corona virus alerts - Latest cruising Information for vessels/locations/rules

[CatNewBee]

https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland..._11905456.html

Belgium has the highest covid mortality rate worldwide, german newspapers claim.

[slug]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland..._11905456.html

Belgium has the highest covid mortality rate worldwide, german newspapers claim.

Yah , Europe got clobbered . 110,000 dead

The UK is having a very hard time

I’m sad for my European friends

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

73% of inmates at one Ohio prison test positive for novel corona virus infection. These are reported as confirmed cases, most with no symptoms and zero deaths so far reported in the prison. The test results added about 20% to the states total case load.

This was apparently a well controlled test where 100% of the population and the staff were tested. Many of the staff were also found to have been infected.

Those attempting to “debunk” the higher than reported infection rate have a new data point to consider. This virus seems to be very highly transmissible but with a much lower infection fatality rate (IFR) than originally thought. A few weeks ago most experts thought that IFR was close to 1%. But that appears to be incorrect in the few datasets seen so far. I predict there will be more studies to better understand the fatality rate. It is the presumed IFR that frightened the experts and caused us to shelter in place.

It is truly frustrating that China did not do this type testing 3 months ago in Wuhan. They had a well controlled testing site and for whatever reason didn’t do the obvious.

Well, the Chinese were in the thick of it three months ago, and I don't know if a simple antibody test for COVID-19 existed back then. It's debatable whether such an experiment could be done reliably even now.

And of course, who would trust the Chinese or the WHO? (sarcasm, kids).

Originally Posted by Exile

There will have to be a lot more testing done before policymakers could responsibly act on such evidence, but if it pans out I would think it could be a game changer as far as the justification for the lockdowns go. If large percentages of the population are going to become infected no matter what we do, but the number of those infected requiring hospitalization would be small enough so as not to overwhelm health care systems, then the economic harm from the lockdowns may no longer be justified.

This is certainly the hope - that the latest data will show that infection has already been so widespread (yet asymptomatic or mild) that the lockdowns are less beneficial. is it clear yet that this is the case? Doesn't seem like it.

I think there's still doubt that an asymptomatic case confers immunity. Has anyone run re-infection tests? Volunteers?

[slug]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, the Chinese were in the thick of it three months ago, and I don't know if a simple antibody test for COVID-19 existed back then. It's debatable whether such an experiment could be done reliably even now.

And of course, who would trust the Chinese or the WHO? (sarcasm, kids).



This is certainly the hope - that the latest data will show that infection has already been so widespread (yet asymptomatic or mild) that the lockdowns are less beneficial. is it clear yet that this is the case? Doesn't seem like it.

I think there's still doubt that an asymptomatic case confers immunity. Has anyone run re-infection tests? Volunteers?

Boston homeless shelter , 137 positive tests 100 percent of these positive tests showed no symptoms

100 percent ! Incredible

Many things that we don’t know about this virus

Very dangerous to cheat on social distancing and personal protective gear

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Not exactly 'latest', but gooda place as any, I reckon...

So take it from Australia......

https://youtu.be/nJHQ_qre5FE



.

[lestersails]

Some good numbers on excess deaths.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ng-deaths.html

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Some good numbers on excess deaths.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ng-deaths.html

Do you know why the data for the United States is not included in this really good report?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Just curious! What business does the Chinese have in Montana?

Montana is mostly mountains and grass lands with very little industry. My father was born in Biem.

Montana, a.k.a. The Last Best Place; Big Sky Country; 406; or as Abraham Lincoln remarked when he signed the Montana Organic Act creating the territory: “My favorite state has not yet been invented. It will be called Montana, and it will be perfect.” So simply, a.k.a.: Perfect. As we all know, Abe was honest, that be back in the day when the GOP was Grand.

