Jump to content

Platypus Rex

Members
  • Content Count

    1,185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Platypus Rex

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,822 profile views
  1. The W.H.O. has been rather blatantly kissing China's ass throughout this entire outbreak. Dr. Bruce Aylward (the WHO doctor you refer to above) is a particularly eager ass-kisser. The W.H.O. is the same organization that recommended against any travel restrictions whatsoever, because they were so eager to parrot the position of President Xi and the Chinese Communist party. Thankfully for the world, leaders of foreign countries (the semi-sane ones) just rolled their eyes and instituted travel restrictions anyhow, to protect their people. Which has no doubt had some effect (however temporary) in slowing the inevitable spread of the virus, and allowing nations time to get in gear. The WHO also refuses to list Taiwan as a "country" on their official website. No doubt to appease China.
  2. That's fine. I assume you have no objection to my clarification, just in case different others did not understand it. It is not clear to me that Sweden claims to have traced all of its local infections only to Iran and Italy (and now 1 from the USA). But I bow to your superior knowledge of local Swedish news sources. Well, okay, but you left out: 4 from Egypt (3 to USA; 1 to Canada). 3 from France (1 to Argentina; 1 to Cameroon; 1 to Denmark). 3 from Israel (all to Greece). 3 from Germany (1 to Poland, 1 to Egypt, 1 to Hungary). 2 from Japan (both to Philippines). 2 from Spain (1 to Portugal; 1 to Algeria). 2 from Switzerland (1 to Leichtenstein; 1 to Russia). 2 from UK (1 to USA; 1 to Vietnam) 1 from Austria (to Slovenia). 1 from Iraq (to Saudi Arabia). 1 from Taiwan (to Philippines). 1 from Oman (to India). Which is of course an incomplete list, since many cases are ascribed to foreign travel without specifying the source country. If you consider the relative size of the USA and its population, to many of the countries listed above, I don't think it is fair, in light of the above list, to count 2 cases ascribed to foreign travel from the USA as an indication that the USA is a particularly virulent source of infection. But who knows? More data comes in by the minute.
  3. You make a good point, I think, when you say that death totals might be a more meaningful indication of spread than case totals. Though of course, death totals can also be under-reported. I think, though, that you have ignored my point about taking into account the population of the nation in question, when considering the extent that the virus has spread within that population. If you were to compare "confirmed deaths" to population size, the US would come in lower than #6. I'm not sure (for instance) it is fair to compare 21 deaths in the entire United States, to the 19 deaths in France and 17 deaths in Spain.
  4. Well, you just can't go around testing everyone. If you do, you are just wasting your resources, which are always going to be limited. You need some sort of criteria to determine who is most likely to be infected. But let's do a fairer comparison, accepting as accurate the number of tests as stated above: The USA has found 484 infected to date, which is 1 person per 12.4 persons tested (484/6,000). South Korea has found 7,313 infected to date, which is 1 person per 19.1 persons tested (7,313/140,000). So I think it is fair to say that South Korea has been testing a bit more widely and liberally than the USA has. But not by the massive margins your previous remark suggested.
