Coronavirus General Discussion (no politics, no flamewars!)

Capn Jack wrote in post #19048097
Actually, predicted by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

In which way were they wrong? The amount of global warming is still debated because we haven't determined all of the carbon sources and sinks, but there always been a consensus about the direction of warming, even during the 1970's by your own citation. The broad picture of global warming is well understood- it is driven by the laws of thermodynamics (you agree those work, since you drive a car), the laws of light adsorption and reflections (you know those work, since I assume you use a camera, as this is a photography forum). The amount of warming is under discussion, but the range narrows as we learn more.

In this pandemic, the range of estimates is due to having to make the best estimates of how many people are sick, how many were exposed, and a number of other factors. In the USA, despite a 6 week warning, we still can't do the testing properly partly because the CDC created tests that didn't work (cited many times in this thread). The media is also confusing the information, as I just cited in my earlier reply to you. You should try looking at other sources of information than the ones you do.

I'm not sure if they can say how much from vehicles/industry but it is happening and not just from those sources. Some is natural. Been a while since I looked into it. What is the difference if they are 50 or 100 years out? They discovered it in the 30 or 40's (can't remember) by accident using a simple experiment that a 7th grader could replicate in a high school science class. Co2 traps heat and they said back then if you add it to the atmosphere the global temperature would increase. The climb in PPM is there and anyone can measure it with the proper equipment. Maybe we only added half the amount but we still did. It adds up. The earth has been cooled and heated forever and as always will do fine by adjusting itself. I believe will be different for us because it is happening too quickly for us to adjust.

TustinMike wrote in post #19048258
There was a groundbreaking TV show in the '70s called All in the Family, created by the brilliant Norman Lear. The main character - Archie Bunker - was the prototypical narrow-minded bigot, and he was the butt of the show's jokes. Lear was holding up a mirror to American viewers of the "ugly American" in us, and how outdated and harmful Archie's views were then becoming.

But now, I don't think that the show would be seen the same way at all. Many viewers would probably be cheering Archie on.

That series was based the series on "Til Death Us Do Part", a British sitcom about an opinionated, bigoted conservative father and his liberal son-in-law. See: https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Till_Death_Us_​Do_Part

Sadly, I agree with you about the change in attitude to the social commentary expressed in these shows.

Tronhard wrote in post #19048269
That series was based the series on "Til Death Us Do Part", a British sitcom about an opinionated, bigoted conservative father and his liberal son-in-law. See: https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Till_Death_Us_​Do_Part

Ah, thanks, I did not know that - seems that many of the best shows come from overseas, esp. the UK (more recently I'm thinking of The Office).

drmaxx wrote in post #19048219
These are exactly the type of decisions that should not be left to scientist, but should be done by 'society' = politician in an ideal world.

Archibald wrote in post #19048231
Yep, i agree with this. Scientists discover laws of nature and how things work. Politicians or rulers decide what to do with that information.

Yep, because politicians always have the best interests of their constituents at heart and never make decisions based on what will increase their own personal wealth or power.

The shots of people trying to cut their own hair are starting to come out.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

drmaxx wrote in post #19048219
These are exactly the type of decisions that should not be left to scientist, but should be done by 'society' = politician in an ideal world. This division of labour was nicely shown in the UK, where the gov decided first to let COVID run its course. The scientist pointed out that this policy would probably mean an excess death toll of several hundered thousand people within a short period of time. It is up to the people to decide if they are willing to pay this toll or cut down the economy. UK politics decided to spare these lives. Similarly climate change. Its not science that says that something should be done - but we as people have to decide if we want to risk the future of our kids or not. The science can help you to make a best guess of the outcome of specific courses of action.

And just a side-note on climate change: The COVID-19 pandemic requested from the young to show their solidarity and pay a high price to safe us older folks from dying prematurely. We older folks need in turn to seriously consider how we pay back this sacrifice of the young.