Yep, not a lot of industry or people in Montaña, [but there are 2.5 million cattle] so if we want to build something we have to also build the manufacturing facilities and train persons in fields they have had no previous background in. I can recall being instructed for one of our early ventures that I could not go to visit any or our major suppliers' [soon to be competitors] manufacturing plants, utilize any of the existing industry manufacturing methods, or recruit as an employee anyone who had made products in the industry sector [including myself] but to instead invent and build everything from scratch and then scale it to be a leader in volume. When we get started, we generally haven't been there / done that when we initiate another venture, bringing a clean slate of complete lack of knowledge to industry sectors and thus being confident that we are able to claim we are the dumbest persons in the room. Well perhaps dumbest isn't the proper term, maybe highly ignorant, uneducated and inexperienced are more the proper requisite qualifications. The deep pocket, private equity investors get real impressed by our very abbreviated CVs and bona fide creds. When you have no experience in a field it makes for a short conversation subject and then one can get onto what will occur and not waste time with the past. Basically just bring fresh perceptions and asking fundamental questions to shed new directions and transformations in sectors. One benefiting by not needing to unlearn what one needs to know is often the key toward progress.

Biem, Montana, wow, well there are but a select few that can claim that birthright. Truth be told, I had to look up the location of that grand unincorporated metropolis. That's almost to NoDak, definitely wide open prairie country. Google Maps picture of the Biem is attached, there be two roads, #2036 and #1040. Uh, I don't see any buildings or anyone outstanding in their field within miles of Biem. My father-in-law was born in Abe, Montana. It was probably much like Biem, his parent's homestead became the regional rural post office, the story goes that his Dad selected the name Abe, so that place would be the first in the list of all US Postal Service locations in the USA at the time. And I suspect in honor of Abraham Lincoln who created the territory long before it was to become a state and who knew it would be Perfect. Abe is a used to be designated place; a postcard or letter with an Abe postal origin stamping is a worthy collectable. We have been to the farmstead located in a beautiful remote valley and found the primitive grave markers of twin infant siblings of my father in law and the relics of the home and barn and outhouse.

Presently I have two principal residences, one in Northwest Montana and the other in Southwest Montana; one west of the Divide and the other just east of the Divide. To travel to Biem, would be an easy jaunt of 9 1/2 hours, 650 miles east across Montana's Highline, just head north for about 45 miles from my home to get to Highway 2, turn right to go east at that stop light intersection, and set the cruise control on and settle in for the fine journey to the other side of our time zone and our 406 area code. Heck, that would make us practically neighbors. Biem is within just a few miles west of Medicine Lake [been there], and east of Pleasant Prairie [haven't been there, yet, now on the list of places to go to, Pleasant Prairie does appear to be a populated place, not many persons mind you, but looks to be more than one]. I suspect that Biem is included in the list of places in the US Department of Commerce's Publication 55DC which means that you could use it as a designated hailing port for your vessel if you documented it with the United States Coast Guard. There likely not to be any other vessels with Biem, Montana as their hailing port. Just be sure to spell the place correctly, that be Biem, not Beam as in the athwartship dimension of a vessel. Perchance, did your Dad go to school in Wolf Point?

As to our companies, foremost they are involved in advanced electric motor / generator, and motor / generator control power electronics technologies primarily for use in propulsion of electric vehicles, what the Chinese call New Energy Vehicles. Our motor / generator technologies and architectures are presently used foremost for medium to heavy lift vehicles, [eBuses, eTrucks]. Also, working on the development of a novel solid state electrical energy storage technology [our E1023 Corporation, that being: Ten raised to the 23rd power] and another entity developing enhanced conductivity metal alloys [improved thermal and electrical properties], and another pursuing commercialization of a new metal forming technology initially for aiding in the manufacturing of the motors / generator components and drive train components, but which could then become broadly utilized for high volume production of both simple and complex net shapes. One technology enhancements tend to lead to the need / desire for another enablement which then get daisy chained into a complete integrated manufacturing scheme. Corporate planning being kind of the sort: If I had something like XYZ, that would aid in this thingamajig; or, well we now have that dohickey, that would pair well with that whateveritmightbe to make one of these gizomos, and that could derive a "Hey, what should we call it?"

The Chinese are far advanced in New Energy vehicle sector and we have had the benefit during the last five or so years of being largely funded by a najor new consortium under a contract and licensing development relationship. The lead investor / industrialist of the Chinese consortium is the young founder and majority shareholder of the world's largest lithium ion battery manufacturer. A really nice gentleman and visionary. We are now bringing the advancements back to North America for commercial deployment in the nascent EV sector. This Covid-19 pandemic has invoked a desire to initiate production in north america, that and along with the Trumpian Tariff Scuffles, and xenophobic bigotry derives unweldiness and unwarranted parochialism and unneeded complexities to international commerce and mutual collaborations. Perhaps I have a bias in that perspective, which may be derived from having the daily privilege to reside in Indian Country on the Flathead Nation of the Confederated Salish Tribes and of the Kootenai tribe tends to avail me to not view adversely towards others, especially as to taking the perspective of the relative new comers / migrant types such as us Yanks that are of non-native American ancestries. America First having a decidedly different meaning when you are honored to live among the real natives. Let's not go down that rabbit hole. Erhh, let me not go there.

