Wisconsin Leaves Home (Madison, Portland: live, dangerous, food)

[WINH]

Sorry meant 1957- 58 for Asian flu was thinking of something else at time

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

Is that really true in all circumstances and populations?

I thought the death rate was higher in places (e.g., parts of Spain and Italy) where demand for medical services exceeded capacity. In other words, some people might have survived (and developed a hard-won immunity) if they had had access to a respirator and other services, but supplies were scarce.

It was my understanding that "flattening the curve" would allow for medical services to attend to more people appropriately and save some lives. When everyone gets sick at once, capacity is overwhelmed and not everyone who needs a respirator (for example) has access to one. When the illnesses are staggered over time, everyone who needs a respirator has access to one. The result is that some lives are saved.

Perhaps the number isn't statistically significant?



I suppose that works if (pre-vaccine) herd immunity applies to this disease, but some things I've seen seem to put that into question. But perhaps recent studies of the disease have put those fears to rest?

I'm under 65 years old with respiratory problems, and live with a 74 year-old. There's no way I'm volunteering to expose myself to the virus.... If other people do it, that's great and admirable, but I hope they're staying away from their elderly and vulnerable family members and friends.

Stats from NYC: 97% (!!!) of those over 65y/0 who were put on ventilators died. Under 65, 77% died. It looks like no number of available ventilators would make any difference. I don't know the exact stats from Spain or Italy, but both have a much older population than here so death rate per capita would be higher, the medical care notwithstanding.....As I said, we didn't know this at first, so "lock down" was the appropriate coure. Now we have the data and we can see it didn't make any difference. This is where Roseanne Roseannadanna would concede and say, "Oh, nevermind."


Yours is a special case (note the practical reason why socialism's one-size-fits-all never works). While you may feel obligated to volunteer, doing so would put your 74y/o at risk. You need to apply for a draft exemption or be a conscientious objector. [I'm "Viet Nam age." Many of my friends joined ROTC--Run Off To Canada to avoid The Draft in '69. ]

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WINH

In 1968-69 we had the Asian flu and not a darn thing was closed down remember Woodstock. 116000 + died from this flu and yet we are still trying to quarantine healthy people you quarantine the ones that are sick not the healthy. People have short memories or do not want to look back at history to get a perspective. I am in my late 60s and have seen much more than younger people have even those 10-15 years younger. It is like climate change which is weather doing its thing. Look back at 1970s where the same type of scientists were filling us with fear that we were approaching another ice age and the 1930 40s were extremely warm, hot much more so than today see the pattern around 30 to 40 years for each. History does provide a perspective if you actually take the time to look which most people wont so they whine until something changes and they forget again.

Incorrect.



And, incorrect. Peer reviewed scientific journal articles of the 70s heavily leaned toward global warming, not another ice age. You're conflating a few pop science pieces with scientific studies.

[WINH]

I suggest you actually read the data from the 70s and read the letter from scientists to the president imploring him to do something about the cooling you are incorrect. I actually remember quite clearly how cold it was and if you read the newspapers from around the globe you will actually see the evidence such as the Thames being frozen and the Ohio River which is very deep with people walking across it. we had 35 below temps in WI and barely made it above zero for an entire month which I lived through. No look at the evidence again. Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.

[WINH]

Also climate scientists have no system of checks and balances they do models and then evaluate themselves ie peer review. How did that work out for the coronavirus.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WINH

I suggest you actually read the data from the 70s and read the letter from scientists to the president imploring him to do something about the cooling you are incorrect. I actually remember quite clearly how cold it was and if you read the newspapers from around the globe you will actually see the evidence such as the Thames being frozen and the Ohio River which is very deep with people walking across it. we had 35 below temps in WI and barely made it above zero for an entire month which I lived through. No look at the evidence again. Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.

I suggest you do the same. Of over forty studies published in peer reviewed journals from climatologists in the 70s only 7 predicted global cooling. The rest were split between warming and neutral.


Its a total myth that climatologists agreed that another ice age or global cooling was a consensus. Total fabrication by anti science types. But you seem to confuse weather and climate, and seem to be anti science and education.



And yes, peer reviewed journals is the way to go. I have no idea what coronavirus has to do with it. There hasn't been the years of repetitive studies to come to conclusions.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Incorrect.



And, incorrect. Peer reviewed scientific journal articles of the 70s heavily leaned toward global warming, not another ice age. You're conflating a few pop science pieces with scientific studies.

What color is the sky in the world you live in? It's blue over here in reality.


James E. Hansen, patron saint of the AGW movement and former head of GISS, was a principle mouthpiece for The Coming Ice Age in 1971. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...w-ice-age-1971 Nobody was talking about co2 or GW. We were all freezing our patooties off in the 60s & 70s, and the trend since the Medieval Warm Period was down. It's only the sudden jump up in temps since the late 80s (and not rising by a statistically significant amount since 2000) that got people to talking about "GW."...Try to keep up with the data if you're going to express an opinion.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

What color is the sky in the world you live in? It's blue over here in reality.


James E. Hansen, patron saint of the AGW movement and former head of GISS, was a principle mouthpiece for The Coming Ice Age in 1971. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...w-ice-age-1971 Nobody was talking about co2 or GW. We were all freezing our patooties off in the 60s & 70s, and the trend since the Medieval Warm Period was down. It's only the sudden jump up in temps since the late 80s (and not rising by a statistically significant amount since 2000) that got people to talking about "GW."...Try to keep up with the data if you're going to express an opinion.

Reality? You don't live in reality. You deny global warming every change you get.



I do deal in reality, and science. You mention one person. One person isn't relevant. If a person changes their stance based on data, that's good science! I spoke of the scientific community. It was speaking far far more to global warming in the 70s than cooling. That is a verifiable fact. The peer reviewed published data shows it.



I'll just leave this pop science links, since that's at the level most people can handle:


https://www.realclearscience.com/blo...onsensus.html#!


"A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling."


One a little heavier from the American Meteorological Society:


https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs...2008BAMS2370.1


"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."


Please stop repeating and promoting false narratives, aka fake news. It makes you look like a Trump supporter, and no one with a clue wishes that.

[ben young]

Well the topic is not the Weather.
Thankyou for City Data resident expert on everything to chime in and alter the conversation.

[everwinter]

Wisconsin has the second-fewest COVID-19 restrictions in the U.S., study says

Good job Republicans, you got your way & now the state is suffering because of it. Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature & Judiciary made this all possible. They voted to take executive power away from Evers before he even took office and when he used what little executive power he had left to fight Covid, the Republicans decided to take those powers away too.

So thanks for overturning Evers extension on the quarantine. Again, the Republicans have blood on their hands.


So it's no wonder we're experiencing this.
Wisconsin Has Fastest COVID-19 Spread In U.S.