J.C.MacSwell

Not sure what you are referring to by the bold... It seems most of the early cases were German skiers in Northern Italy, which would mean they would mostly be in a younger and fitter part of the population. https://www.forbes.com/sites/guymartin/2020/03/20/with-its-covid-19-caseload-spiking-to-14000-heres-why-germanys-mortality-rate-is-002-or-4000-times-lower-than-italys/#1346c5d977ad

Getting herd immunity by allowing the virus itself to run rampant seems like a Hell of a way to "get vaccinated" never mind risking increasing deaths and other bad outcomes for future health. I think with any future waves we'll benefit from any immunities that are acquired, but more so from the changes in the social norms the "herd" acquires. But it's pretty hard to predict the results we'll get at this point, no matter who might be doing the estimating.

I mostly agree and have said all along that it's incomplete. I wouldn't go as far as saying it is bad though. It just needs to be taken in the right context, to the degree that may be possible with current information. I thought Germany had done more testing than most. Do have information to the contrary? https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing-source-data Wouldn't that depend a lot on the availability of health care, especially ICUs, ventilators, treatments etc, so vary from place to place? Or is that the expected average for Britain?

My comment was based on the OP's criteria for success for which you will have a hard time finding better numbers. If the growth in cases continues logarithmically they could look even better in that regard depending on whether the death rate follows suit or not. I'm not sure why their current crude deaths/cases ratio is good. I don't believe they are happy based on that alone as they have just added curfews. One of the advantages of "flattening the curve" in our respective countries is the extra time to compare numbers in other countries and seeing if something can be added or subtracted to make improvements. Obviously using the current crude ratio alone can't be the only criterion for success. Some of the living cases won't recover, but the dead won't come back to life.

Given Italy's results I'm not sure there will be a choice but to isolate some areas (obviously not based on my example which was more about isolating population in East/West strips to give reasonable "Canada like facsimiles") at least enough to allow medical supplies to catch up and "flatten the curve" enough to give health services a fighting chance. That should reduce the case load and death rates as well.

Is there any test to tell if you've had it, if you've recovered?

This brings up a thought on when inadequate testing is done. If you are young and healthy and get mild to medium symptoms, and quarantine until recovered without testing, do you rejoin the workforce assuming you've had it, or rejoin (or not?) requiring maximal protection?

US in particular is gaining cases at an alarming rate. At the rate they are being counted (hopefully these are mostly ones discovered by increased testing rather than representing further spread) they will have the highest count of any country in less than a week, China included. By limiting border crossings Canada is relatively isolated in comparison to the US doing the same. The US would have to do the same by dividing themselves up into, say, 9 isolating regions all reaching from East to West, to get a similar effect from that alone.

Canada seems to have done about the same number of tests as the US, despite the US having almost 10X the population. Growth in cases, for both Countries, is still exponential with the US at a higher rate. Canada's numbers doubling every 3 days, the US's in less than 2. Hopefully we see a flattening of the curves soon, or at least signs of it, as isolation measures show their effect.

If in fact he does have the military and the police, I'm not sure he really needs the bikers...

This seems reasonable if home alone, no one else has been in for some time, and you don't expect anyone to come into your home.

Even if you don't clean your remote and phone (which as CY suggests you can) all else being equal you've reduced your level of exposure. You pay your money, or put in the effort, and you take your chances.

Germany's numbers match up well against pretty much any country, even those on your success list.

I think I understand what you might mean, but prove would not be the correct word here. You're "imagining" a model from outside our normal frames of reference and with different rules. In your model (as I think you may be visualizing it) the expansion should be accelerating. All physical parameters in your model would need to align with that in someway/somehow to compensate, such that our physical laws remain as consistent as we measure them to be, in the frames we generally use, with physics as we know it.

You probably are aware of this one already but it's a good starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic I've seen some news reports where you could infer that you are roughly 50% more likely to get it if blood type A, than blood type O. Nothing clear why.