The way our society is set up, in theory that would work. However it depends upon several things happening.
1. Politicians have the best interests of the health of their society at heart and are not driven by economic or by lobbyist influences.
2. Politicians accept what is presented through scientific and academic rigor and communicate that to the population
3. The population trust their politicians and accept the rigor of the material upon which politicians make their decisions.
4. Governments make every effort to provide consistent and accurate briefings, accept questions and provide clear and unbiased answers and refer questions of medical, scientific and health experts where appropriate.
5. Governments present clear plans for isolation, elimination and recovery, especially in terms of economics and impacts upon social behaviours and structures

For those debating the accuracy of the science: I'd still rather place my faith in science and scientists than the ever growing tide that embraces ignorance and actively promote distrust of experts (elites). The goal of science is knowledge and enlightenment and even with the occasional trip down a wrong alley they are right far often than they are wrong.

Tronhard wrote in post #19048307
The way our society is set up, in theory that would work. However it depends upon several things happening.
1. Politicians have the best interests of the health of their society at heart and are not driven by economic or by lobbyist influences.
2. Politicians accept what is presented through scientific and academic rigor and communicate that to the population
3. The population trust their politicians and accept the rigor of the material upon which politicians make their decisions.
4. Governments make every effort to provide consistent and accurate briefings, accept questions and provide clear and unbiased answers and refer questions of medical, scientific and health experts where appropriate.
5. Governments present clear plans for isolation, elimination and recovery, especially in terms of economics and impacts upon social behaviours and structures

6. A flock of pigs flying across the sky.

To be fair though Trev, the two countries you live in are probably the two likely to generate the least distrust of politicians.

Pippan wrote in post #19048290
Yep, because politicians always have the best interests of their constituents at heart and never make decisions based on what will increase their own personal wealth or power.

I wish there were an emoji for 'sarcasm in the extreme'!

Tronhard wrote in post #19048307
The way our society is set up, in theory that would work. However it depends upon several things happening.
1. Politicians have the best interests of the health of their society at heart and are not driven by economic or by lobbyist influences.
2. Politicians accept what is presented through scientific and academic rigor and communicate that to the population
3. The population trust their politicians and accept the rigor of the material upon which politicians make their decisions.
4. Governments make every effort to provide consistent and accurate briefings, accept questions and provide clear and unbiased answers and refer questions of medical, scientific and health experts where appropriate.
5. Governments present clear plans for isolation, elimination and recovery, especially in terms of economics and impacts upon social behaviours and structures

I wasn't ready for humor in this thread.

Hi Pippin

Certainly, I have to say that I am extremely lucky to be in NZ for many reasons. The world started taking notice of NZ after The Washington Post ran an article with the headline:NZ isn't Just Flatting the Curve it's Squashing It.
https://www.washington​post.com …1-adb1344719a9_story.htm​l

The Guardian paper and CNN express why what NZ is doing is so different, and is working when most other countries are floundering…
https://www.theguardia​n.com …ponse-can-teach-the-world
https://edition.cnn.co​m …ssons-intl-hnk/index.html

One of the things mentioned in the press has been the combination of political leadership based on science, and that is epitomized
https://theconversatio​n.com …-crisis-leadership-135541

IF YOU SKIP EVERYTHING ELSE, READ THIS ONE AND THE LINK BELOW:
An article from an academic published by the Guardian. Our PM has had a challenging couple of years in her first stint as leader of the country. She has had to deal with a volcanic eruption that killed and maimed many tourists, the mass shootings in Christchurch and now a pandemic of global proportions. She has shown outstanding leadership in every case, and has been the envy of many other countries. Right now she has more than 84% approval of performance in this crisis – that’s amazing, considering what she has asked of the country.
https://theconversatio​n.com …-crisis-leadership-135541

As predicted, there has been a consistent drop in cases and far more have recovered than have been established. Our population is about 4.9 million. Our death toll is now (as of 18/04) 11, – all elderly persons with previous underlying medical conditions. There are 6 probable and 2 confirmed new cases bringing the totals to 1,409 cases, of which 582 are active, with14 in hospital and 3 of those in ICU. 846 have recovered.