  5. Not sure what you meant to say here. But Sweden has 42 new infected cases today of which only ONE is believed to have been infected in the United States. This brings the official case total in Sweden to 203. There were 24 new cases in Sweden yesterday, and another 42 cases the day before yesterday, and another 42 cases the day before that. The very first case in Sweden was on January 31. Case totals seem to be exploding in Sweden, and I really don't think you can get away with trying to make the United States a scapegoat for this problem, just because an infected traveler from the United States happened to show up today. Also, your words seem to imply (even if that's not what you meant) that Sweden has no prior cases from Italy and Iran. However, Sweden's second (I think) case, reported on Feb 27, was a traveler from Northern Italy. The next day, Sweden reported 4 new cases, 3 from Italy, and 1 from Iran. After that, a few more cases trickled in, with no announcement on the country of origin, until, on March 3, Sweden reported 9 new cases, all from Northern Italy. Then the new cases began to explode, with no announcement (AFAIK) made as to their country of origin, until today when (for reasons best known to himself) someone decided to single out one case from the United States. As a citizen of the United States, I am of course very concerned, and totally on board with calls for a more aggressive response from the Federal Government, and from local State governments. I don't think the virus can be stopped, but I think we should do what we can to slow it. However, in attempt to provide an arguable reality-check to the above US-bashing narrative, let me provide a list of the top-40 countries in terms of number of infections per million population, based on official case totals: South Korea . . . . . . . . . . 142.6 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.0 Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.2 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.1 Bahrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.9 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.9 Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.1 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 Qatar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Lebanon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 United Arab Emirates . . . . . 4.5 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .3.7 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Czechia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.9 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Now, much of this data should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps South Korea does not deserve to be at the top of the list, and this position may reflect how aggressive their response has been in tracking cases. China's figures would be much higher, if not for official suppression of case totals. And there may be many countries not even on the above list where the virus is spreading widely and silently. Perhaps the US figures would be higher if the US federal and state governments were tracking cases as aggressively as they should be. But I'm sure the US is no the only nation that has some guilt in that regard, and perhaps other nations have been even more negligent (for various reasons), which would push them even higher on the list. But I really think one should think twice before trying to spin a narrative to make the USA the scapegoat for the fairly-extensive spread of the New Coronavirus within the European Union.
  6. Did I not already mention, in the post you are quoting and in previous quotes, the articles of Amy Qin in the New York Times? I've got more, including some links to official Chinese sources for some of the things I mentioned, but I guess you are not interested. Maybe if you tell me what exactly I have said that you doubt or challenge, I could give you more. But the bottom line is that I don't think information released by oppressive dictatorships is reliable. Now that the virus has spread internationally, I think we should be paying more attention to the data from relatively open societies, where it is actually possible for citizens to check the claims of the government. And I was disagreeing with the claim that the data from relatively open societies confirms the data from the oppressive dictatorship. There has been no such confirmation, for all the reasons I gave. Of course there has been a fair amount of information leaking out of China suggesting that the situation is not as China claims it is. But of course, none of this information is "official" or "reputable" or "established" or "verifiable". The Chinese government makes sure of that. In many cases, the people releasing such information have been made to disappear by the Chinese government. Also, calling me a "conspiracy theorist" is never an argument. It is merely an insult. Why does my doubt of the self-serving claims of an oppressive dictatorship make you so angry, anyway? Will you also call me a "conspiracy theorist" if I doubt the claim of North Korea that they have yet to see a single case of the novel coronavirus?
  7. The low South Korean death rate reflects how aggressively they are testing large numbers of asymptomatic people, who have not even had time to get sick yet, much less die. The case fatality rate (CFR) will rise as time goes on. The recovery rate (so far) is also very low in South Korea. The vast vast majority of the cases are still-active, early-stage, cases.
  8. My understanding is that Nigeria claims to have tested 21 or 22 people so far. But I could be wrong. What have I missed?
  9. Wow! That's pretty hostile. Listen my friend. I did not say I did not want comments about my post. Also, I was not whining. I was merely pointing out that your lack of interest in what @rotting sea cow and I were discussing, is not an objection to to what rotting sea cow and I were discussing. It you are not interested in what we were discussing, that's fine. Move on. Feel free to respond to other posts that interest you more. If you are interested, then by all means chime in.
  10. Uh ... no. 1% MIGHT be somewhat close to a realistic CFR if (and only if) testing resources ARE universally deployed. Take the current numbers from those diagnosed while on the Diamond Princess (where virtually everyone was tested, even if unsymptomatic): 696 cases. 6 deaths (or 7? - I counted 7 but maybe someone got reported twice). 445 cases are still listed as "active" (not yet recovered) of these 32 are still listed in "serious/critical" condition. So it is possible that people in this "everyone tested" sample may still die, and the final CFR will be higher than 1%. But the Diamond Princess is an unusual situation. Typically, one does not become a "case" until one gets sick and consults a doctor. Those who are merely exposed to the disease, and shrug it off, will rarely be counted as cases, for this disease or any other. The only reason we are counting them in THIS case (when we can find them), is because of the concern about people possibly spreading the disease while asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.
