 94

That is great, but at the end of the day the capi[…]

Name the last time the Democrats didn't nominate […]

:roll: If they've already had the first done, then[…]

Shooting of Adam Toledo

Not the same at all. I saw the story on ABC, CBS[…]