OT: Coronavirus 2, the No Politics Version

[Dante Fierro]

Yikes. From a COVID-19 debate to a Global Warming debate.

And guess who wins in the end: Jeff Bezos.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

Yikes. From a COVID-19 debate to a Global Warming debate.

And guess who wins in the end: Jeff Bezos.

Well, at least this statement is indisputable scientific fact!

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



Well, there's an assertion that I have never seen before. Got a reliable source for that? Who was taking temperature readings in the days before thermometers? And worldwide stats? Sure, studying geographic evidence in digs can indicate some things about past climates, but accurate enough to say a given temperature range? And if they say ice cores from the Antarctic have the evidence that the air was 4ºC warmer, I will have to ask what ice would have been possible then - the Antarctic is already suffering huge losses of ice at current temperatures.

The evidence of warming is not just in current temperature studies of air and ocean, but in behaviour of storms, wildfires and movement of insect/bird/animal/fish populations toward formerly cold regions they could not survive in. And ocean currents that reliably flowed for thousands of years are suddenly ceasing movement as the melting ice of the cold regions stops the northward movement of tropic waters.

As one scientist put it "The more energy you add to a system, the more chaotic the events in the system - like a pot of water going from simmer to full boil." That sure seems to fit with observations over my lifetime. Note that none of the above mentions politics, it is just describing what we are seeing/measuring. Politics only gets involved when we have to decide if we should do anything about what is happening. I will not go there if you don't.

I should have clarified that what is now England was that much warmer. But:

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation received on Earth. For similar reasons, the penultimate interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high-latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene, warming was not uniform across the globe.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... ial-period

Edit to include:

Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire - the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows
Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med
But the climate later turned colder and likely ended the Empire's golden period
Scientists studied amoeba species in marine sediments to reveal climate history

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... laims.html

You should also read about Dogger Land.

You're talking about the natural variability of climate. That's always been present. Human caused climate change is the issue, and that is comparatively recent.

The difficulty with these debates about science, scientific understanding and whatever controversial subject you focus on, is that scientific language is necessarily imprecise when it comes to absolute fact. This is necessary because scientists are always inherently always changing, learning, growing, contradicting and disagreeing with each other.

It's of course very easy to politicise the precise language of "theory" and 'prediction" when aiming to discount something that is generally and overwhelming accepted in scientific circles. By the time something is called a "theory" in science it has been examined and torn apart by numerous experts who all looked it it from as many angles as possible to aim to verify if it was really happening, if the mechanisms are as postulated and if the outcomes are really as stated.

If you wan to create some doubt for political reasons you can always find some alternate viewpoints from seemingly creditable sources. Those sources can be checked now, thanks to the internet, and when they are it's very interesting how quickly alternate dissenting views on things like human caused climate change fail to stand up to scrutiny.

People will believe what they want to believe, still. What has always mystified me is why people try to discount human caused climate change so quickly and vehemently? Why? Environmental controls, alternate energy, and reductions in personnel and industrial carbon emissions can only help us even if you have doubts about their effect, so why the disagreements? Environmental protection particularly is being revoked at an alarming rate in the states while we're all distracted by the pandemic and other political issues. We should be watching more carefully.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe



I should have clarified that what is now England was that much warmer. But:



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... ial-period

Edit to include:

Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire - the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows
Roman Empire coincided with warmest period of the last 2,000 years in the Med
But the climate later turned colder and likely ended the Empire's golden period
Scientists studied amoeba species in marine sediments to reveal climate history

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... laims.html

You should also read about Dogger Land.

You're talking about the natural variability of climate. That's always been present. Human caused climate change is the issue, and that is comparatively recent.

The difficulty with these debates about science, scientific understanding and whatever controversial subject you focus on, is that scientific language is necessarily imprecise when it comes to absolute fact. This is necessary because scientists are always inherently always changing, learning, growing, contradicting and disagreeing with each other.

It's of course very easy to politicise the precise language of "theory" and 'prediction" when aiming to discount something that is generally and overwhelming accepted in scientific circles. By the time something is called a "theory" in science it has been examined and torn apart by numerous experts who all looked it it from as many angles as possible to aim to verify if it was really happening, if the mechanisms are as postulated and if the outcomes are really as stated.

