Reply With Quote
I need muh fresh serranos. I'd rather save canned stuff just in case really hits the fan (which is probably won't, but who knows at point?). I did get an earful returning home having forgotten the frozen veggies though.
to repeat, the 2009/2010 H1N1 swine flu hit 60M in USA with about .02% (12500 dead / 60M )
why would the more stealthy, more transmissible coronavirus infect fewer in 2020/2021?
I need muh fresh serranos. I'd rather save canned stuff just in case really hits the fan (which is probably won't, but who knows at point?). I did get an earful returning home having forgotten the frozen veggies though.
Make a lot of beef stew and bag that for the freezer. It's actually better after heated than when it was fresh tbh
No lockdowns
part of the reason i ain't invaded my pantry
just saw d interview of CNN with Peter Navarro in charge of supply chain
we all gone die
Why? Every time you get takeout that's another chance for the virus to transmit through the fault of no one since the incubation period is so long. I don't think skipping takeout is paranoid at all.
it really is a give and take. Unfortunately we all dont have months of food stock piled away right now
You'll dismiss what I say, but your Atlantic article was a pop sci piece and was referencing sources that are two weeks old with conclusions based off the Wuhan situation. No one really knows the "true" R0 of Covid-19.
A city like Wuhan with a dense population is a lot more "closed" than less dense population cities, meaning the R0 is going to naturally be higher in such an environment. From the WHO report:Dr. Paul Auwaerter @ Johns Hopkins on COVID-19 -
“More closed environments may have a higher R naught than the general numbers reported. Sometimes this is due to a superspreader, most though probably due to crowding and vulnerability (e.g., elderly)”
https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...nal-report.pdfWhen a cluster of several infected people occurred in China, it was most often (78-85%) caused by an infection within the family by droplets and other carriers of infection in close contact with an infected person. Transmission by fine aerosols in the air over long distances is not one of the main causes of spread. Most of the 2,055 infected hospital workers were either infected at home or in the early phase of the outbreak in Wuhan when hospital safeguards were not raised yet.
The Wuhan data no doubt skews the R0 factor higher. Transmissibility won't be the same in San Antonio.
About it being "stealthier." From the CDC's own mouth:
The virus being "stealthy" is overstated and/or inconclusive.People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).
Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
Gonna have a month's worth from now on. Any longer and the walking dead can have me.
Ventilators?
Can't afford 'em.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/u...ors-trump.html
NYC just approved plugging in multiple patients to 1 ventilator
duh, CDC statement
being asymptomatic or slightly symptomatic, aka the stealthy problem, doesn't mean they aren't infectious, which is a big point of emphasis, NOT understated, from Italy's doctors.
Haven't heard much from Spain, but why would it be different?
Greatest conman in history or are people just that ing stupid to support this guy?
Half the country thinking he's handling the crisis great. 'murica!
Hospitals strapped for ventilatiors are all doing it. It's not new.
Nurses and doctors are using plastic bags for protection. The pictures you see of them is from here.
I love NY.
i lived alone many many years- just learned -by trial and error
also ate out a lot and ate take out a lot
but its pretty easy-
buy an assortment of veggies you like, some eggs, cold cuts, things you like....
cooking oil, pots pans and stuff
git on youtube and copy their recipes -
Being less contagious when asymptomatic is probably just the result of not coughing and sneezing everywhere.
Interesting that we haven't heard much of anything about quarantining petsThe good news: coronavirus is not foodborne. That means you can't get the coronavirus by ingesting food. You can get it from people, of course, those who sneeze, cough or exhale the coronavirus. Which is why we're told not to touch others, nor stay too close to others, and to wash our hands often.
But still, do you need to worry about how you handle food? What if someone sneezed on your apple? Can you still eat your steak rare? What about sushi – is it safe to eat?
We asked two food scientists at Rutgers University – graduate program director Donald Schaffner and professor emeritus Thomas Montville – on how tobest handle food to protect us against the coronavirus.
Question:Experts say the coronavirus is not foodborne. Yet, they strongly suspect animals in China – in a food market, no less – were the likely source of the initial infection. So doesn't that mean that it is foodborne?
Donald Schaffner: It's thought that the virus was transmitted by animals not by eating them but by having close proximity to the animals. Viruses can jump between species and that's what most probably happened. Most probably it was a respiratory transmission.
How to care for your dry, raw handsafter washing them to prevent coronavirus
Question:Experts say the coronavirus is not foodborne. Yet, they strongly suspect animals in China – in a food market, no less – were the likely source of the initial infection. So doesn't that mean that it is foodborne?
Donald Schaffner: It's thought that the virus was transmitted by animals not by eating them but by having close proximity to the animals. Viruses can jump between species and that's what most probably happened. Most probably it was a respiratory transmission.