Biem, Montana can be viewed below:

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Do you know why the data for the United States is not included in this really good report?

NYC data was mentioned in the text; I believe they claimed that NYC is currently seeing 4x their average death rate.

I really liked that report too. Those simple charts showing how deaths are spiking makes it pretty clear just how "not-normal" the pandemic is, even with isolation measures in place.

[roverhi]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

NYC data was mentioned in the text; I believe they claimed that NYC is currently seeing 4x their average death rate.

I really liked that report too. Those simple charts showing how deaths are spiking makes it pretty clear just how "not-normal" the pandemic is, even with isolation measures in place.

Without data from the rest of the year the spikes can be way out of whack for the annual number of deaths. The vast number of those dying from Covid have co-morbidities so are not in good health. That is magnified for those in care facilities. A lot of those are going to die sooner rather than later and may be among those dying within this year. That would make the spike in one month even out over the year. I'm sure there will be more deaths this calendar year but possibly much less marked.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Further to jimbunyard's YouTube video #1182:

“Democracy Now!” is a TV, radio and internet news program (non-profit) hosted by Progressive journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, with a strong Left biased reputation, based on story selection that consistently favors the left, and High for factual reporting, due to a clean fact check record.
I’d give generally credence to Democracy Now’s factual reporting (subject to cross-checking, as always), but would warn conservatives that their editorial bias is definitely progressive/left.

What, no trigger warning for this bit of un-sourced and likely a-contextual, quoted mined, mostly fact-free fear-mongering about the 'Chinese menace' from a loud-mouth ex-rugby coach?

Originally Posted by delmarrey

So take it from Australia......

https://youtu.be/nJHQ_qre5FE

.

What does "so take it from Australia" even mean in the context of the video I posted?

Do you seriously think that Alan Jones and Peter Jennings have more credibility than "Peter Daszak, disease ecologist and the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that works globally to identify and study our vulnerabilities to emerging infectious disease"?

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Some good numbers on excess deaths.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ng-deaths.html

I can understand that this looks like it proves something. It does not.

Please allow me to explain:

The premis is that if Country X has a statistical death rate in March of 10,000 and it was really 13,000 then those 3,000 should be attributed to the virus, even if only 2,000 were directly from the virus. Thus NYT’s assertion

These numbers undermine the notion that many people who have died from the virus may soon have died anyway.

Two problems jump to my mind.

Case 1: Because or lock down there were fewer accidental deaths, highways, work and such. Say that was 2,000 lives saved, and the base rate should be lowered to 8,000. The total corona death toll is now 5,000 not 2,000 or 3,000.

Case 2: This case turns on the word “soon” as used by the NYT’s. Soon is in the future, something that has not happened. “Soon” is indeterminate; 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 years? Who knows? So to accurately access the situation you need to capture the total number of deaths over the month of March AND all deaths over the “soon” period, and then compare them to the anticipated deaths over the same period. For example make the “soon” period one year, then you might 3,000 deaths of people who would have otherwise died in that period.

At best this is very poor reporting, at worse it is intentionally misleading. The number could be higher, or lowe, we don’t know. Shame on The NY Times.

It there is a bigger lesson in this. All humans, all, are predisposed to react in real time. We can analyze things and come up with considered and informed opinions but that takes hard work. One of the things our news organizations should be doing is the hard work or accurate analysis and reporting. They should be helping to guide us through this process. Unfortunately they are too often failing in that regard. How often I don’t know, my personal observation says a lot.

And that’s the bigger lesson: don’t simply trust because it has a good reputation. One needs to read and do the hard work oneself.

And I think I want to move to France for the summer, no one dies there then! LOL.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I can understand that this looks like it proves something. It does not.

