Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Coronavirus

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
  • Funny
Reactions: deonb and eevee-fan
If you look at the plots in that paper or anywhere on the internet on excess mortality, the spikes all coincide exactly with when COVID19 hit.

Now, we can definitely entertain that some of the excess mortality is not due to COVID, but side effects due to shutdown from COVID.

So perhaps some people are dying at home because they are afraid of going to the hospital.

But there are also less people dying because they aren't engaging in as much risky behavior like less driving. Would be interesting to see the stats on all of that. In general:

Total Deaths = Baseline + Covid + SideEffects - SuppressedDeaths.

These studies show that Total Deaths - Baseline are much higher than the measured Covid deaths, like 2x.

Which means if there was no reduction of some types of deaths (suppressed), the SideEffect deaths must have gone up the same amount as the deaths attributed to COVID.

But since there are some types of deaths that are reduced, this means the SideEffects deaths must have increased even further than the measured COVID deaths.

And since some folks believe COVID deaths are overreported, this means the SideEffect deaths must be even higher, heck, maybe 2x or 3x the actual COVID deaths.

This basically seems quite unrealistic. It is much more likely that the side effect and suppressed deaths are closer to balancing each other out, and most likely COVID deaths are higher (maybe not 2x) then currently reported.

Zé, I'm not sure if you're Portuguese(your name really indicates so) but just so you have an idea in Portugal: 400 deaths by car accidents a year, 1400 suicides a year. Oh and each 1% increase in unemployment = 1% increase in suicides +-.
Lack of care for Cardiovascular diseases IS a big problem. You think people stopped having strokes? Because the clinics have the # of strokes reduced by more than half. Some of these people wont die now, they'll die over time due to lack of care in time. Same for cancer detection: Extremely important to get it early.

But anyways, it's hard to measure this now, and will be much easier in the future.

What we can do is look at total mortality and compare it to peak flu. You'll realize that there is no significant difference to bad flu seasons, 2014/2015, 2016/2017, 2017/2018. 1999/2000 was horrendous compared to these but data is much harder to gather.
 
I like how denialists always behave like numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths are about to fall to zero tomorrow.

Oh, and keep these all cherrypicked statistics and apple-to-hand grenade comparisons coming!

No disease like this falls to 0. Influenza runs throughout the year and has seasonal peaks. Statistics i presented are as broad as possible, not cherry picked. Total Mortality in EU, Total Mortality in USA. IFR overall estimates and a proof that Influenza IFR is 0,1% on average(of many many years), but also has extremes.
 
In our case, if California, a government entity that taxes everything including the air, birth, and death, cannot govern itself, our country will collapse at some point. We just think C19 is a major crisis, when a real one hits, our state is sunk. It's rudderless. NY is not different in this regard except it has a lower population.

I love hearing your complaints about the executive management in California and New York. This is while your guy the Orange Moron is breaking world records for incompetence on just about every front, and commenting on how the science people should investigate whether Lysol or bleach or lights inside the human body might be useful for you know some kind of cleaning you know.

It's like having a real estate agent recommend that you reject a house because the drapes don't match the floor tiles, while steering the client in the direction of buying the house across the street, you know, that nice one over there that's on fire.
 
My understanding, which I guess is incorrect, is that UV-C had to be totally isolated. I read a few reviews on various products that use UV-C where people complained that they couldn't tell when the bulb was burnt out because no light ever showed.

I have 2 products that I bought, recently, that have a uvc 'window' for users to confirm its working.

one is this philips and the other is a 'germ guardian' mostly a no-name brand so I can't vouch for how much testing they did or how good their design is.

glass blocks a lot of the uv bands. maybe they have some glass there, or its the right kind of plastic that also filters it out.

finally, we're talking 3w, here. I'm also guessing that with that low power, any filter they put between you and it is going to be enough. no one suggests looking at the bare bulb, but both products seem to have a view port and I know philips would not continue making/selling these in europe if they were at all unsafe.
 
It's like having a real estate agent recommend that you reject a house because the drapes don't match the floor tiles, while steering the client in the direction of buying the house across the street, you know, that nice one over there that's on fire.

the phrase is 'carpets don't match the drapes' but that's getting WAY off topic, here.

(lol)
 
  • Funny
Reactions: kbM3
I have 2 products that I bought, recently, that have a uvc 'window' for users to confirm its working.
one is this philips and the other is a 'germ guardian' mostly a no-name brand so I can't vouch for how much testing they did or how good their design is.
glass blocks a lot of the uv bands. maybe they have some glass there, or its the right kind of plastic that also filters it out.
finally, we're talking 3w, here. I'm also guessing that with that low power, any filter they put between you and it is going to be enough. no one suggests looking at the bare bulb, but both products seem to have a view port and I know philips would not continue making/selling these in europe if they were at all unsafe.

Have you looked into what EEPROM eraser trays have inside?
https://www.amazon.com/EPROM-Eraser-Erase-Eraseable-Timer/dp/B014ZYWR8O
Question:
can you use this device (after some modification) to disinfect a cellphone? Is the UV light strong enough?
Answer: Not sure!
It is the correct frequency UV-C which is the frequency for germicidal disinfecting. It's not really strong so it would probably take a while 30 minutes or more and if you look at it it will definitely ruin your eyes!!!!!!

 
I remember the old eeprom boxes at work. back then, I (and no one I knew) would be able to sort out uva vs c. I think regular 'black lights' would erase eeproms and those are not dangerouis, they are A, I believe - but don't quote me.

btw, funniest thing I've read all day. they tried to keep this from us, but someone leaked the code. its now public:

boolean haveCovid()
{
return antenna.is5G();
}


well, ok, don't know if its public or not. I know its not static, that much is sure. then again, some antennas do have static problems. needs more study.


(lol)
 
oh, I missed the video part and that it was kerry wong. I know that name well from lots of DIY stuff.

here's his graph:

kerryw-uv-eraser.png


yeah, 100% its uvc. didn't know that - but we know that, now. its not high powered (less than the toothbrush gizmo) but it most def is uvc; first blue peak shows it.

Kerry D. Wong » Blog Archive » Cheap UV EPROM Eraser Teardown and Spectrum Analysis
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jerry33
Oh, Colorado.
Should make for some interesting data collection in the next week or two.

Castle Rock restaurant reopens in defiance of statewide public health order

Hopefully they get lucky. They have had 115 cases in Castle Rock, out of 65k people. That means there have probably been more like 500 cases total, and probably about 100 are active cases (just rough numbers). So it's about a 0.15% (let's say 0.1%) chance per person who enters the restaurant. So chance of no one having it who visited is something like (0.999)^n, where n is the number of visitors (100 visitors means about a 90% chance that no one had it), assuming random distribution of cases (very likely invalid of course). Hopefully no one stamped their lucky ticket, felt a bit under the weather (or not) and visited the restaurant anyway.

On one hand, sick people are likely to self-isolate. On the other hand, people who went to the restaurant are likely at higher risk of already being infected due to their beliefs and the effect those have had on their actions.

Nice rock, though.
 
Last edited:
On one hand, sick people are likely to self-isolate.
It only takes one that doesn't...
Birthday Party In Pasadena Exposes 30-40 People To Coronavirus
...The source of the outbreak, according to the public health department, was a party guest who was reportedly coughing and not wearing a face covering. The other guests at the gathering of family and friends also were not wearing coverings or practicing social distancing....

Coronavirus case cluster tied to Pasadena party and 'selfish behavior,' officials say
...“One person showed up to the party exhibiting symptoms and joking she may have the virus"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life