If you wan to create some doubt for political reasons you can always find some alternate viewpoints from seemingly creditable sources. Those sources can be checked now, thanks to the internet, and when they are it's very interesting how quickly alternate dissenting views on things like human caused climate change fail to stand up to scrutiny.

People will believe what they want to believe, still. What has always mystified me is why people try to discount human caused climate change so quickly and vehemently? Why? Environmental controls, alternate energy, and reductions in personnel and industrial carbon emissions can only help us even if you have doubts about their effect, so why the disagreements? Environmental protection particularly is being revoked at an alarming rate in the states while we're all distracted by the pandemic and other political issues. We should be watching more carefully.

I will not discuss this anymore here. By pm, maybe. By another thread, maybe. But not here.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworthy understanding, and my experience, is that science works whether you believe it it or not. Recent world events have not dissuaded me from that notion.

I fully agree. Yet, on some fora, I still read sneering comments about the "Cassandras" who predict this or that...

...Which is, ironically, absolutely the right approach. What many people fail to grasp is the key point in Cassandra's myth: Cassandra was always right. People were then cursed into not believing her - only to sink shortly thereafter (see the fall of Troy as an example).

Natural climate variances always existed. The point made by the "Cassandras" urging a coordinate action against climate change is the additional man-caused impact on these natural variation. It is as simple as that.

Ah well... we had "Cassandras" predicting a pandemic with unnaturally precision, and nobody listened. An Italian Comic Book, of all things, predicted this pandemic back in 1996. You can find a piece about it here (you can use Google Translate).

But it was only a comic book, right? Well, no. More precisely, even a non-partisan comic book warned about what we are living through. The sad part? I don't think that we will learn.

[mind_messing]

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... urges-cvd/

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... urges-cvd/

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... urges-cvd/

Texas has stopped reporting which of its hospitals have exceeded their capacity for COVID-19 patients. But signs point to a caseload crisis: One children’s hospital in Houston is now admitting adult patients, and the U.S. military is sending medical staff to help support the state’s beleaguered doctors. This week, a county in Texas announced its COVID-19 unit was full, and transfers to other overwhelmed hospitals were becoming impossible. “Our doctors are going to have to decide who receives treatment, and who is sent home to die by their loved ones,” the Starr County Memorial Hospital said in a news release.

That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... KKBN21B2GR

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

A few months ago I was concerned about some of the structural issues with the US healthcare system and how it would handle the pandemic.

Saw this article this morning - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... urges-cvd/



That's really not good at all - especially as my understanding is that this was what caused so many issues in Italy and Spain. It really is quite grim.

What I find challenging to understand is why there's challenges around transfers - surely there would be sufficient scope in the continental US to handle sufficient overflow.

In small rural hospitals I can understand, but even if the larger urban hospitals are struggling, there's no reason not to transfer patients out to states where the pandemic hasn't spread as much...

warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... KKBN21B2GR

warspite1

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

[RangerJoe]

Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

warspite1

But there are parts of Texas where the case count and death toll remains low. Plus I am not sure Italy to Germany is necessarily longer than some parts of Texas to some neighbouring states.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... KKBN21B2GR

warspite1

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

In some respects, it's even worse as sufficient time has passed to learn at least some of the rudimentary lessons from Italy and Spain.

Certainly you may end up in the situation with the nightingale hospitals where there's capacity that isn't needed, but that is certainly better than the alternative...

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

warspite1

But there are parts of Texas where the case count and death toll remains low. Plus I am not sure Italy to Germany is necessarily longer than some parts of Texas to some neighbouring states.

[JohnDillworth]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

How does that differ from Italy or Spain where, the problems that you've highlighted in Texas, were limited to three regions Lombardy, Madrid and Barcelona? E.g. if its that simple then why couldn't Italians have been moved to the south of the country? Why couldn't Catalans and those in the capital be moved to other parts of Spain?

I suspect (but obviously am only guessing) that the contagious nature of the disease makes such large scale transfers not only logistically difficult, but also fraught with its own inherent risks?

It differs quite significantly.

Patients from Italy were transferred not only within Italy, but to Germany as well. The French had some Covid cases sent to Germany and Switzerland also.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... KKBN21B2GR

warspite1

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

I am referring to where the article states that the doctors in Texas are going to have to start deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. This is what happened in both Italy and Spain.