Looking at what is happening in Europe, North America and even Australia, I am glad to be in a physically isolated country where we can effectively close our borders, and for very appreciative strong, effective and engaging leadership.
https://www.nzherald.c​o.nz …?c_id=1&objecti​d=12324107

We have a way to go, but we feel more optimistic that we are heading towards a decisive solution. Still, moving OUT of lockdown is a lot harder and more complicated than moving into it. There is pressure from every quarter to relax the regulations, but the risk, as has been demonstrated in other countries, of moving too early is a resurgence and a return to the higher levels again, while dealing with wider contagion. Our government has to make the call in the next 5 days what they are going to do. They have already told business and the community at large what to expect but it all hinges in getting a highly efficient contact tracing system and expansion of sentinel testing. It's not helped by more indications that people are contagious for some time before they show symptoms.

My partner has no immunity - she has stage 4 metastatic cancer, so I have to take the most conservative measures I can think of - I don't want to have to live with the consequences of bringing it home...

Tronhard wrote in post #19048367
Hi Pippin

Certainly, I have to say that I am extremely lucky to be in NZ for many reasons. The world started taking notice of NZ after The Washington Post ran an article with the headline:NZ isn't Just Flatting the Curve it's Squashing It.
https://www.washington​post.com …1-adb1344719a9_story.htm​l

The Guardian paper and CNN express why what NZ is doing is so different, and is working when most other countries are floundering…
https://www.theguardia​n.com …ponse-can-teach-the-world
https://edition.cnn.co​m …ssons-intl-hnk/index.html

One of the things mentioned in the press has been the combination of political leadership based on science, and that is epitomized
https://theconversatio​n.com …-crisis-leadership-135541

IF YOU SKIP EVERYTHING ELSE, READ THIS ONE AND THE LINK BELOW:
An article from an academic published by the Guardian. Our PM has had a challenging couple of years in her first stint as leader of the country. She has had to deal with a volcanic eruption that killed and maimed many tourists, the mass shootings in Christchurch and now a pandemic of global proportions. She has shown outstanding leadership in every case, and has been the envy of many other countries. Right now she has more than 84% approval of performance in this crisis – that’s amazing, considering what she has asked of the country.
https://theconversatio​n.com …-crisis-leadership-135541

As predicted, there has been a consistent drop in cases and far more have recovered than have been established. Our population is about 4.9 million. Our death toll is now (as of 18/04) 11, – all elderly persons with previous underlying medical conditions. There are 6 probable and 2 confirmed new cases bringing the totals to 1,409 cases, of which 582 are active, with14 in hospital and 3 of those in ICU 846 have recovered.

Looking at what is happening in Europe, North America and even Australia, I am glad to be in a physically isolated country where we can effectively close our borders, and for very appreciative strong, effective and engaging leadership.
https://www.nzherald.c​o.nz …?c_id=1&objecti​d=12324107

We have a way to go, but we feel more optimistic that we are heading towards a decisive solution. Still, moving OUT of lockdown is a lot harder and more complicated than moving into it. There is pressure from every quarter to relax the regulations, but the risk, as has been demonstrated in other countries, of moving too early is a resurgence and a return to the higher levels again, while dealing with wider contagion. Our government has to make the call in the next 5 days what they are going to do. They have already told business and the community at large what to expect but it all hinges in getting a highly efficient contact tracing system and expansion of sentinel testing. It's not helped by more indications that people are contagious for some time before they show symptoms.

My partner has no immunity - she has stage 4 metastatic cancer, so I have to take the most conservative measures I can think of - I don't want to have to live with the consequences of bringing it home...

Hi Trev, even before the pandemic I was very impressed with what I'd heard and read of Jacinda Ardern's leadership. And also impressive is that (I think I recall) she had a baby while leading the country so ably. On the (sadly) few occasions we have New Zealanders on our tours, I always ask them if they'd mind if we swapped Prime Ministers. They usually either laugh or look horrified. Justifiably.

