I wonder when we will start seeing the eventual decline in numbers internationally that are getting infected.
I think this depends in large part on how pro-active governments are in implementing quarantine protocols and sensible isolation procedures. The problem is they tend to be reactive, and only issue instructions once there is an outbreak... not so sensible when this thing has at least a 5 day incubation period before symptoms present. If there is a major outbreak in an area, and you then block travel, that means you've already had 5 days minimum of infected people travelling out of the area and spreading the contagion. Governments really need to step up here, they need to implement safeguards sooner rather than later, and take the short-term economic hit. |
|
|
|
It might be useful keeping an eye on China, too. Cases in the rest of the world are increasing dramatically, and all sorts of cancellations and quarantines are being put in place... but new cases in China are slowing dramatically. Might give an indication of how things will pan out in other countries that adopt similar travel restrictions.  |
|
|
|
I suspect there will be some fundamental changes to the way we conduct business, travel, everyday activities after this
'test' is over.
'Sterilization chambers' before you board planes, anyone?
I agree. There will definitely be changes after this. There have to be. Imagine something that combines the death rate of say MERS or SARS with the transmissibility of this coronavirus. Sterilisation chambers for air travel are not so unlikely. |
|
|
|
This virus is not as dangerous as many people think. Mortality from coronavirus is about 3-5%, and mortality from the ordinary flu is about 0.5%. But it is important to understand that, according to statistics, 90% of coronavirus deaths are old people who have poor immunity. Therefore, if you are a middle-aged person, if you lead a more or less glorious lifestyle, then even if you become infected with this virus, you will most likely recover.
You're right! I just noticed that there were many bigger pandemics those killed tens of millions of people in the past. Corona virus has high spreading ratio and speed, but not really dangerous. Over 50% infected people over the world have recovered and only 3.7% died. We just need to be careful but not panic. If it's an order of magnitude more deadly than flu, and it is also more readily transmissible, then it should be considered a serious threat. The basic reproduction number (R0), is the average number of other people that someone with a virus will themselves infect. The R0 for coronavirus isn't yet fully determined, but does appear to be around 2-3, which is considerably higher than normal flu. You're right that panic is counter-productive, but this is a big threat and should be treated as such. |
|
|
|
I didn't realize that toilet paper is such a coveted item.
In the UK we use ballot papers. --- It's media-driven hysteria again: 1) Probably sales of toilet paper went up slightly, then 2) There was a slew of media reports of people panic-buying toilet paper, then 3) Everyone started buying toilet paper because they thought there would be a shortage because of all the reported people panic-buying it. Most people just want a normal amount, but are panic-buying because of reports of other people panic-buying. It's self-perpetuating, driven by irresponsible reporters who will make a story out of anything, with scant regard for the consequences. We saw this with the media leaks in advance of the north Italy quarantine, someone desperately wanted to get the story out, and the effect was a surge in people leaving the soon-to-be-quarantined area, so the exact opposite of what was intended. Freedom comes with attendant responsibilities - this applies to press freedom, too. |
|
|
|
"In third world China, men death rate outpace everyone else." That’s why we need more boy babies
We need more male babies in China? I think that is the stupidest thing I've ever read on here. And I'm speaking as someone who has visited the Flat Earth thread. You are aware of the effects of the one child policy, right?  |
|
|
|
It's should be a Pandemic earlier. Many EURO countries are still hesitant, listless in prevent the corona spreading.
Exactly. Governments are notoriously reactive instead of pro-active. I understand why they are hesitant to implement quarantine procedures; it is a drastic action to take, and impacts the economy. But waiting for an outbreak to occur before initiating a quarantine is counter-productive. The virus is spreading, it will reach everywhere sooner or later. It has a 5 day incubation period. If you wait until there is an outbreak before starting the quarantine, then you are too late, infected people have been spreading for 5 days already. Far better to implement quarantine earlier. |
|
|
|
lol, why you guys attacking me & hating on me? As i said it before, i just reported something i though it wasn't "right" & now it's up to the admins, they may see it as plain bullshit (probable), so it's up to them not to you guys who kept attacking me for no god damn reason. May be i should stop reporting shit poster & spam or whatever in this forums so you guys be happy with your livesI'll just do that, thanks to you  I think we all need to calm down a bit. Yes, it can be frustrating when you make what you think is a good substantial post, but you get no merit - and then you see someone throw out a one-liner and pick up a couple of merit for it. Apologies for meriting the post in this thread, that was pure devilry. Merit doesn't always work out on a post-by-post basis, but it does tend to even out over the longer-term. I have managed to gain a fair amount of merit recently, but I have plenty of what I think are good posts that get nothing, the last two threads I started, for example: Jeff Bezos saves the World!!!Democracy 2020Just relax. Merit will come on average, over time. No need to get stressed out and start seeing abuse everywhere. Sometimes you get it, sometimes not, no big deal. |
|
|
|
OP, stop stalking me and get a life.
