Corona virus, Port and the AFL.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
No this is the article I'm disputing. The one you posted early on the 15th written by news.com.au.

I have seen no other article to comment on, but after I have finished this reply I will read that NY Times one.

New York City has added 4000 deaths to its toll, pushing the total past 10,000.

The city has become the epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States — which is the worst-hit country in the world.
Nearly two million people around the world have been infected with COVID-19 after it was identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019.
The global death toll stands at 125,123.
The revised death toll in New York City comes as the city’s health department added 3778 more deaths, officially listing them as probable causes.
Many of those people died in nursing homes and private homes and were not tested but are deemed to have had the virus.
The new deaths push the city’s overall toll past 10,000 and New York State’s total to about 15,000.


This is the New York State website that says 10,834 deaths in the state of New York, not in New York City.

New York City is 5 boroughs and they had had deaths of Bronx 1,545 + Kings 2,308 + Manhattan 1,433 + Queens 2,042 + Richmond 362 = 7,690


As at 12.19 am 16th they are still showing deaths for the whole state of 10,824.

View attachment 858559
Ok but are you saying they are not adding presumed covid deaths?

Because from what I can tell it's (the presumed untested deaths)pushing it past 10k not 15k?
 
Cool.

Here's the same data in graph form.

World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

I'm curious how the EU/Russia is worked out since prior to 1990 there was that Soviet Union thingo.
 
Is this the article you're disputing?
"The city has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive."
"New York City, already a world epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, sharply increased its death toll by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday, after officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it."
That is poorly written and no wonder the dills at News Corp didn't report it correctly.

3,700 people who presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive were not added to the total ON Tuesday as the article says. Edit It is a cumulative total over several weeks that NOW totals 3,700 and were not added to the total on Tuesday. see my post 6,883.

The New York State website gives comorbidity stats and I suspect most of those 3,700 are included in that total. That website show 9,592 of 10,834 or 88.9% had at least 1 comorbidity and lists that 9,592 under 10 categories.

Around 200 people a day in New York City are dying at home every day for the last 2 weeks, compared to the average of 20-25 per day deaths at home in New York State before the virus, so its not an unreasonable inclusion. Stats from Aja Worthy-Davis Executive Director for Public Affairs at NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner


The Chinese did a major adjustments to its figures on 12th February when they added 14,108 to their death total when on the 10th they reported 2,467 deaths and on the l1th 2,015 deaths and 13th dropped down to 5,090. Same with total cases 11th February was 44,653 then 12th February it spiked to 58,761 ie it increased by the 14,108 deaths recorded on 12th.

What am I get at? New York Health Department never did a one day back dating adjustment like the Chinese as the news.com.au story reported.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Haha just watching the replay of The Drum and host Ellen Fanning incorrectly quoted the NYT article and said New York has just added almost 4,000 cases to their total to now have over 10,000 deaths.

She was talking about not correctly recording deaths in UK as only Covid-19 deaths in hospitals are being counted, aged care deaths have been under reported in UK, then mentioned New York.
 
That is poorly written and no wonder the dills at News Corp didn't report it correctly.

3,700 people who presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive were not added to the total ON Tuesday as the article says. It is a cumulative total over several weeks that NOW totals 3,700 and were not added to the total on Tuesday.

The New York State website gives comorbidity stats and I suspect most of those 3,700 are included in that total. That website show 9,592 of 10,834 or 88.9% had at least 1 comorbidity and lists that 9,592 under 10 categories.

Around 200 people a day in New York City are dying at home every day for the last 2 weeks, compared to the average of 20-25 per day deaths at home in New York State before the virus, so its not an unreasonable inclusion. Stats from Aja Worthy-Davis Executive Director for Public Affairs at NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner


The Chinese did a major adjustments to its figures on 12th February when they added 14,108 to their death total when on the 10th they reported 2,467 deaths and on the l1th 2,015 deaths and 13th dropped down to 5,090. Same with total cases 11th February was 44,653 then 12th February it spiked to 58,761 ie it increased by the 14,108 deaths recorded on 12th.

What am I get at? New York Health Department never did a one day back dating adjustment like the Chinese as the news.com.au story reported.
I guess it's way too hard at this moment to sort out natural deaths in comparison to corona.

I think they are going to down a path it's more accurate to report all suspected deaths as Corona than to miss the genuine Corona deaths.
Time obviously being a factor for doctors to investigate the death.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry about thinking, check the facts. They haven't added them to the numbers as at end of 14th April USA time. News.com made a claim that they had been added. They haven't.

There was no mysterious 4,000 people jump as they claimed, that the numbers would go from 10,000 to 15,000. That's why I posted the NY State link which I have been watching for a week.

I meant they were already added as in part of the 10k
 
Last comment on NY - looks like it might be a jurisdictional issue, The State total that Governor Cuomo quotes every day and is reported in national totals and reported by John Hopkins and worldometers wont be adjusted, but NYC stats held by the mayor's office probably will be.

To date, there has been no addition of 3,700 cases added to any official totals.
 
Meanwhile in Sweden...

1586982505870.png
People sit outside in the sun at a cafe in central Stockholm Saturday April 11, 2020.

Sweden records another 170 deaths overnight. Another 482 positive test results. The infection rate is showing no signs of slowing down in Sweden.

Nice to see the cool Swedes enjoying themselves I hope it works out for them.
 
I guess it's way too hard at this moment to sort out natural deaths in comparison to corona.

