No Excuses Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fergasun said: TARP was a $700B slush fund. Sure, it was originally supposed to go to the banks... doesn't matter. $500B is not enough in government loans.... Look, everyone.... shutting down our economy is going to hurt. It has been obvious for a week... we haven't talked about the stark choices this virus is forcing on us vs. risk/benefit... our economy can't handle no one working for more than a few weeks. The major problem with TARP was that not enough strings were attached with respect to what the banks were supposed to do with the money. To call it a slush fund is a bridge too far considering they borrowed the money, used it for business purposes, and repaid the money with interest. Did it have the stabilizing impact on the economy and housing market that most efficiently used 700 billion could have? Probably not. Did it save jobs? Yes it did. Letting the banks and big businesses fail. Yeah.... Good luck with that.... That may sound satisfying on paper, but it's a highway to economic meltdown. As long as the 500 billion loan program comes with sufficient strings attached, it is a good and necessary program needed to prevent the US economy from totally cratering. When everyone in the world is flocking to the dollar in the middle of a global crisis, there's no reason for the government to not use its borrowing power for necessary measures. As for the stark realities of the virus, the choice should not be binary between prolonged total shut down and letting nature take its course. Every moment of the shutdown should be used to ramp up medical and testing capacity. After that we can go to moderate social distancing with increased testing and greater healthcare capacity until a vaccine or treatment is developed. Edited March 23, 2020 by bearrock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) Folding@Home Now More Powerful Than World's Top 7 Supercomputers, Combined The fight against coronavirus goes nuclear Propelled by average enthusiasts in their shared quest to defeat COVID-19, the Folding@Home network is now pushing out 470 PetaFLOPS of raw compute power. To put that in perspective, that's twice as fast as Summit, the world's fastest supercomputer, making the network faster than any known supercomputer. It's also faster than the top seven supercomputers in the world, combined. It's impressive that the Folding@Home network is now more than twice as powerful as Summit's 149 PetaFLOPS of sustained output: ORNL announced two weeks ago that Summit had also joined the coronavirus fight and has already found 77 different small-molecule drug compounds that might be useful to fight the virus. Summit employs 220,800 CPU cores, 188,416,000 CUDA cores, 9.2PB of memory, and 250PB of mixed NVRAM/storage for the task. But Summit is far faster than the other supercomputers further down the Top500 list. That means the Folding@Home network is also now faster than the world's top seven supercomputers, combined. That's equivalent to the horsepower of 27,433,824 CPU/GPU cores that are being used in the most powerful systems in the world. These leading supercomputers are typically only used by nation-states for decidedly more nefarious purposes, such as nuclear research, so seeing this type of compute power unleashed for the common goal of defeating the coronavirus is certainly encouraging. Click on the link for more Edited March 23, 2020 by China 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 26 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Reasonable chance several US Senators die in the next couple weeks thanks to Ron Paul’s dumbass son. I doubt it.... a those guys are mos def getting top tier medical treatment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 ****ing stupid people: Michigan: Churches Won’t Get Punished if More Than 50 People Gather Earlier this week, Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer released an executive order banning all gatherings of more than 50 people in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The exceptions to that rule made sense: Health care facilities, for example, could go beyond that if needed. Same with grocery stores and the state legislature. But later in the week, that order was updated to say there would be no penalty for any “place of religious worship” if more than 50 people gathered. In other words, religious groups were exempt from the rule. Why? It’s not like the virus cares what you believe. And if 1,000 people can gather in a church, where carriers of the virus (or people infected with it) can gather, it will eventually affect all of us. Especially since those churches tend to attract the elderly, who are more susceptible to COVID-19. Click on the link for the full article 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) Edited March 23, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 37 minutes ago, PeterMP said: The next clinical trial would be even larger. And how many people die if you put this into widespread use, ignored other possible alternatives, and it isn't working and you've missed something that does because you've focused on this? The risk is that you're giving them something worthless and are missing something that would have worked. why would it's use preclude using other alternatives? how many will die if you ignore a drug shown to work against immune systems going wild? it is also shown to prevent similar viruses multiplying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: I doubt it.... a those guys are mos def getting top tier medical treatment... It doesn’t matter with covid. We haven’t figured out a pattern yet... some people die, some don’t. And you die more often when you’re 60+ (aka damn near the entire Senate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 hours ago, visionary said: I don't think he will, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) Edited March 23, 2020 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, twa said: why would it's use preclude using other alternatives? how many will die if you ignore a drug shown to work against immune systems going wild? it is also shown to prevent similar viruses multiplying. I don't think @PeterMP is saying that chloroquine should not be used. Certainly, individual doctors are perfectly free to prescribe any medication they see fit. They have the reports coming out of Asia for what worked for what situation. But all scientists, as they should be, are saying let's pump the brakes before we conclude that something is as effective as it first appears or