How to care for your dry, raw handsafter washing them to prevent coronavirus
(Photo: Getty Images)
Question: Do I need to wash fruits and vegetables for a longer time due to the coronavirus? Do I need to “sanitize” them with soap?
Thomas Montville: Wash your fruits and vegetables as usual, or even with a little warm soapy water. We should always wash our fruits and vegetables. That's just good safety practice.
Question:What about meat? While the virus is not foodborne, what if the butcher has coronavirus and touched the meat? Can I now get the virus?
Montville: Cooking would kill the virus.
Schaffner:Scientists will never say anything is at zero risk, but I'm not worried at all about getting the coronavirus from food. Hypothetically, yes, perhaps your piece of meat could have the virus on it. But your stomach acids will kill it. Plus the coronavirus is not equipped to get through your intestine's walls, which is how foodborne diseases make you sick.
Question:What about raw foods, like sushi or steak tartare?
Montville: You will never find a food scientist who eats tartare. It can be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria – E. coli, salmonella, listeria. In fact, it's a risk to eat a hamburger rare. As far as sushi, I just don't eat it.
Question: What about all the paper bags food comes in? Do I need to worry about them?
Montville: There's no scientific data that's related to that. It's believed that the virus can survive on cardboard for 24 hours; steel or wood for maybe three days. The mantra in food science is: Wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.And cook your food.
Esther Davidowitz is the food editor for NorthJersey.com. For more on where to dine and drink, please subscribe today and sign up for our North Jersey Eats newsletter.
Posting some more positive expert opinion (from the professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University). Pretty good resume, I think.
Translation: Don't pay attention to the mortality rates. And the bright side here is that they are probably much lower than recorded.The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.
He talks about the Diamond Princess Cruise situation and extrapolates a bit:
We can crosscheck here with Germany's numbers who is thought to have the best mix of mild and severe test samples. Their mortality rate: .067.The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).
Some food for thought:
However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.That was the positive rate for the Diamond Princess Cruise sample. So we can maybe conclude here that Corvid is around flu transmissibility levels.In the U.S., for example, so far this season 1,073,976 specimens have been tested and 222,552 (20.7%) have tested positive for influenza.
More food for thought:
Says you can't project much based on the data we have:In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed.
A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.
I share this conclusion, as you all know:Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S. as of March 16 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000 … along with similar catastrophic patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario, or bad science fiction? How can we tell at what point such a curve might stop?
The most valuable piece of information for answering those questions would be to know the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population and to repeat this exercise at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections. Sadly, that’s information we don’t have.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/...reliable-data/In the most pessimistic scenario, which I do not espouse, if the new coronavirus infects 60% of the global population and 1% of the infected people die, that will translate into more than 40 million deaths globally,
Yes, but I think a lot of people have a bigger stock than they realize. I know I'm like, "We're out of food" if I'm missing one type of vegetable or meat if I wanted to do use it. I think if I had to, I have at least a month's worth of stuff jammed in the pantry, cupboards and freezer. I was just saying at the house that we still let a ton of food go to waste and could probably make things stretch better if we just committed to eating all our leftovers.
no doubt. Make that stretch
Just catching up, best wishes your way Teysha
Holy balls... this guy is dumb.
Greatest conman in history or are people just that ing stupid to support this guy?
Reposting for the flip:
Posting some more positive expert opinion (from the professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University). Pretty good resume, I think.
Translation: Don't pay attention to the mortality rates. And the bright side here is that they are probably much lower than recorded.The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.
He talks about the Diamond Princess Cruise situation and extrapolates a bit:
We can crosscheck here with Germany's numbers who is thought to have the best mix of mild and severe test samples. Their mortality rate: .067.The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).
Some food for thought:
However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.That was the positive rate for the Diamond Princess Cruise sample. So we can maybe conclude here that Corvid is around flu transmissibility levels.In the U.S., for example, so far this season 1,073,976 specimens have been tested and 222,552 (20.7%) have tested positive for influenza.
More food for thought:
Says you can't project much based on the data we have:In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed.
A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.
I share this conclusion, as you all know:Some worry that the 68 deaths from Covid-19 in the U.S. as of March 16 will increase exponentially to 680, 6,800, 68,000, 680,000 … along with similar catastrophic patterns around the globe. Is that a realistic scenario, or bad science fiction? How can we tell at what point such a curve might stop?
The most valuable piece of information for answering those questions would be to know the current prevalence of the infection in a random sample of a population and to repeat this exercise at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections. Sadly, that’s information we don’t have.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/...reliable-data/In the most pessimistic scenario, which I do not espouse, if the new coronavirus infects 60% of the global population and 1% of the infected people die, that will translate into more than 40 million deaths globally,
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
