The most accurate comparison would be mine, over the whole world.

The most accurate comparison would be 2020 COVID stats compared to 2012 cancer stats from tinfoilhat.com, rather than 2020 cancer stats from the American CANCER society. Why? BECAUSE HUFFER HAS SPOKEN

I quoted from the UK cancer society, not tinfoilhat. What makes you think the USA is better than the UK at taking stats? As for 2012, as I've already told you cancer stats haven't changed.

Less people smoke. So all we've done is make people's lives miserable, not cure cancer.

My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed, and I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because this statement of yours gave me cancer anyway.

My grandfathers both died of lung cancer, I saw one until I was about 6, the other died before I was born. But that's not enough data to draw a conclusion. I also have a friend who has smoked every day of his life, almost continuously all day, and has no problems even though he's in his mid 90s. Anyway, the choice of whether to risk getting lung cancer should always be yours, or your family persuading you, not the government's.

If I feel like I have the flu, I'm ill, end of story.

You would be having an immune system response. Feel free to continue making up your own definitions for things and changing the subject when you get called out for saying something wrong. I realize that your ego won't have it any other way.

Always believe your own body over government propaganda.

I'm not going to do that to myself on purpose.

My, you ARE a delicate little flower, aren't you? "Horrid side effects" -- and you mock others as weak?

What I mock is worrying about something that will probably never happen.

Peter please try using Google for more than virus related stuff....one it's too far away and the chance of it getting hit and coming back is too great and two if there's a problem and it has to be destroyed then there's going to be radiation spilled from where it was launched all the way across the Earth, think Chernobyl on a MASSIVE scale!! Today they just bury it and hopefully our million ancestor will figure out a way to deal with it.

Or it leaks due to an earth tremor.

Irrespective of the number of people who've had CV19, if the number of people who are recorded to have died is dependent on having been tested for it too, which the majority of people haven't, then it makes no difference. So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29.

You're not including those that were never tested and never realised they had it. But you are including all those that got symptoms, because they saw a doctor. So your figures are biased towards pessimism.

It always amuses me how people are so desperate to hold onto their indefensible biases while conveniently forgetting parts of the argument already established. I never mentioned symptoms in that part - not part of anyone's argument.

You said "So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29." You're giving the ratio of the number of dead people to the number of people who survived it AND were in hospital. You need to include the ones that didn't get symptoms, or got small symptoms and didn't bother telling anyone. That shrinks your ratio significantly.

I know what I wrote, and you confirm I made no mention of symptoms.
And earlier I wrote that 463k (updated figure) have been hospitalised, so you can work out those who weren't, whether they had symptoms or not (I don't care if they did or not as it's irrelevant) as 1 in 9.5 are hospitalised. And 1 in 3 of that number are dead.
Wondering now if you ever came across a point you didn't miss...

The ratio you came up with (1 in 29) did not include people who didn't report the problem to the hospital (since they didn't know they had it) so is utterly meaningless.

This is amazingly wrong.
Feeling like you have symptoms is nothing at all like having a disease if you don't have the actual disease.
Feeling a bit fluey for 36hrs is neither here nor there if you can, like, still breath because your lungs and vascular system are completely and totally unaffected.
Feeling like you have the symptoms of a mild illness, is even less like having a disease that's multiple times more deadly.

But thanks for the laugh anyway. Good one.

People I know who have had the virus have experienced similar symptoms. They all said it was no big deal and just took a couple of days off work and stayed in bed. You're worrying just because a small minority get it really bad. Chances are, if you get it, and if you get symptoms, then they won't be that bad.

None of that's true. It's actually amazingly little according to Gov't figures - I'd thought it was much more too until I saw them.
And to the extent it's true in some very limited sectors, Gov't support has it largely covered.
And the cost of that Gov't support, which is certainly substantial, is at such low rates that interest payments now are lower (in total) than was paid before because of how it's structured.
And now I'm back at work and have regained access to some of the commercial info of the supposedly troubled sectors, I'm finding trade massively increased in surprising places that more than offsets the ones we hear about.
Which is all well and good when written about somewhere else, but you know how it always seems it's someone else and rarely about yourself...
...except we did 70% normal trade in the 1st week, 85% the 2nd and now are up to 120% in the 3rd, so there's that.