I am quite sure some were transferred, but clearly not enough to stop the heart-breaking decision to allow some to die.

When this didn't actually exist they called them "Death Panels"

[JohnDillworth]

Death remains a trailing indicator but death has inevitably arrived and it is increasing in number. Over 1,000 a day now in The United States 4 days running and only going up from here.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Italy is smaller than some states. The logistics of moving someone that distance when they are that is not good. Plus the taxi is a terrible ride.

warspite1

But there are parts of Texas where the case count and death toll remains low. Plus I am not sure Italy to Germany is necessarily longer than some parts of Texas to some neighbouring states.

Thank you, mind_messing, for posting the map.

It looks like it proves the point warspite1 made.

[RangerJoe]

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... /texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... /texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

warspite1

Not sure what you are showing here. The biggest outbreak in Texas is in Harris county. How far is it from there to another large Texan city that has not been as badly affected or another state where the medical services are under less pressure?

If you are saying distance is the reason patients can't be transferred then fine. I personally don't believe that, but then I don't know. My guess, is that, as with Italy and Spain, there might be other reasons and while there is capacity to move some, if hospitals get swamped (as happened in Lombardy) then it becomes a whole lot more difficult.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... /texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

warspite1

Not sure what you are showing here. The biggest outbreak in Texas is in Harris county. How far is it from there to another large Texan city that has not been as badly affected or another state where the medical services are under less pressure?

If you are saying distance is the reason patients can't be transferred then fine. I personally don't believe that, but then I don't know. My guess, is that, as with Italy and Spain, there might be other reasons and while there is capacity to move some, if hospitals get swamped (as happened in Lombardy) then it becomes a whole lot more difficult.

If distance is great, then you can use ambulance flights. Or helocopeters. Or so I have been informed. Rumour has it that such transports have been made in Sweden. And if it can be made in Sweden, then I am sure that it can made with greater effect in Texas.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is a map as well:

Italy is about 2.2 times smaller than Texas.
Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while Italy is approximately 301,340 sq km, making Italy 44.44% the size of Texas. Meanwhile, the population of Texas is ~25.1 million people (37.0 million more people live in Italy). We have positioned the outline of Texas near the middle of Italy.

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... /texas-usa

Italy is between the size of Arizona and new Mexico.

warspite1

Not sure what you are showing here. The biggest outbreak in Texas is in Harris county. How far is it from there to another large Texan city that has not been as badly affected or another state where the medical services are under less pressure?

If you are saying distance is the reason patients can't be transferred then fine. I personally don't believe that, but then I don't know. My guess, is that, as with Italy and Spain, there might be other reasons and while there is capacity to move some, if hospitals get swamped (as happened in Lombardy) then it becomes a whole lot more difficult.

Most of this is missing the most obvious difference in the US system as well; all of this costs money. The US is a profit-based private health care system, and at this point, with so many Americans out of work as well (and thus without medical insurance) moving a patient to another state would be a very expensive endeavour.

There would have to be some sort of federal mandate and program with medical vehicles provided to make this more than a sporadic effort.

Hospitals have been financially taxed by the several months of lockdowns, and may also not all be in the same state of readiness to deal with this larger wave of infections across the South and West especially.

While others in the previous thread insisted this would never be a problem during the pandemic, it has proven otherwise.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ical-costs

https://www.ft.com/content/3bbb4f7c-890 ... 8a3e3fbd33

“When we look back, we will see this as a moment that laid bare some of the dysfunctions and inequalities in the American healthcare system,” says Adam Gaffney, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a pulmonary and critical care doctor. “We have a completely fragmented, privatised health system that continues to fail us.”

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... 356887002/

Certainly, some patients are fearful of the risk of COVID-19 associated with visiting hospitals and clinics. But COVID-19 has also unmasked pre-existing barriers in accessing care. The 28 million Americans who were uninsured before the pandemic often face a wrenching choice between paying for care or paying for other basic needs, like food or rent. Another 25 million people have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance due to the economic recession, according to the Urban Institute. As the economy reopens, patients like ours will feel pressure to go back to work just to maintain their health coverage — even, and perhaps especially, if they are ill.

[Orm]

Thank you, obvert, for that information. I tend to forget that.

Here the medical treatment is almost fully funded by the state, region, or municipality. And almost all have insurance against un-employment.