Please allow me to explain:

The premis is that if Country X has a statistical death rate in March of 10,000 and it was really 13,000 then those 3,000 should be attributed to the virus, even if only 2,000 were directly from the virus. Thus NYT’s assertion

Two problems jump to my mind.

Case 1: Because or lock down there were fewer accidental deaths, highways, work and such. Say that was 2,000 lives saved, and the base rate should be lowered to 8,000. The total corona death toll is now 5,000 not 2,000 or 3,000.

Case 2: This case turns on the word “soon” as used by the NYT’s. Soon is in the future, something that has not happened. “Soon” is indeterminate; 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 years? Who knows? So to accurately access the situation you need to capture the total number of deaths over the month of March AND all deaths over the “soon” period, and then compare them to the anticipated deaths over the same period. For example make the “soon” period one year, then you might 3,000 deaths of people who would have otherwise died in that period.

At best this is very poor reporting, at worse it is intentionally misleading. The number could be higher, or lowe, we don’t know. Shame on The NY Times.

It there is a bigger lesson in this. All humans, all, are predisposed to react in real time. We can analyze things and come up with considered and informed opinions but that takes hard work. One of the things our news organizations should be doing is the hard work or accurate analysis and reporting. They should be helping to guide us through this process. Unfortunately they are too often failing in that regard. How often I don’t know, my personal observation says a lot.

And that’s the bigger lesson: don’t simply trust because it has a good reputation. One needs to read and do the hard work oneself.

And I think I want to move to France for the summer, no one dies there then! LOL.

Oh my, no idea what any of this actually means. It is extremely rare for one study or piece of data to formally prove an assertion or belief. This is one set of data and it will be important and interesting to see how it does or does not fit with other data sets and analyses. No need to go on a frantic tear or rant. This reads more like a desperate attempt by an armchair analyst to besmirch a reasonable (even if not perfect or ultimately precise) attempt to generate some usable information. Folks might want to read up on affirmation bias - the behavioral bias by which people search for snippets of information that conform to their strongly held biases and reject, smear, and distort anything that does not.

[hpeer]

Lester,

I just wanted to point out how that piece was drawing conclusions not supported by the data.

Im not besmirching the NYT. I just pointed out what the NYT did, that it reflects poorly upon them is their own doing.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I can understand that this looks like it proves something. It does not.

Please allow me to explain:

The premis is that if Country X has a statistical death rate in March of 10,000 and it was really 13,000 then those 3,000 should be attributed to the virus, even if only 2,000 were directly from the virus. Thus NYT’s assertion

The assertion isn't absolute; but the graphs clearly show how much this thing is pushing deaths up above the average. Remember that in many places they're still not testing enough to identify all COVID-19-caused deaths.

Two problems jump to my mind.

Case 1: Because or lock down there were fewer accidental deaths, highways, work and such. Say that was 2,000 lives saved, and the base rate should be lowered to 8,000. The total corona death toll is now 5,000 not 2,000 or 3,000.

Without real numbers, it's hard to know if that is significant or not.

Case 2: This case turns on the word “soon” as used by the NYT’s. Soon is in the future, something that has not happened. “Soon” is indeterminate; 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 years? Who knows? So to accurately access the situation you need to capture the total number of deaths over the month of March AND all deaths over the “soon” period, and then compare them to the anticipated deaths over the same period. For example make the “soon” period one year, then you might 3,000 deaths of people who would have otherwise died in that period.

That's just a distraction from the main point - that deaths are significantly up NOW. And are likely to remain above the average for a while. Time and better analyses will provide more precision and clarity. The main point remains.

At best this is very poor reporting, at worse it is intentionally misleading. The number could be higher, or lower, we don’t know. Shame on The NY Times.

Not proven. They have revealed the trend in a clear and meaningful manner, that doesn't require a degree in stats to appreciate.

One of the things our news organizations should be doing is the hard work or accurate analysis and reporting. They should be helping to guide us through this process.

Uh no, government-supported scientists and healthcare pros should be doing the hard work of analysis and publicizing it. AND it's up to, um, leaders for leading us through this. It's sufficient for news organizations to just report accurately on released info, though many are going further than that with their own analyses.

In the midst of all the confusing data and cherry-picked assertions, that article has provided a clear and comprehensible indication of the impact of COVID-19 relative to "normal".