Recommended Posts

Latest is some scientists believe the virus has mutated and there are now two strains.... One aggressive and one not so.... Not saying it’s going to happen but for history’s sake, that happened 1918 with horrible results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RetiredMusTeach said:

Just posted on SC Vanguard's FB page:  "In an an effort to protect our members and staff from an outbreak of Coronavirus in Santa Clara County, VMAPA will be cancelling upcoming March events, including drum corps rehearsal camps and the annual Vanguard Birthday Brunch on March 28."

Troopers, as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the current state of uncertainty it’s hard to imagine any camps happening before May.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, pbeau said:

With the current state of uncertainty it’s hard to imagine any camps happening before May.

I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Latest is some scientists believe the virus has mutated and there are now two strains.... One aggressive and one not so.... Not saying it’s going to happen but for history’s sake, that happened 1918 with horrible results.

Saw that yesterday, but also read one scientist who, acknowledging that there are two strains, disagreed that one was more dangerous than the other. He said the numbers showed more of a statistical fluke. But speaking of numbers, here's a chart from the CDC:

5e5fc740fee23d14eb3dd212?width=700&forma

My source is this informative article:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-compared-to-flu-mortality-rates-2020-3

The numbers will of course continue to change as more data is collected.

That article also includes a chart comparing COVID-19 to SARS, MERS, Ebola, and other notable diseases that have had outbreaks.

COVID-19 has infected 96,786 people in the past four months vs. 33,577 people infected by Ebola since that disease was identified in 1976.

But Ebola has killed 13,562 (40%), while COVID-19 has killed "only" 3,303 (3%).

(COVID-19 also has spread to 85 countries; Ebola only reached nine.)

The article concludes with some possibly hopeful words from the director of the World Health Organization:

"'COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza, from the data we have so far,' Ghebreyesus said. That means containment is still possible, he added. 'We don't even talk about containment for seasonal flu — it's just not possible. But it is possible for COVID-19,' Ghebreyesus said. 'We don't do contact tracing for seasonal flu, but countries should do it for COVID-19, because it will prevent infections and save lives.'"

In addition, a few articles over the past day indicate that people without symptoms may not be transmitting COVID-19 (although those with mild symptoms probably are). And apparently children are getting infected by COVID-19, but almost never experience serious symptoms. No one knows why.

(This will be my only post to this thread today, and moving forward I won't be commenting in this discussion more than once daily.)

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  I had no idea the chances of someone my age (fifties) who gets the flu actually dying from it are only 1 in 1700.  No wonder people choose not to risk getting into car accidents or contracting illnesses from people in doctors offices or drug stores by going to get flu shots.  

Of course, this chart appears to be about the flu in general rather than a particular strain of greatest concern, so perhaps relying on it to draw such a conclusion would be dangerous.  Unless all types of flu (e.g., Spanish flu, etc.) have a similar mortality rate, I’m honestly perplexed that an organization supposedly concerned about my health would put it at risk by engaging in such an an apples to oranges comparison.  

Not to mention the numerical categories are striated differently, and only the Coronavirus chart so attenuates the top age range as to shoot the rate bar way up higher.  
I hate to say it, but it makes me wonder what their agenda is.  I knew the WHO was highly questionable (arguing travel restrictions would not help, praising China while criticizing other countries, etc.), but had previously assumed the CDC to be credible.  

Especially with so many in the media equating these organizations to truth and science itself, to the point of attacking as “dangerous” and “anti-science”  anyone who does not sacrifice their own experience, research, intelligence, logic, and critical thinking skills to succumb to their will, thi information is an eye-opener to say the least.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Interesting.  I had no idea the chances of someone my age (fifties) who gets the flu actually dying from it are only 1 in 1700.  No wonder people choose not to risk getting into car accidents or contracting illnesses from people in doctors offices or drug stores by going to get flu shots.  

My wife was in a high risk category so doctor (works with a teaching hospital so really up to date) always had her get a shot. I’m older but not high risk so only recommended a shot if it matched the strain she thought would hit our area. My understanding is govt (CDC?) has to take an educated guess on which strain will hit as have to ramp up vaccine production before the flu hits. And no guarantee that if they get it right that will be what hits our area. Some years I get told not to worry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, George Dixon said:

The overreaction is ridiculous 

It’s the most extreme, pervasive, ridiculous, beyond-the-pale, over-the-line overreaction I’ve ever seen in my entire life, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it spreads to other... kinds...of...

oh

never mind

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, skevinp said:

Not to mention the numerical categories are striated differently, and only the Coronavirus chart so attenuates the top age range as to shoot the rate bar way up higher.  

Good catch!

By the way, what is the mortality rate for just being that old to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Good catch!

By the way, what is the mortality rate for just being that old to begin with?

I believe,regardless of age,the mortality rate for human beings is 100%  .  :-)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.