So, half the world closing down and businesses going bankrupt? Load of bolleaux. Loads have never had it so good.

You can't stop half the world running and expect nothing bad to happen. If it really is ok, why don't we just do this permanently? We'll all stay at home and live off this magic money the government is printing.

And for those who haven't, so what? The weak go to the wall. That's the entire point of business - it's a risk. No-one died. It's always good to shake out the worst of them. Every day is about responding to market conditions and they couldn't.

The trouble is it's damaged certain sectors, like travel and hospitality. So you don't go bankrupt because you're a rubbish businessman, you go bankrupt because you happened to be in that line of work.

If there's unmet demand in the market, new businesses will arrive in their place - hopefully better run. Massive opportunities, at no time more than right now.

Tell that to the people who went bankrupt. Sid says it's ok, because someone else will start up where they left off. Might be ok for the customers. And only once they get going.

Irrespective of the number of people who've had CV19, if the number of people who are recorded to have died is dependent on having been tested for it too, which the majority of people haven't, then it makes no difference. So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29.

You're not including those that were never tested and never realised they had it. But you are including all those that got symptoms, because they saw a doctor. So your figures are biased towards pessimism.

It always amuses me how people are so desperate to hold onto their indefensible biases while conveniently forgetting parts of the argument already established. I never mentioned symptoms in that part - not part of anyone's argument.

You said "So 4.4m positive tested, 152k positive tested <and> died from it, then the proportion is 1 in 29." You're giving the ratio of the number of dead people to the number of people who survived it AND were in hospital. You need to include the ones that didn't get symptoms, or got small symptoms and didn't bother telling anyone. That shrinks your ratio significantly.

I know what I wrote, and you confirm I made no mention of symptoms.
And earlier I wrote that 463k (updated figure) have been hospitalised, so you can work out those who weren't, whether they had symptoms or not (I don't care if they did or not as it's irrelevant) as 1 in 9.5 are hospitalised. And 1 in 3 of that number are dead.
Wondering now if you ever came across a point you didn't miss...

The ratio you came up with (1 in 29) did not include people who didn't report the problem to the hospital (since they didn't know they had it) so is utterly meaningless.

No.
The 4.42m are tested positives - 89.5% of whom never went near hospitals.
The 1 in 29 (152.5k) is deaths recorded on death certificates who had a recorded positive within the stipulated timeframe.
The figure you're asking about is somewhere within the 89.5% proportion (3.957m), none of whom anyone is bothered about as they were fine or recovered without outside help - except to the (significant?) extent they infected other people wittingly or unwittingly who themselves were hospitalised and/or died.
Not only am I still wondering if you ever came across a point you didn't miss, I'm also wondering if you understand your own questions.

---

This is amazingly wrong.
Feeling like you have symptoms is nothing at all like having a disease if you don't have the actual disease.
Feeling a bit fluey for 36hrs is neither here nor there if you can, like, still breath because your lungs and vascular system are completely and totally unaffected.
Feeling like you have the symptoms of a mild illness, is even less like having a disease that's multiple times more deadly.

But thanks for the laugh anyway. Good one.

People I know who have had the virus have experienced similar symptoms. They all said it was no big deal and just took a couple of days off work and stayed in bed. You're worrying just because a small minority get it really bad. Chances are, if you get it, and if you get symptoms, then they won't be that bad.

Now I'm back at work this month for the first time since Christmas and I'm getting the chance to speak to lots of people.
I re-fuelled the car last week and had a chat at the petrol station. He was telling me how the guy in the MOT part of the garage got Covid19 in February, but I couldn't ask how he felt as he died of it.
Talking to someone after they had it is a bit self-selecting, because you can only talk to the people who didn't die. Do you see?
You could speak to a relative of people who got it worse, but they aren't going out so much for some reason most people could understand, though I suspect you might not, or simply not care.