In my jurisdiction of the Northern Territory things are going well too. Our Chief Minister and Health Minister have risen to the occasion admirably, after three years of quite mediocre performance, and respect for them has grown significantly. Our borders were closed early, before any of the Australian states and, despite a land area the size of Italy, Spain and the UK combined, we've had only 28 cases of C19 and all brought it back from overseas via southern cities before the borders were closed. We've had no deaths, no community transmission and no new cases for nearly two weeks. Nevertheless they have said they're not relaxing social restrictions or border crossings for some time yet, and have not shied away from the hard decisions. If the disease were to get into the remote Aboriginal communities it would particularly devastate them. We are all aware of the dreadful impacts influenza and smallpox, often deliberately spread, had on Aboriginal populations that had never been exposed to such diseases and had no immunity at all, in the early years of colonisation. And of course many of these people have the types of conditions (diabetes, renal disease, high rates of smoking, obesity) that would exacerbate C19 infection outcomes.

I wish you well, and particularly your remarkable wife, in this difficult time.

What do the countries with the best coronavirus responses have in common?

Women leaders.

"Looking for examples of true leadership in a crisis? From Iceland to Taiwan and from Germany to New Zealand, women are stepping up to show the world how to manage a messy patch for our human family. Add in Finland, Iceland and Denmark, and this pandemic is revealing that women have what it takes when the heat rises in our Houses of State. Many will say these are small countries, or islands, or other exceptions. But Germany is large and leading, and the UK is an island with very different outcomes. These leaders are gifting us an attractive alternative way of wielding power."

Compare the leaders of these countries with the strongmen using the crisis to accelerate a terrifying trifecta of authoritarianism: blame-others, capture-the-judiciary, demonize-the-journalists. Lie, deny and blanket their country in I-will-never-retire darkness. It’s time we elected more women to lead us.
https://www.forbes.com …men-leaders/#3c9075e83dec

Pippan wrote in post #19048447
What do the countries with the best coronavirus responses have in common?

Women leaders.

"Looking for examples of true leadership in a crisis? From Iceland to Taiwan and from Germany to New Zealand, women are stepping up to show the world how to manage a messy patch for our human family. Add in Finland, Iceland and Denmark, and this pandemic is revealing that women have what it takes when the heat rises in our Houses of State. Many will say these are small countries, or islands, or other exceptions. But Germany is large and leading, and the UK is an island with very different outcomes. These leaders are gifting us an attractive alternative way of wielding power."

Compare the leaders of these countries with the strongmen using the crisis to accelerate a terrifying trifecta of authoritarianism: blame-others, capture-the-judiciary, demonize-the-journalists. Lie, deny and blanket their country in I-will-never-retire darkness. It’s time we elected more women to lead us.
https://www.forbes.com …men-leaders/#3c9075e83dec

i mean that's good for the article and all...but you could just pick out 6 male lead countries and say they are handling it the best as well...

just going off of deaths be 1M:
Germany:42
Taiwain:0.3
New Zealand:2
Iceland:23
Finland:12
Norway:26
Denmark:52

another random 6...but male lead
India:0.3
thailand:0.6
Australia:2
S.Korea:4
Israel:14
Turkey:17

I tried to pick countries on the down swing and also populous contries...i left out china and russia which are at 2,and 1...but i'm just saying...it's a bit biased to claim that the best responses are all lead by women...

DreDaze wrote in post #19048454
i mean that's good for the article and all...but you could just pick out 6 male lead countries and say they are handling it the best as well...

just going off of deaths be 1M:
Germany:42
Taiwain:0.3
New Zealand:2
Iceland:23
Finland:12
Norway:26
Denmark:52

another random 6...but male lead
India:0.3
thailand:0.6
Australia:2
S.Korea:4
Israel:14
Turkey:17

I tried to pick countries on the down swing and also populous contries...i left out china and russia which are at 2,and 1...but i'm just saying...it's a bit biased to claim that the best responses are all lead by women...

Yes, statistics can be used to demonstrate any point of view, depending on which are chosen and how they're presented.