Thanks CY. I've looked at the numbers a fair bit, and done quick rough estimates based on simple assumptions (often not the same ones). I've noticed on the crude assumptions discussed by the media is that they often compare deaths to total cases, generally admitting that there could be many more cases out there unrealized (which would put the actual death rate lower)...but don't seem to factor that while pretty much every death has been counted, the living cases include some that won't recover (which would put the actual death rate higher). If you compared the death numbers to those that have been reported as recovered...currently those numbers would look particularly bad...but you can't go by that either. So a fair bit would need to go into doing reasonable estimates. Hopefully it gets better over time as the virus is better understood and preparations get better, and not worse as the hospitals are put on excessive strain.

Does that suggest that for every case reported there are likely another 2 out there?

LOL. OK. I think there is another way to interpret that though...the one I intended. Tulsi it is then...

You are basically lowering the bar for women far below that of any man to, very potentially, take over the most important job in your Country; given that the next President will likely be approaching, or over, eighty years old during the next Presidential term...could very well be a little more critical than you suggest. That said, the by far best remaining Presidential candidate left in the race (Trump of course included) and most bipartisan, is a women. Unfortunately no one's paying attention...too busy watching the Trump, Biden, Sanders clown show.

I think Yang would have done well if the Virus had hit earlier. Too bad Biden has committed to having a women as a running mate. Other than Yang not being a women I'm fine with that, as long as Biden had narrowed his choices to a few candidates, and they all happened to be women. OTOH, if he's doing it, excluding men, for reasons of Identity politics alone I have to say I'm not fine with it at all. There are good choices in Tulsi (unlikely) or Klobuchar (seemingly a good fit for him but maybe doesn't broaden his base). Hopefully it won't be Harris.

OK. But I think this would all be generally understood by anyone trained to avoid the virus without a mask. Yes, you have to be careful where you put your used mask, that has been possibly contaminated by pathogens that might otherwise have entered your lungs, but that does not lead to the conclusion that they cannot be beneficial. Would you make the same arguments if there were tons of available masks at $.02 each? Compare with the current best advice for covering a cough or sneeze with your elbow. Your elbow has not been "fit tested" to your face, and your shirt, jacket or sweater is then contaminated. But it's still good advice, and can help reduce the spread of the virus overall. So can masks. Including reducing the risks for those wearing them. Even those with minimal training.

Yes, but 99+% of the time it would not be. The training for fitting is no different. It's quite straight forward. It literally takes 5 minutes. I've been trained to use respirators, with cartridges or supplied air for hazardous environments , which takes substantially longer. Let's not confuse it with that, and let's not confuse it with training to avoid and manage the risks of infectious diseases, which as I said can be considerable. Thanks for the report. I wouldn't want to exercise with an N95 either though I've worked with them for hours on end. When working more vigorously or for a duration the effort can become fairly noticeable. I would assume this would be more so for someone with COPD or other breathing difficulties.

I've heard this type of thing stated quite often. There is really no evidence whether this is true or not true. But let's assume it is: The "training" required to properly put on a N95 dust mask (I wear them on a regular basis) is literally a 5 minute procedure, including how to form the nose area properly, going over the importance of being clean shaven around the perimeter of the mask, the effects of scars etc. Their really isn't more to add after that. The remainder with regard to it's limitations for viruses could be considerable, but is certainly no harder than understanding what to do and what not to do when not wearing a mask. Best to avoid circumstances where you might need one if at all possible, but if you need one you are certainly better off with it on. No matter how well you put it on there is no 100% guarantee it will protect you If you don't need one you are better off with it off. They do obstruct your breathing, requiring more effort to breath. Clearly that tweet from the U.S. Surgeon General was born of frustration, and contains a mixed message. What I stated above is accurate, but I don't think the Surgeon General wants that known, at least not for the purpose of his tweet. He wants masks saved for those who need them most, the health care workers that are putting themselves at risk on behalf of others.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/02/29/no-you-do-not-need-face-masks-for-coronavirus-they-might-increase-your-infection-risk/#415bf6e2676c Compare the headlines with the somewhat accurate article. That is implying otherwise IMO, and implying it intentionally. If they did this with malicious intent, I think most would be a little less forgiving. Bolding by me: “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” tweeted Dr. Jerome Adams, the U.S. Surgeon General, on Feb. 29. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

Is anything I said less than accurate? Some have been lead to believe a mask can't help them avoid getting the virus, as opposed to the importance of proper use.