Jump to content

Covid19

rane2364

By rane2364,
in Off Topic

Recommended Posts

Fotogen

Fotogen

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Daedric_Cat said:

 Hopefully, too, other countries who are still behind us in the curve will not have to go through this.

All will. At this point virus is already everywhere.

 

Time scale? Word quarantine comes from Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days. Middle ages. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing.

 

For me(country where I live) its the end of a 3rd week of total lockdown.

 

Stuff like toilet paper is not a problem. Never was. Not sick or any of my family.

 

The bigest problem is "not going crazy".  Internet helps ... not much. Too many "we all doomed". Books, movies, games better.

Link to comment

Daedric_Cat

Daedric_Cat

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Fotogen said:

All will. At this point virus is already everywhere.

 

Time scale? Word quarantine comes from Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days. Middle ages. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing.

 

For me(country where I live) its the end of a 3rd week of total lockdown.

 

Stuff like toilet paper is not a problem. Never was. Not sick or any of my family.

 

The bigest problem is "not going crazy".  Internet helps ... not much. Too many "we all doomed". Books, movies, games better.

Interesting information! Thank you for sharing. Agree with your assessment, too much crazy out there.

Link to comment
27X

27X

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Alkpaz said:

than an office worker in Manhattan. 

That's the entire rub, in addition to the virus acting in pretty unusual ways. The brunt of the US death toll is in LA and NY, and the rural spread isn't even KIND of normalized within pops or per capita. Not even in the same zip code, and that's "fine", except the part where the media unilaterally declares everything to be of the state it is in NYC. Sorry but the situation in rural areas isn't anything like what it is the city. At all. Period.

 

NYC is a test case in how NOT to have people interact for rather obvious reasons, and they should have been enacting these policies in january and february, not two months later, and layering that other areas would be the same is simply disingenuous as fuck. Remove LA, Philadelphia and NYC from the death toll figures and a very different picture emerges, and as for NYC and LA specifically, they'll never have the logistical means to deal with this without outside help, period, and if it happens again they'll be just as fucked again.

Link to comment
Grey Cloud

Grey Cloud

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ctHlHu69 said:

I have a feeling that we might die :(

anyone remembers the spanish flu back in 1918 ?

Oh yes. There's loads of over 100's here on LL.

I know for a certainty that we will all die. Whether of this virus or something else is yet to be determined.

Go away foolish troll.

Link to comment
Grey Cloud

Grey Cloud

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Alkpaz said:

Key difference. In 1918 most people didn't live in mega cities, and cities that we did have were not that heavily populated.

You should check your facts. You don't consider a population of  5.6 million a mega city? The Spanish Flu killed people in rural and urban areas.

The 1918 Influenza Epidemic in New York City: A Review of the Public Health Response

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862336/

 

"the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed between 50 and 100 million people worldwide"

 

"When compared with other large U.S. cities, especially its two largest neighbors, Boston and Philadelphia, New York City did not fare poorly in its overall mortality burden. During the pandemic, New York City's excess death rate per 1,000 was reportedly 4.7, compared with 6.5 in Boston and 7.3 in Philadelphia.2 New York City emerged from the three waves of the influenza pandemic (September 1918 to February 1919) officially recording approximately 30,000 deaths out of a population of roughly 5.6 million due to influenza or pneumonia, 21,000 of them during the second fall wave (September 14 to November 16)"

Link to comment
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

You should check your facts. You don't consider a population of  5.6 million a mega city? The Spanish Flu killed people in rural and urban areas.

The 1918 Influenza Epidemic in New York City: A Review of the Public Health Response

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862336/

 

"the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed between 50 and 100 million people worldwide"

 

"When compared with other large U.S. cities, especially its two largest neighbors, Boston and Philadelphia, New York City did not fare poorly in its overall mortality burden. During the pandemic, New York City's excess death rate per 1,000 was reportedly 4.7, compared with 6.5 in Boston and 7.3 in Philadelphia.2 New York City emerged from the three waves of the influenza pandemic (September 1918 to February 1919) officially recording approximately 30,000 deaths out of a population of roughly 5.6 million due to influenza or pneumonia, 21,000 of them during the second fall wave (September 14 to November 16)"

oh gosh I didn't want to start a competition here who has more information, you're right we can't compare it with today's covid-19 

but soon or later the only thing we must be aware of is diseases (despite the madness in major countries governments especially our SEXAGON "the pentagon", this madness will somehow, someday lead lead us to a WWIII)

>> I wonder why the fuck they invented nuclear weapons, maybe Einstein did it under governmental pressure...