And you keep telling me how I'm worrying. I'm not worrying at all as it's the simplest thing in the world just to be rational about things and I get on just fine. Concerned, yes. Worried, not a bit.
I mean, I know where you get this idea about being worried, but if you stop listening to those propaganda channels that seem to fuel the paranoia you regurgitate verbatim here, you'll be far less triggered by everything.
I'm sure you're a nice guy if you set aside wishing the weak were all dead and we shouldn't fund their treatment, it being a waste of money, and all the other stuff they force-feed you and you're too credulous to resist.

---

None of that's true. It's actually amazingly little according to Gov't figures - I'd thought it was much more too until I saw them.
And to the extent it's true in some very limited sectors, Gov't support has it largely covered.
And the cost of that Gov't support, which is certainly substantial, is at such low rates that interest payments now are lower (in total) than was paid before because of how it's structured.
And now I'm back at work and have regained access to some of the commercial info of the supposedly troubled sectors, I'm finding trade massively increased in surprising places that more than offsets the ones we hear about.
Which is all well and good when written about somewhere else, but you know how it always seems it's someone else and rarely about yourself...
...except we did 70% normal trade in the 1st week, 85% the 2nd and now are up to 120% in the 3rd, so there's that.

So, half the world closing down and businesses going bankrupt? Load of bolleaux. Loads have never had it so good.

You can't stop half the world running and expect nothing bad to happen. If it really is ok, why don't we just do this permanently? We'll all stay at home and live off this magic money the government is printing.

Half the world didn't close down. Never happened.
A fair proportion carried on as before, but with altered processes and vastly increased demand - supermarkets for example have been raking it in and taking on thousands of extra staff each.
A very large number carried on, but from home, cheaper and more efficiently than ever before and with far less downtime lost to the commute - financial services for example - mate of mine hasn't lost a day of work and saved a fortune, as has the entire industry.
And lots of demand has switched online and made a fortune from people at home who've saved all that commute time and cost buying up everything whether they needed it or not. That's what I'm seeing in the Commercial stuff I get sent - 60% increases in combined (retail+online) turnover are routine.
No to mention subscription services, so even large swathes of the entertainment industry is coining it in.

Most things that were happening before is still happening, just differently.
Just because pubs are closed doesn't mean people stopped drinking.
Just because clothes shops are closed doesn't mean people are walking around naked.
People are buying ingredients and baking themselves instead of going to Greggs.

The only thing I regret is hairdressers - and on the quiet they've been coining it in too.

Every one of those things cleaner, more healthy, less cost, less waste, less pollution - and if you do it right, more profit/RoI. And most of all, perfectly safe.

And for those who haven't, so what? The weak go to the wall. That's the entire point of business - it's a risk. No-one died. It's always good to shake out the worst of them. Every day is about responding to market conditions and they couldn't.

The trouble is it's damaged certain sectors, like travel and hospitality. So you don't go bankrupt because you're a rubbish businessman, you go bankrupt because you happened to be in that line of work.

It's just a change in market conditions. You know, the market being king and all. Businesses rely on it, but it's not a one way street.
If you debt-finance to squeeze the extra profit, you run the risk and the market gets you in the end. At which point they decide they don't like the market any more and expect to be bailed out by Joe Public.

Will people not go on holiday any more? Wait for the surge and see - not a bit of it.
The only thing that will delay or stop that is if the virus continues and it never becomes safe, so best do everything right and all <your> fears disappear with it.
You know, all the right things some people refuse to do, not realising that, by refusing, it only makes it worse, which is what I believe they really want, because that's the only way they're going the right way about it.

If there's unmet demand in the market, new businesses will arrive in their place - hopefully better run. Massive opportunities, at no time more than right now.

