Jump to content

The Anti-Targ

Members
  • Content count

    10,664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Anti-Targ

  • Rank
    Level 20 Social Justice Mage, with melee ability
  • Birthday 07/03/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

10,005 profile views
  1. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Some people will die and go undiagnosed, either because of a lack of testing or because cause of death will be deemed to be something else. If death happens suddenly the death may not be investigated fully. The people most likely to be tested are those who develop severe symptoms and seek treatment before they either die or recover. I think that a country can only contain the disease if the only people who get the disease picked it up outside the country and were effectively quarantined before they left that country can came home. As soon as there is a "native" case in a country it's already spread to a bunch of other people and you are faced with the kind of lock down that China undertook if you want to keep spread limited.
  2. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    It was a conversation between a colleague of mine and an Iranian (who is lives in Iran) health professional. The health professional didn't claim that Iran was possibly the origin, just that things got started there in November. It's just that the traceback of the start of the disease currently seems to peg the beginning at November, so assuming is started in China is got to Iran very quickly. And the stories leaking out of Iran from unofficial sources is that it's pretty bad there. The deputy health minister has the infection. He might be the first senior politician in the world to have got the disease. Various Chinese govt officials have got the disease, but AFAIK no one at that senior political level. Diseases aren't easily predictable. Movement works on probabilities. It's more probable that a disease originating in Iran will spread to other parts of the ME before China, but it is only more probable not definite. There is also a non-zero probability that it would spread to China first. And sometimes the lower probability outcome actually happens. If the first people to take the disease out of an area just happen to go to the less probable location that will make the less probable route of spread become the actual route of spread. Probability is the disease originate in China, but the info I got from Iran and the more widely known unofficial information about the situation in Iran lends a bit more probability of Iran as the origin than it being a research lab leak or an American biological attack.
  3. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Take this as you will. I got information through work that things were happening in Iran in November. November is when some epidemiologists think the first cases started appearing in China. There is a fair amount of interaction between China and Iran, they are on pretty good terms. I don't know if that potentially puts the origin of the virus in Iran, but there is definitely increasing doubt that it originated in the animal markets in Wuhan or even in Wuhan itself. Wuhan just seems to be where shit got kicked off in a big way. @Darth Richard II Yeah, I've had 'flu once. If you've had the flu you definitely understand why people die from it and that it's not like just a particularly nasty cold.
  4. The Anti-Targ

    Job Guarantee vs UBI

    The dole has to be available to everyone not currently in full-time paid work. A job guarantee is a guarantee of work if you want it, it's not a demand that you must work.
  5. The Anti-Targ

    Job Guarantee vs UBI

    What makes you think people need to pay into the system? Do you think govts need to finance expenditure through taxes? They don't, the only reason a govt needs to tax is to preserve the value of the currency, i.e. limit the inflationary effect of its spending. the problem is no one knows how much tax, how and where from a govt needs to collect to moderate inflation. How much inflation a jobs guarantee (or UBI) causes informs how much tax needs to be collected to offset it. A big fallacy that somehow is entrenched in people's minds is that a govt needs to collect taxes to pay for welfare / jobs programmes. They don't, at least not with a fiat currency where the govt has currency sovereignty. Yes, some workers will get paid for doing nothing, but that is less spending than a UBI. The basic idea is people who want paid work but aren't in paid work turn up on the department's doorstep and say "give us a job, mate." Given those people are self-motivated to work they are not likely to turn down every job that's offered to them. A Job guarantee would mean some make work jobs, but why is that a problem? A make work job is still achieving benefits for the person that makes them more employable in the private sector: they are turning up daily to do a job, they are potentially doing something that is healthy for them, they will be developing skills or learning or both. They are far more attractive to private sector employers than someone like my brother who in the current system has spent most of his adult life unemployed and on the dole, applying for jobs but never getting an interview.
  6. The Anti-Targ

    Job Guarantee vs UBI

    That's the key difference between work for the dole and a job guarantee. Work for the dole is coercive on the worker in that they have their dole cut if they don't agree to work. A job guarantee is coercive on the welfare dept to find a person a suitable job and the welfare dept is "penalised" if they can't find the person a suitable job by having to pay the person anyway. A problem with UBI is that it places no onus on the welfare dept to help people find work. It abrogates that function entirely to the worker by effectively saying to them "we're paying you X, it's up to you to find gainful employment if you want to earn more than X".
  7. The Anti-Targ