that it should be the front line treatment over other alternatives. Researchers have to keep an open mind and continue to explore all promising options and continue working to verify promising early results with evidence based research. Doctors treating the patients who's dying right now will have to make the best decision they can with available information. Edited March 23, 2020 by bearrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 hours ago, bearrock said: What am I missing on the Defense Production Act? It will likely help. I don't see how it hurts. It will make him look presidential. And if it helps even a little bit, he can claim massive credit. What's the downside here? You don;t see a potential downside to the government using emergency powers to force a corporation to sign a contract they don;t want to sign, to deliver something that you desperately need them to produce? If it were me, I'd really rather keep that law as an implied threat, and see what I can cajole them into doing. I'd much rather have them doing things voluntarily, than under coercion. (Now, whether Trump, the world's greatest negotiator, can do it, with that tool in his pocket?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, bearrock said: I don't think PeterMP is saying that chloroquine should not be used. Certainly, individual doctors are perfectly free to prescribe any medication they see fit. They have the reports coming out of Asia for what worked for what situation. But all scientists, as they should be, are saying let's pump the brakes before we conclude that something is as effective as it first appears or that it should be the front line treatment over other alternatives. Researchers have to keep an open mind and continue to explore all promising options continue working to verify promising early results with evidence based research. Doctors treating the patients who's dying right now will have to make the best decision they can with available information. can either of you tell me what other treatments are precluded by using chloroquine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfrankie Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, twa said: can either of you tell me what other treatments are precluded by using chloroquine? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) Edited March 23, 2020 by visionary 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 13 minutes ago, Larry said: You don;t see a potential downside to the government using emergency powers to force a corporation to sign a contract they don;t want to sign, to deliver something that you desperately need them to produce? If it were me, I'd really rather keep that law as an implied threat, and see what I can cajole them into doing. I'd much rather have them doing things voluntarily, than under coercion. (Now, whether Trump, the world's greatest negotiator, can do it, with that tool in his pocket?) I see the downside for the business, but what's the downside for the government? Why would a voluntary contract be preferable to a mandated one from the government's perspective? 7 minutes ago, twa said: can either of you tell me what other treatments are precluded by using chloroquine? I'm not a doctor so I may be completely off, but my understanding is that these antivirals are pretty taxing on the patient. So you couldn't just load up the patient with many different antivirals without the cure being worse than the disease. Doctors have to pick and choose between the various options out there, some of which have anecdotal stories of success. But until they are confirmed, they are all anecdotal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 https://www.yahoo.com/news/immediate-five-week-national-lockdown-153010363.html Quote We need an immediate five-week national lockdown to defeat coronavirus in America I am an MIT-trained physicist and complexity scientist who studies pandemics. I have warned about global pandemics due to increasing travel for 15 years. I recommended community based monitoring of symptoms to stop Ebola in West Africa in 2014, and it worked. The fastest and even the only way to contain COVID-19 in the United States is a five-week national lockdown. Closing schools, bars and movie theaters are good measures, but not enough. Our relaxed approach to social distancing is insufficient to stop the exponential growth of COVID-19. Until Americans consistently adopt strong social distancing recommendations — a lockdown — the disease will continue to spread exponentially. .... During the first two weeks of a lockdown, infected individuals will either recover from mild cases of COVID-19 at home or seek medical attention for the 14% of cases that are severe. During the third, fourth and fifth weeks, any newly infected family or cohabitants of infected individuals will recover or seek medical attention and their isolation will prevent further spreading. By the end of the lockdown, the number of infections will be a small fraction of what they are now. The lockdown will give us time to dramatically scale up our supply of COVID-19 test kits and capacity to process them. If we reduce the number of infections using the lockdown and start a massive testing regime in the United States, we can control COVID-19 after five weeks without such extreme social distancing measures. Isolating sick individuals and their immediate contacts will be enough. Delivering the economic help without addressing the underlying issue is insufficient. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 several doctors have said a national lockdown won’t help... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 blah blah blah says john cornyn----a true pos that should be your eulogy, john....blah blah blah followed by some flatulence and a burp 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: several doctors have said a national lockdown won’t help... There's always someone at the bottom of the class... 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, bearrock said: I'm not a doctor so I may be completely off, but my understanding is that these antivirals are pretty taxing on the patient. So you couldn't just load up the patient with many different antivirals without the cure being worse than the disease. Doctors have to pick and choose between the various options out there, some of which have anecdotal stories of success. But until they are confirmed, they are all anecdotal. they prescribe Chloroquine all the time, and have done it in large groups expected to fight, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now