Link to comment
winny257

winny257

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

He should lead by example and top himself.

I do not know him, but somehow he's right.
how solves one the overpopulation problem without starting a 3rd world war and nuclear weapons and completely destroy the earth?
one spreads deadly viruses in the world, when 4-5 billion people have died, then the rest of the population gets an antidote, remedy. :classic_wink:

Link to comment
Fotogen

Fotogen

Posted
Posted

Population growth is slowing down worldwide. It peaked in the '60s. 2,2% per year. Now its around 1%.

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

 

How high can you go and have good life and even have better ecology then today? How about 1 trillion.

Can we have a Trillion People on Earth?

 

No we will not all die. We'll survive. We will even get better. We did so far(get better). Life today is better, on average, as it was lets say 100 year ago.

Link to comment
Grey Cloud

Grey Cloud

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, winny257 said:

one spreads deadly viruses in the world, when 4-5 billion people have died, then the rest of the population gets an antidote, remedy.

Assuming they survive the diseases which will result from all the dead bodies lying around and the collapse of sanitation, hygiene, medical care, food production, etc, etc.

 

These people always talk of 'saving the planet'.  They assume the planet must always be like it is today and any change means disaster. According to science, this planet has been here for 4.5 billion years or whatever. It was a blob of molten stuff at one point and has survived several impacts from various sized bolides.

Link to comment
winny257

winny257

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Fotogen said:

 

How high can you go and have good life and even have better ecology then today? How about 1 trillion.

Can we have a Trillion People on Earth?

 

No we will not all die. We'll survive. We will even get better. We did so far(get better). Life today is better, on average, as it was lets say 100 year ago.

that I'm not laughing, 1 trillion people on earth!
what do these people eat?
extract of a scientific report.

Spoiler

The calculation is certainly fraught with some uncertainties, so it is based on the assumption that the population in the cities is growing and that as income increases, people eat more wheat products and significantly more meat products. This trend can currently be seen well in China. In 2050, an estimated 461 million tons of meat would have to be produced to meet demand; In 2005, 249 million tons were "sufficient".

 

what does the earth look like, if 1 trillion people live on it?

maybe so!

Spoiler

helden-auf-beiden-seiten1.jpg

senate_district_rots.png

no place for the nature, trees, plants, animals! :classic_wink:

also the oxygen would end, not quite there is enough water for oxygen production until all the water is used up.

 

you say it is better today than 100 years ago?
selfish, maybe for you and what about this?

Spoiler

1200px-Soweto_township.jpg

@ralfbodelier-Ndirande-overview.jpgdharavi_overview_ap.jpg__1264x568_q85_cr

 

Link to comment
winny257

winny257

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Assuming they survive the diseases which will result from all the dead bodies lying around and the collapse of sanitation, hygiene, medical care, food production, etc, etc.

lots of feed for animal carnivores. :classic_laugh:
what do you think, what happens to the many dead after a nuclear war?
Nothing!:classic_wink:

Link to comment
Sensual Nautilus

Sensual Nautilus

Posted
Posted

It's the CCP: Chinese Corona Pandemic.

In the moment where all mainstream media appears to be swallowing that totalitarian regime's rhetoric, the WHO being the despicable human slimeballs that they are and the China proclaiming itself the saviour of the world from the "CCP", its more important now than ever to just dunk on them and raise the platform of countries opposed to their nonesense like Taiwan and Czech Republic. Do it for the people whose lives are now in peril and those who have sacrificed themselves in this fight, even the brave Chinese medical workers who got dissapeared by Xinnie the Ping for trying to warn the world.

Link to comment
GrimReaper

GrimReaper

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, winny257 said:

 

 

you say it is better today than 100 years ago?
selfish, maybe for you and what about this?

  Reveal hidden contents

1200px-Soweto_township.jpg

@ralfbodelier-Ndirande-overview.jpgdharavi_overview_ap.jpg__1264x568_q85_cr

 

Even people in poor countries live better lives than the wealthy 100 years ago. When people talk about africa they usually have no idea what they're talking about. There's a few countries that are in a perpetual cycle of violence and war but this is mostly due to corrupt governments. Population growth is slowing down in the entire world, not only in developed countries.

 

Nature isn't benevolent and it isn't a sanctuary of balance. People cry about species that go extinct now but nature had no problem wiping out 99.9% of all species that ever lived on this planet and that was a very long time before humans showed up. That's not a reason to ignore the problems caused by humans, mind you, it's just to put things into perspective a little bit.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use