Tell that to the people who went bankrupt. Sid says it's ok, because someone else will start up where they left off. Might be ok for the customers. And only once they get going.

I'm not so uncouth that I say it to their face to rub it in, but it's exactly what I think and it's the truth.
The market sector isn't damaged, as you claim, if others come in to replace the ones who couldn't stay solvent.
It's an odd-but true thing that in all the recessions I've worked through, from 80s to 00s, I've never been made redundant nor the business closed, because the places were run right and adapted quickly to the new conditions. All won the remaining market share after the crap places closed down and increased turnover and profit - in one instance, increased profit on reduced turnover.
So no, nothing you've said bears any relation to the reality of the last 40yrs of my working life, nor to the current conditions.

No-one ever grieved over the loss of a business, bar you. They grieve over actual people dying - again, bar you, as you proudly and repeatedly tell us.
Have you ever thought you might've got the wrong end of the stick? Because I certainly think you have.

---

I'm told that tasks have started coming down asking for 3337.86Mb rather than 3814.7Mb. If you've increased your RAM available to Boinc, hopefully you may start to get a few by now?

I only have 3.1(67?)gb of free memory available, or so BOINCC reports, on the hosts with 4gb physical RAM. One of the hosts has started running Rosetta again; I will check on the other one in a few hours.

What part of "apart from expense" didn't you understand? It would certainly be possible,

It used to be irritating, then exasperating, but now it is simply awesome to behold how dishonest you will be with us (and yourself) to protect your delicate little ego. C'mere, Huffer, let me honk your nose.

So, you also don't understand that the source of the sun's power is fusion, not fission? Add that to the list.

I know how it works. Now answer the question.

You know how it works NOW, after I corrected you. How's that feel, Huffer? Getting schooled over and over again by the likes of me?

It's harder to kill with a knife.

Not exactly the point if they stab you 50 times, but it does mean it also takes longer to die and more suffering in the process

If you attacked me with a knife, I could defend myself. If you shot me from some distance away, I couldn't do a thing about it.

watch a few kung-fu movies and tell me that again!!! NO not everyone with a knife can attack like that but even fewer people can effectively defend themselves against a knife attack

You're worrying just because a small minority get it really bad.

And according to you, mein Furher, those people deserve to die anyway.

Hey Huffer, do you brush your teeth?

Peter please try using Google for more than virus related stuff....one it's too far away and the chance of it getting hit and coming back is too great and two if there's a problem and it has to be destroyed then there's going to be radiation spilled from where it was launched all the way across the Earth, think Chernobyl on a MASSIVE scale!! Today they just bury it and hopefully our million ancestor will figure out a way to deal with it.

Or it leaks due to an earth tremor.

You really have no clue do you? They bury it in a container that can withstand ANY experiment they can throw at it including being hit by a fricking train at over 100 mph, then the mine is sealed shut and some very solid doors put in at several different levels between the containers and the ground. Contrast that with the Worlds underground nuke explosions that were carried out willy nilly until the mid 1960's with just a big hole being drilled and a bomb dropped into it and exploded!!

Have you ever thought you might've got the wrong end of the stick?

HUFFER: Is it possible that I have it wrong? [pause] No, it's everyone else in the world that is wrong.

I'm sure you're a nice guy if you set aside wishing the weak were all dead and we shouldn't fund their treatment, it being a waste of money, and all the other stuff they force-feed you and you're too credulous to resist.

What concerns me is that Peter seems to have no clue that some day HE could be in the same position he is in now, with someone saying "PULL" when talking about letting Peter live or die due to the expense of treating him. Or someone saying it right now about Peter's friend who is 90+ and smokes and goes down to the Dr and he says 'no more drugs because you are too expensive to keep alive anymore". It's VERY easy to say that when someone is young and healthy but throw in a few trick knees or backs and the costs add up, add in a broken this or that and then a new knee, a pacemaker, etc and good lord the expenses mount up, just kill them the first time they go into a Dr's office and save ALL the money!!! If they want to live they better be able to pay full market price for the drugs and devices or they suffer and die. He wait that's exactly how people in "3rd World Countries live and die right now and WHY their life expectancy is in the mid 40's to 60's while the citizens of the "modern World" with it's medicines is upto the mid 80's on average!!