Yep. Nothing to see here. A few posts each getting very small quantities of merit from some very well-respected members of the forum. Not the slightest indication of merit abuse, nothing whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why people are buying coins at the moment. It seems like a big risk. Crypto markets have mimicked normal markets as we head into a global downturn with no clear end in sight. If anything it looks like prices will continue to fall. Certainly it is too early to call the bottom.
|
|
|
|
There used to be a Portuguese mineral water that claimed "Radioativo Garantido" and I don't think they were lying.
Another marketing gimmick; everything is radioactive... It's the degree and nature of radioactivity that is relevant! Banana Equivalent Dose. Buxton mineral water journeys over 5,000 years until it is forced up through a mile of British rock and bottled at an untouched artesian source. I hate this. It's on everything now, since the Brexit referendum. Our rock! Our rock! Not that foreign muck! Our good solid British rock! Perhaps as the ancient water forces its way through that rock it becomes suffused with British Values TM ? |
|
|
|
expect me to believe that it is over 5,000 years old.
They do this through analysis of the various hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in the water, a bit like carbon dating. If the water is isolated i.e. not replenished by new water, then the relative quantities of the different isotopes changes over time due to natural decay. Technically they are probably correct if they have the data, and 'over' 5,000 years old implies a vague margin of error, so it's better than saying it is 5,000 years old. As to the benefits of old water... I suspect it's purely a marketing gimmick.
Edit: It looks like tritium is the key isotope here. Interesting stuff: Water can therefore be “aged” by measuring the relative amount of Tritium to other isotopes of Hydrogen in a water sample. A water sample that is recovered from a subterranean lake may have been there for (say) 100,000 years on average: the point is, that as soon as that water was sequestered away from the atmosphere, the relative amount of Tritium (compared to atmospheric water or recent rainfall) in that water begins to reduce...
https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-determine-the-age-of-water |
|
|
|
|
^^
Thanks, that looks like the sort of thing I was after. I'll have a read through it tomorrow. Not sure how I missed it.
Every other quantum thread on here is full of my own posts; rare to find one that isn't!
|
|
|
|
Once we hit the situation where the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth, then existing wealth become more relevant than actual earned income.
Where in the world did you come up with that screwball economic ratio? When return on capital exceeds the growth rate, inequality rises. This is because "normal people" rely on wages for their income. The people who have invested capital are already rich. If the returns here are higher than the growth rate, then the rich get richer relative to the poor. Not my theory, I'm just taking one of the basic arguments from Thomas Piketty's famous book... it's a great read by the way  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century |
|
|
|
|
We will have a fresh round of bailouts as Coronavirus hits the economy. Expect airlines to be first in the queue (although the UK government have allowed Flybe to collapse due to previous issues). It's yet more privatisation of profit and socialisation of debt and risk.
I think a wealth tax (as proposed by Thomas Piketty) might be the answer. Modern capitalist democracies are set up in such a way that inequality is a feature, not a bug. Once we hit the situation where the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth, then existing wealth become more relevant than actual earned income.
The money derived from that tax can go back to people in any form, perhaps as you suggest as an income tax rebate - but a wealth tax is a solid mechanism for governments to acquire the funds to then give out.
|
|
|
|
Yes, sooner or later a QC will be developed that can run Shor to break public key cryptography. ECDSA is utterly insecure. Private keys can be derived from public keys. A solution is obviously needed in advance of such a QC becoming available. The problem here is that all coins will have to be moved to quantum-proof addresses. What happens to those coins that (for whatever reason) aren't moved? Do we leave them to be stolen by a QC, wreaking havoc and potentially destroying all of crypto? This is not hyperbole; it's a genuine threat. Or do we burn them before they can be stolen? It's a hugely contentious issue that goes right to the heart of bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and decentralisation. Theymos, ahead of the (elliptic) curve, posted about this back in 2016 (quote below). The thread that this triggered on bitcointalk was full of misunderstanding and outrage, and is perhaps indicative of the scale of opposition that such a move to QC-safe cryptography will face. I've been looking for later news on the web, but not found much. Presumably (hopefully) the discussion has moved on considerably since 2016. If anyone is familiar with the latest discussions on this topic, please respond in this thread! Edit: To be absolutely clear: I am not proposing (and would never propose) a policy that would have the goal of depriving anyone of his bitcoins. Satoshi's bitcoins (which number far below 1M, I think) rightfully belong to him, and he can do whatever he wants with them. Even if I wanted to destroy Satoshi's bitcoins in particular, it's not possible to identify which bitcoins are Satoshi's. I am talking about destroying presumably-lost coins that are going to be stolen, ideally just moments before the theft would occur.