    Job Guarantee vs UBI

    Why are certain segments of the political spectrum so hot on UBI but cold on a job guarantee? A job guarantee comes (or should come) with a better income and because you are employed you are a better hire prospect for the private sector. The Yang UBI proposal (USA) was $1000 per month, which is the equivalent of US$5.76/hr on a full time job. A job guarantee would need to pay at least minimum wage, which is more than $5.76/hr, even after tax I would think. The outlay is higher, but then, the person is doing a job and so is being directly productive for the income, rather than possibly indirectly productive with the time afforded to them by being paid a UBI. A job guarantee isn't "work for the dole". With work for the dole the welfare department is calling you in and saying you have to come in and do whatever work it is we tell you to do and if you don't then your welfare gets cut. A job guarantee is where a person walks into the welfare department and demands to be given a job, and the welfare department is obliged to give them a job, and if they can't find the person a job then they have to pay the person anyway. Practically speaking there's little difference between work for the dole and a job guarantee, the outcome is nearly everyone works, ie. actual full employment as opposed to the capitalist "full" employment, which is 3.5-4% unemployment. The difference is who is coercing whom, thus with a job guarantee the individual preserves their dignity and freedom instead of being threatened with impoverishment if they don't do what they're told. A Job guarantee is more demanding administratively. But who cares? The whole point is everyone having a job, so you can meet part of the job guarantee goal by having people work in the job guarantee department helping other people get the jobs they want. And when demand for that service decreases some of those people can help themselves find a different job. And it's not like there isn't work out there that needs to be done. It's just that no one is doing that work.
  8. Need to get distance education going, so the international students can still do their courses even if not in the country. But discount the fee.
  9. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Other South Korean reports are saying bodies are being burned in North Korea. Anyway this droplet vs airborne thing can be well put to bed now, because official sources (incl the Chinese I think) have confirmed airborne spread. So if you are in a contiguous airspace as someone(s) who is(are) infectious then you have a high chance of being exposed. It's not guaranteed you will become infected because there's only a % chance you will be in contact with the virus, and you also need to pick up an invective dose. Don't know what those numbers are at the moment though. Very hard to work out infective dose without experimental exposure, and I don;t think any ethics board anywhere in the world would approve such an experiment. Another bit of info from Dr Campbell's youtube is that apparently a person is most contagious at 3-5 days post infection, which is before most people are symptomatic or any more symptomatic than feeling a bit off colour. So that makes 14-day quarantine in an atmospherically isolated accomodation very important. It also means people with suspected exposure who are not sympromatic, if they are being evacuated to their home country / town should be going on charter transport with no unexposed members of the public and all crew wearing proper protective gear. And each person probably also wearing a proper face mask until they get into isolation. China is somewhat able to control spread because the people are used to having restricted freedom. I wonder how things will go down when the disease starts spreading in freedom-loving countries. Most people will be sensible and isolate themselves, but will everyone?
  10. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    I think you mean relatively more males smoke? That does make a some sense if true. Smoking would be an exacerbating factor in a severe respiratory disease
  11. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Back on topic. From a recent Chinese paper http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51, it seems my age range has a 1.3% case fatality rate, and age appears to be a very significant factor for fatality, being very low right up until the 49/50 mark, and then increasing substantially from there. 8% case fatality rate at 70. 14% at 80+. Males 2.8% case fatality, females 1.7% case fatality. Interesting if it's actually a biological thing or lifestyle differences among the sexes in the population studied (being almost entirely Chinese people from Hubei / Wuhan).
  12. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    I believe the answer is yes and yes. @Platypus Rex The mantra I am trying to live by is: don't be a dick. I fail frequently, but also try to improve little by little, day by day. I think it's a pretty good mantra and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to improve the quality of their social interactions.
  13. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Hmmm I don't remember me claiming that everyone on the ship would be infected if it was airborne spread. I am sufficiently expert to know that nothing is 100% when it comes to diseases. In fact the rate of infection on the Diamond Princess is evidence for airborne spread. I'm not shifting goal posts. The FMD example was to illustrate that airborne as opposed to droplet spread has potential for a much greater transmission range. Air pressure in a room would depend on whether the person in the room is infected or not. If a person is infected you want negative pressure so that airflow through gaps in doors etc is into the room. If you're not infected you want positive pressure so that airflow through gaps is outward. Of course the main form of ventilation would need to be through filters capable to capturing or killing the virus. Not entirely sure if there are 100nm filters, so a ventilation system able to kill the virus (maybe UV light?) would be needed. I imagine hospitals must have air sanitising ventilation systems, so being in a hospital should be safe for uninfected people, at least from airborne spread.
  14. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    Can't remember who linked him initially, but here is Dr Campbell explaining as a man of few words why it's stupid to think this virus is a man made bioweapon at about 5 minutes. If anyone wanted to produce a bioweapon "they could do a better job than this". He is speculating that it could be being spread in the air because of the Diamond Princess situation. As it's a heavy virus it won't spread far in the air, but if the ship's AC system is pushing it around, then limited airborne spread is a possibility. So that's not great. Man, if they didn't want conspiracy nuts calling this a lab made SARS "upgrade" why the heck did they basically name the virus SARS 2.0 (SARS-CoV-2 to be precise)? But I guess the conspiracy nuts got busy claiming it was lab grown SARS 2.0 before this formal naming. So maybe coming out with this name isn't going to make people wear 2 layers of tin on their head instead of only 1.
  15. The Anti-Targ

    Wuhan Coronavirus

    There is an extremely important epidemiological distinction between airborne and droplet spread, despite any snark about the distinction when it comes to the Diamond Princess and number of cases there. In the context of a confined space, like a building or cruise ship, airborne spread can happen via ventilation systems, droplet spread can't happen via ventilation systems. Bacteria are unlikely to be spread by air, and large viruses unlikely also, because they are heavy (i.e. will fall out of the air) and also big enough to be captured by normal air filtration systems. In the context of spread in a town, city, region, country or internationally, airborne spread can happen across several kilometres (miles). Droplet spread can only happen across 10s of metres (yards) at most. In the case of the Diamond Princess, if the virus was airborne then locking yourself in your cabin would not be toally protective because the AC system could be spreading it everywhere on the ship and evacuation of the ship would be the only option. But in the case of droplet spread, locking yourself in the cabin is an effective protection, so long as you aren't locked in with someone who is shedding the virus. Foot and Mouth disease is an airborne virus and can spread several kilometres that way. If this coronavirus was airborne spread affected countries would be in a much worse situation than they are now and there would be more panic about it than there is right now. The FMD virus is about 30nm in size. The internet says coronaviruses are over 100nm in size. When you're a virus, that's a big size difference. Size matters when it comes to potential for airborne spread. Actually this aspect of transmission tends to go against conspiracy theories about it being a bioweapon (and there's shit already out there with videos and articles asking "is it a bioweapon". If you want something to be a proper bioweapon you will pick something that has effective airborne transmission, like the virus in '12 Monkeys'. So notions of it being some instrument of biological warfare are further negated by it not being an airborne virus.
×