If Current DCI Model Gets Cut Back...

[N.E. Brigand]

16 minutes ago, Bob P. said:

Covid-19 is called that, not because it is the 19th version, but because it was discovered in 2019.

There is a British play called The Madness of George III. It was adapted as a movie in 1994, but the title was changed:

It was reported at the time that the name was changed based on testing the title with American focus groups, who thought that "The Madness of George III" must be a horror movie sequel, and since they hadn't seen parts I and II, they thought they wouldn't know what was going on.

Ian Holm was excellent in that film. (He plays the king's doctor.)

[E3D]

1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

(1) Nobody dies of HIV. In any case, we've been *under-counting* the number of COVID19 deaths. When you hear that 34,000 die of the flu in a year, that's a calculation that's done after the fact, not a record of everyone who tested positive for the flu. In New York, the weekly fatalaties this year have been more than twice as high as the weekly fatalities last year -- but only about half those additional people have been confirmed COVID19 deaths. The rest are, for example, found dead at their homes and quite often aren't tested.

(2) 34,000 seasonal flu deaths NEVER happen in just 50 days. Hospitals aren't overwhelmed. Bodies don't pile up in refrigerated trucks and even spare rooms. Doctors and nurses and police and firefighters and grocery store workers aren't decimated by it.

So then using your pessimistic outlook I can deduct that DCI and corps are history. 

I'm fine with risk and I am also fine with places being prepared. Eventually the general majority are going to be fine with risk also. This is due to many different social factors but the largest being--- people not able to provide for themselves.

From what I understand this virus is exposing some well known secrets about  corps stability and the lack of a sustainable business model.  

 

 

[JimF-LowBari]

4 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

There is a British play called The Madness of George III. It was adapted as a movie in 1994, but the title was changed:

It was reported at the time that the name was changed based on testing the title with American focus groups, who thought that "The Madness of George III" must be a horror movie sequel, and since they hadn't seen parts I and II, they thought they wouldn't know what was going on.

Ian Holm was excellent in that film. (He plays the king's doctor.)

Great movie. Irony for me was I found out my wife’s neurologist at Johns Hopkins had written a paper stating why he thought the problem was neurological. And he used more evidence that the blue #1 🤢

[E3D]

30 minutes ago, Bob P. said:

Covid-19 is called that, not because it is the 19th version, but because it was discovered in 2019. So a covid-20 might appear and affect the DCI 2021 season.  What will the WH call that version of covid - Corona 2?

Stay up to date. This is the Wuhan 1.0 

Norton / Webroot / Bitdefender/McAfee/trendmicro / totalav / cylance and even pcmatic are all stumped by the bits used in this virus but are working 24/7 to figure out what these hackers have done to the world. 

in related speculation kaspersky were not getting involved due to their country of origin. 

 

[N.E. Brigand]

27 minutes ago, E3D said:

So then using your pessimistic outlook I can deduct that DCI and corps are history. 

I'm fine with risk and I am also fine with places being prepared. Eventually the general majority are going to be fine with risk also. This is due to many different social factors but the largest being--- people not able to provide for themselves.

From what I understand this virus is exposing some well known secrets about  corps stability and the lack of a sustainable business model.  

No. My pessimistic outlook means that we need to be doing much, much more testing than we are. A million a day. (We're testign 100,000-150,000 per day now.)

And then tracing and isolating.

Once we're doing that, we can slowly start to open things up again.

This isn't an impossible problem. South Korea and the United States recorded their first COVID19 cases on the very same day.

We've had about 39,000 deaths. South Korea has had 234 deaths.

We are about seven times larger than South Korea. So we probably could have about 1,600 deaths if we'd followed their lead.

But the point is: from their example, we know it's possible to run an effective test / trace / isolate program.

And so we know that once we have that program in place, we can begin to return to normal.

We don't have to be "fine with risk". But you really should think about what that means. Open up without testing, and our current level of 2,000 deaths per day goes up big time. Instead of maxxing out in the range of 50,000-100,000 deaths, as we appear to be tracking toward, we max out at 500,000-2,000,000 deaths. And hospitals which are now near their breaking point will collapse entirely. You can't possibly want such a thing.

The solution is obvious. We just need to do it.

[E3D]

4 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

No. My pessimistic outlook means that we need to be doing much, much more testing than we are. A million a day. (We're testign 100,000-150,000 per day now.)

And then tracing and isolating.

Once we're doing that, we can slowly start to open things up again.

This isn't an impossible problem. South Korea and the United States recorded their first COVID19 cases on the very same day.

We've had about 39,000 deaths. South Korea has had 234 deaths.

We are about seven times larger than South Korea. So we probably could have about 1,600 deaths if we'd followed their lead.

But the point is: from their example, we know it's possible to run an effective test / trace / isolate program.

And so we know that once we have that program in place, we can begin to return to normal.

We don't have to be "fine with risk". But you really should think about what that means. Open up without testing, and our current level of 2,000 deaths per day goes up big time. Instead of maxxing out in the range of 50,000-100,000 deaths, as we appear to be tracking toward, we max out at 500,000-2,000,000 deaths. And hospitals which are now near their breaking point will collapse entirely. You can't possibly want such a thing.

The solution is obvious. We just need to do it.

There you go jumping to conclusions on what risk means to me. It is a typical trait in some with certain views. you fit it. 

 

 

[GUARDLING]

6 minutes ago, E3D said:

There you go jumping to conclusions on what risk means to me. It is a typical trait in some with certain views. you fit it. 

 

 

People do have the right of risk ( whatever that means ) , What people don't have is the right to infect others if God forbid that is an outcome

Edited April 19, 2020 by GUARDLING

[Poppycock]

🤔

Edited April 19, 2020 by Poppycock

[E3D]

8 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

People do have the right of risk ( whatever that means ) , What people don't have is the right to infect others if God forbid that is an outcome

Exactly where did I say I was out infecting others? 

My point is that the virus did not end the bill of rights and if people want to get out then who are you or I to determine if they have the rights to do so? 

I'm at home - but if someone who needs to work outside of home makes the decision to do so (plenty are at the grocery stores and restaurants)  that is a risk they have to decide. You will see really soon that you are going to be surrounded by people who do not have the luxury to work from home and have to make a decision. Sorry if that does not line up with your Utopian vision of what others are going to infect you with. If you don't want those to infect you continue to stay home. 

In fact those at the restaurants and grocery stores, farmers  etc. have already made that risk assessment and it allows you and I to work from home in our safe environment. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by E3D

[JohnZ]

in before close in 3.....2.....1.......