This issue has been discussed for several years. I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue.
So if we somehow learn that people will be able to start breaking ECDSA-protected addresses in 5 years (for example), two softforks should be rolled out now:
One softfork, which would activate ASAP, would assign an OP_NOP to OP_LAMPORT (or whatever QC-resistant crypto will be used). Everyone would be urged to send all of their bitcoins to new OP_LAMPORT-protected addresses.
One softfork set to trigger in 5 years would convert OP_CHECKSIG to OP_RETURN, destroying all coins protected by OP_CHECKSIG. People would have until then to move their BTC to secure addresses. Anyone who fails to do so would almost certainly have lost their money due to the ECDSA failure anyway -- the number of people who lose additional BTC would be very low. (There might be a whitelist of UTXOs protected by one-time-use addresses, which would remain secure for a long time.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4isxjr/petition_to_protect_satoshis_coins/d30we6f/ |
|
|
|
Yes, I think other countries will do the same. The Coronavirus outbreak really highlights both the benefits and the problems of a centralised economy. China was able to implement the lockdown at lightning speed, but they were also able to suppress the initial reports of the virus. Unfortunately their control of the news meant that the lockdown, when it finally occurred, was far too late. Many Chinese cities already had cases by the time of the lockdown, so at best it delayed the spread a bit; it was far too late for true containment. Governments are in general too slow. They wait for an effect to be visible before taking action, by which time it is too late. There are obvious parallels with how countries are treating the climate crisis. Coronavirus has an average 5 day incubation period before symptoms present. If you wait until there is an outbreak of symptoms, then you've already allowed a minimum of 5 days free movement of infected people.  https://xkcd.com/Also, you do wonder - or at least I wonder, being extremely cynical of government actions and motivations - whether the governments are being incompetent or are purposefully delaying quarantines. I can see economists and accountants in government offices, totting up figures, looking at how much pensioners cost the state, and calculating exactly how much more money they would have if some of those pensioners were to expire from say a viral outbreak. Incidentally, there is an interesting report here of what it is like to live within the Wuhan lockdown. |
|
|
|
|
Well, one takeaway is that bitcoin is not seen as a safe haven or a store of value.
I think we all knew that anyway, but here is some further evidence. Far from being uncorrelated or even negatively correlated to traditional assets, bitcoin is positively correlated. People don't rush to bitcoin in times of trouble. Instead people buy bitcoin when the normal markets are surging and confidence is high and people are more willing to take risks... because that is how bitcoin is perceived in the wider market, as a risky gamble, not a safe haven.
But we are still in the early days. Bitcoin, as has been explained many times, is in theory the perfect store of value, decentralised and deflationary. That's the theory. In practice, the crypto markets and young and immature, volumes are low compared to traditional markets, there is little to no regulation... the whole crypto arena is ripe for speculation and manipulation, which leads to volatility, which leads to more volatility, etc etc.
Remember we are just partway along the road; we are a long way from an end state. Crypto is the Wild West, but it will mature and bitcoin will indeed become a safe haven... because it is so much better than the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
My suggestion for a flag would be:
- Green background (colour of Islam)
- Oil geyser in the middle of the foreground, surrounded by a ring of US (and allies) soldiers.
Are you suggesting that the US is stealing the oil, and upholding Islamic nations simply for that purpose?  The US and UK and friends certainly like the oil. Actually the whole mess in the middle east can be traced back to the UK, and the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, where the UK and France almost literally drew a line in the sand where they decided which of them would own what as they carved up the vanquished Ottoman Empire. Sykes looked at a map and decided he wanted "a belt of English-controlled country south of a line from the 'e' in Acre to the last 'k' in Kirkuk." ... completely disregarding local tribal identities and borders established over thousands of years. The result is that the modern borders in the middle east are arbitrary and a f--king mess. Now throw in a vast amount of wealth in the form of oil, stir twice and leave to simmer. ... so actually the flag should probably be a mess of lines against a backdrop of a Union Jack drenched in blood. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