I think they are going to down a path it's more accurate to report all suspected deaths as Corona than to miss the genuine Corona deaths.
Time obviously being a factor for doctors to investigate the death.

No, as has been pointed out it's the opposite. In the US and UK, deaths at home or in nursing homes are not being reported as corona despite symptoms being present.

France attempted to rectify the situation when it was discovered that total mortality rates in some regions were double what they'd normally be.

Again, total deaths and overall cases numbers are likely to be underreported.
 
Meanwhile in Sweden...

View attachment 858580
People sit outside in the sun at a cafe in central Stockholm Saturday April 11, 2020.

Sweden records another 170 deaths overnight. Another 482 positive test results. The infection rate is showing no signs of slowing down in Sweden.

Nice to see the cool Swedes enjoying themselves I hope it works out for them.

Good warning to all those idiots here that are saying "LeTS GeT bACK tO BUsiNesS!"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No, as has been pointed out it's the opposite. In the US and UK, deaths at home or in nursing homes are not being reported as corona despite symptoms being present.

France attempted to rectify the situation when it was discovered that total mortality rates in some regions were double what they'd normally be.

Again, total deaths and overall cases numbers are likely to be underreported.
wtf are you on about, I am not arguing under reporting. New York specifically I was talking about.

I am trying to work out a spike in deaths from corona. I am trying to figure out who are dying naturally (because you know people die everyday) and the extra deaths corona is causing. Hence why I am looking at accurate reporting.

If they are underreporting there will be a should be rise in death rate I am sure the data is somewhere showing this.
 

 
wtf are you on about, I am not arguing under reporting. New York specifically I was talking about.

I am trying to work out a spike in deaths from corona. I am trying to figure out who are dying naturally (because you know people die everyday) and the extra deaths corona is causing. Hence why I am looking at accurate reporting.

Why? Why do you not believe the figures are accurate?
 
Hiding Foxnews behind an Apple redirect?
 

Even natural viruses can come out of labs. The suggestion that lab viruses must contain some form of synthetic or artificial marker is false.

Hiding Foxnews behind an Apple redirect?

No. This is how the link appeared on my phone.
 
Tidal power doesn't require big tides like in Broome and Derby, but the bigger the better. The cost of manufacturing units and the robustness of turbines is a bigger issue than tides not being 7m.

Gupta a couple of years ago, made a significant tidal power investment in South Wales near his steel mills because he knows its the future of a significant portion of renewable power generation. Wales doesn't have 7m tides.

Unless you have an enormous basin, then you do need a big tidal range for it to be a viable investment. As the energy generated from tidal power is proportional to the square of the tidal range it means that the tidal range is the most important factor to energy production by far. As an example take a 20km^2 basin with an 7m tidal range. That basin has the potential power of 114MW, whereas if you have a 5m Tidal range for the same basin your maximum potential is only 59MW (this is all before considering the capacity factor which is likely ~ 35%). So you'd need to double your basin area just to make up that 2m tide difference, which is very expensive - and is the reason why it's not viable for small tides. If you're actually talking about tidal current/ocean wave technology that's a different story and has very little to do with tidal ranges, but I'm not as knowledgeable on that.

I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying about South Wales either - it has some very big tides. If I was to guess at where the tidal investment was made they would've been looking near the GFG owned Liberty Steel Mill and Uksmouth Power station? Because that area gets mammoth tides - the severn estuary reportedly has the second highest tidal range in the world at 13m, making it an ideal spot for tidal power.
 
Last edited:
Even natural viruses can come out of labs. The suggestion that lab viruses must contain some form of synthetic or artificial marker is false.

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Did you read the article?

When they say 'natural origin' they are talking about the jump from bats to intermediary to humans as the most likely manner in which this virus has evolved.
 
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Did you read the article?

When they say 'natural origin' they are talking about the jump from bats to intermediary to humans as the most likely manner in which this virus has evolved.

Literally the first sentence of the article suggests a 'laboratory' vs 'natural' origin analysis - I'm saying that the outbreak starting in a Chinese laboratory from a natural origin is absolutely plausible which the article hints at.
 
Unless you have an enormous basin, then you do need a big tidal range for it to be a viable investment. As the energy generated from tidal power is proportional to the square of the tidal range it means that the tidal range is the most important factor to energy production by far. As an example take a 20km2 basin with an 7m tidal range. That basin has the potential power of 114MW, whereas if you have a 5m Tidal range for the same basin your maximum potential is only 59MW (this is all before considering the capacity factor which is likely ~ 35%). So you'd need to double your basin area just to make up that 2m tide difference, which is very expensive - and is the reason why it's not viable for small tides. If you're actually talking about tidal current/ocean wave technology that's a different story and has very little to do with tidal ranges, but I'm not as knowledgeable on that.

I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying about South Wales either - it has some very big tides. If I was to guess at where the tidal investment was made they would've been looking near the GFG owned Liberty Steel Mill and Uksmouth Power station? Because that area gets mammoth tides - the severn estuary reportedly has the second highest tidal range in the world at 13m, making it an ideal spot for tidal power.
I stand corrected on Wales. When I read the Gupta story a year or so ago, I remember reading 4m but that might be my memory playing tricks on me or related to something else.

I am talking about the full sweep of tidal / wave technologies. There isn't much point building wave power stations in Derby and Broome and running power lines 2,000 km to Perth. That's why I say you could transform the Australian coast line if you crack the technology and have townships on the coast and near the coast could be supplied by their own power rather than have power lines run hundreds and thousands of kms from where the generators are built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top