  11. Yes, but, with all due respect, I was talking to @rotting sea cow, and not to you. Nothing either of us said denied the relevance of age, sex, smoking, immune system health, respiratory health, or any other factor. And no law says you have to be interested in what we were saying. But yes, it is nice that relatively few young people will die. I like young people, even though I am young no longer. Better me than them, I say.
  12. @rotting sea cow I want to respond to your post from this past Monday (prior thread) where you followed up to my response the opinions of your friends, the biologist/enterologist couple, who had "nothing but praise for China" and its "draconian methods" which "bought time" for the rest of the world. In your followup post, you made the following remarkable statement, in support of your opinion that western figures somehow prove that China cannot be falsifying its data: It doesn't matter if they had ~90k cases and 3k deaths or 10x as much. If they want to keep face, they still need to report them in a consistent way otherwise we should already know the real virulence based in our own data. I find it remarkable that you think 27,000 extra Chinese deaths would not matter. I would guess, however, that President Xi agrees with you on some level. He certainly has other piorities, anyhow. But all you have really done here is admit that China could indeed be falsifying its data. All they need is a little guile. All China need do, to "save face" is present a "representative" subset of that caseload that (if they get sick) will receive adequate hospital care. Such a sample might indeed show a death rate vaguely similar to what we now see now emerging in Western nations. And if it ends up being even better (when all the data is in), well, that will be only be used by China advocates like yourself and your two friends, to extol the virtues and superiority of the Communist authoritarian system. And certainly many Chinese citizens have been told (according to reporting in the New York Times) that they cannot have hospital treatment without an official diagnosis for the new virus. Naturally, the "plausible" sample of cases, that China has chosen to give the world will not be, representative of the death toll among those who are welded into their homes and left to possibly die there. Nor will it be representative of those infected people who are rounded up and sent to mass quarantine camps where they are surrounded by countless other sick people, and where they receive little to no medical care, and inadequate food. Nor will it include people with other illnesses, who die, after being denied hospital treatment, or being welded in their homes, or after being herded into quarantine camps. These will include many, many people who might otherwise have survived. They too, are part of the human cost of this disease in China. You mention Italy as confirming the Chinese death rate. But again, the death rate is irrelevant unless we know the actual case totals. Only then can we have some vague idea of the actual human cost in lives lost. But never mind. Let's discuss Italy's case fatality rate (CFR), so far, and compare it to that of China's death rate, so far: As of today: Italy's CFR is only 4.2% (197 deaths divided by a case total of 4,636); China's CFR is 3.8% (3,070 deaths divided by a case total of 80,652). So it looks like China's figures are actually better than those of Italy, even though Italy is generally considered to be an advanced Western nation. Go China! Co Communism! Hurray for President Xi! But wait! We may actually be underselling the remarkable achievements of President Xi and his Chinese Communist party. For various reasons, the above death rates may not be comparable. Italy is still early in its crisis. It's case totals include far fewer resolved cases. By "resolved" cases, I mean those where the patient has either died or recovered. Fewer resolved cases means more active cases. More active cases means a greater potential for the CFR to increase as more cases resolve. Italy's resolved cases now are only ~16% of their case totals (720/4,636). China's resolved cases are now about ~73% of their case totals (58,591/80,652). If I recall correctly correctly, China, at an equivalent state of its crisis, when the % of resolved cases was still relatively low, had a CFR somewhere in the range of 1.5% to 2.2%. Wow, so it's almost like China is doing almost TWICE as well as Italy in terms of its death rate, and doing so at a time when reports leaking out of China (since sternly suppressed) suggested that China's hospital system was being completely overwhelmed, to an extent that Italy has not yet experienced. And what will happen after cases continue to rise, and Italy's hospital system IS overwhelmed. So no. Italy's figures do not confirm China's figures. They show that China is, or was, doing MUCH BETTER than Italy, at an analogous stage of the crisis. Go China! Go Communist Party! Go President Xi! Or maybe, just maybe, this dictatorial regime is falsifying its data, as I suggested it might be doing, and as dictatorial regimes have always done.
  13. DISAGREE that there are many posters here who have not read the books. AGREE that there is alot of head-canon, and inability to distinguish to distinguish favored theories from what is actually in the text. DISAGREE that there should be rules about quoting. Let the discussion monitor itself.
×
×
  • Create New...