Return in topic.
Some errors:

ERROR: [ERROR] Unable to open constraints file: fddf34c043532c2b22fe3e21a456154b_0001.MSAcst
ERROR:: Exit from: ......srccorescoringconstraintsConstraintIO.cc line: 457
BOINC:: Error reading and gzipping output datafile: default.out
00:02:51 (18260): called boinc_finish(1)

---

No.
The 4.42m are tested positives - 89.5% of whom never went near hospitals.
The 1 in 29 (152.5k) is deaths recorded on death certificates who had a recorded positive within the stipulated timeframe.
The figure you're asking about is somewhere within the 89.5% proportion (3.957m), none of whom anyone is bothered about as they were fine or recovered without outside help - except to the (significant?) extent they infected other people wittingly or unwittingly who themselves were hospitalised and/or died.
Not only am I still wondering if you ever came across a point you didn't miss, I'm also wondering if you understand your own questions.

They cannot possibly know how many people are positive and never told anyone. Those people did not get tested.

Now I'm back at work this month for the first time since Christmas

After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?

and I'm getting the chance to speak to lots of people.
I re-fuelled the car last week and had a chat at the petrol station. He was telling me how the guy in the MOT part of the garage got Covid19 in February, but I couldn't ask how he felt as he died of it.
Talking to someone after they had it is a bit self-selecting, because you can only talk to the people who didn't die. Do you see?

I can still hear about those who die. Nobody I know has died. Loads of people I know got through it.

And you keep telling me how I'm worrying. I'm not worrying at all as it's the simplest thing in the world just to be rational about things and I get on just fine. Concerned, yes. Worried, not a bit.
I mean, I know where you get this idea about being worried, but if you stop listening to those propaganda channels that seem to fuel the paranoia you regurgitate verbatim here, you'll be far less triggered by everything.
I'm sure you're a nice guy if you set aside wishing the weak were all dead and we shouldn't fund their treatment, it being a waste of money, and all the other stuff they force-feed you and you're too credulous to resist.

The simple thing you're not understanding is there's no point in worrying about a small chance of something happening. What percentage chance causes you to take evasive action? Everyone would do something to stop a 1 in 100 chance, especially if they did that thing every day. But nobody would do anything to mitigate a 1 in a million chance. Where do you draw the line?

The trouble is it's damaged certain sectors, like travel and hospitality. So you don't go bankrupt because you're a rubbish businessman, you go bankrupt because you happened to be in that line of work.

It's just a change in market conditions. You know, the market being king and all. Businesses rely on it, but it's not a one way street.
If you debt-finance to squeeze the extra profit, you run the risk and the market gets you in the end. At which point they decide they don't like the market any more and expect to be bailed out by Joe Public.

Will people not go on holiday any more? Wait for the surge and see - not a bit of it.

I'd love to see you fly on a bankrupt airline.

No-one ever grieved over the loss of a business, bar you.

Go ask the business owners.

What part of "apart from expense" didn't you understand? It would certainly be possible,

It used to be irritating, then exasperating, but now it is simply awesome to behold how dishonest you will be with us (and yourself) to protect your delicate little ego. C'mere, Huffer, let me honk your nose.

You pointed out a problem with it that I'd already covered with the phrase "apart from". Please read the whole post before making an arse of yourself.

So, you also don't understand that the source of the sun's power is fusion, not fission? Add that to the list.

I know how it works. Now answer the question.

You know how it works NOW, after I corrected you. How's that feel, Huffer? Getting schooled over and over again by the likes of me?

I always knew how it works, and I'm now pointing out to you for the third time that it won't be affected by a small amount of anything being thrown into it, nuclear or not.