Dunno the exact data, but "thankfully"(as in it could be worse, so thankfully it's not) it seems to mostly be hitting those over 70 or so and those with pre-existing conditions(and also those with suppressed or destroyed immune systems), and even then it's around 5-10% of all cases needing hospitalization and around 5% or less succumbing to the disease.
==================================================

Good advice, but that's assuming people can get ahold of it OR the ingredients to make such.

Also the virus(afaik) "dies" on skin from just using good soap and water......so as long as people don't touch their faces and wash their hands regularly they should be much safer(though not 100% safe from this) by using common sense and following the other WHO/CDC guidelines.

That's likely just that one hospital/area(or a few of them)....i.e. a statistical anomaly.

Yes, SOME 50+ people have landed in the hospital, BUT the majority have been over 65-70.

(Yes, some younger people have gotten this and died as well.....although the numbers of young people who got such & died were low, and possibly[not certainly] might have been caused in part by pre-existing/underlying conditions)
======================================
======================================

To all reading/the thread: Added a news story link someone linked in another thread to the OP post....will likely add more later

Well, I was right in my second paragraph.
Firstly, a trivial example makes it easy to avoid the underlying point. However lets say that someone didn't know, and was unable or unwilling to determine the answer to 2+2, they will look for the answer from others (assuming they need it). If there are conflicting answers out there then the one that the person will believe comes down to the credibility they attribute to the answerer, they have no other measure to base it on. If the question is a more nuanced and less easily determined one, as an abstract example "When will the virus reach it's peak?", then that becomes all the more true.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

But even if you won't accept this, I don't think it's wise to compare something which can be know apriori (like your math example of 2+2=4) with thing which requires empirical confirmation.

Auto-censorship

Please also erase quote of my posts.

By facts I meant he showed news reports/articles/posts with information that can likely easily be verified or debunked with a bit of checking.

Still, my main point was that what he was showing(not his take on it) is no more or less true because he showed it to people or because it's shown in one of his videos.
=============================================
=============================================

Just in:

Makes sense. If a hospital starts using unapproved gear they invalidate all insurance and liability protection. She wasn't suspended for the money raising, she was suspended for the distribution.

Would it have been useful - maybe, but it's got to be through their channels, otherwise who knows what might be introduced based on the "common sense" of a nurse, fish fertilizer?.

Some good news again.

The study that may change the world I've written about previously regarding how the virus is affecting households (and whether or not you can get infected through common smear infections) is coming along very nicely, however it will still take a (few) weeks for it to be released because the scientists that conducted the study want to gather as many objective axioms as possible, they also stated that more than 85% of infected people actually enjoyed and welcomed the scientists presence, some were even baking cake for the scientists which is kinda cute :D! Once the study is released to the public I'm gonna post it here and I'm also certain its gonna be available in english.

Just so you guys remember, the study primarily tries to solve the question how people can get infected and how long can the virus "live through" on surfaces. Every value we know (as described by the WHO, CDC and others like the RKI) only provide values through laboratory studies, which does not represent "commonfolk reality" after all. The study itself is the answer whether or not the "virus paranoia", like excessive handwashing and cleaning of all surfaces (not to be confused with basic hygene that everyday people should adhere to regardless of this virus or not) and the need of closing every once of public life is varranted or not. By gathering data on understanding how long the virus can survive outside of the body and the ways on how you can get infected people can get valuable data on not only how to accurately prevent its spread, but also what types of institutions of public life may actually be at risk rather than "shutting everything down" if you get what I mean.

Not only that, australian scientists found out that Ivermecitin 50% is quite literally wrecking vast parts of the virus through laboratory studies, inhibiting its multiplication in cell culture, which is a good sign on not only how the virus works but inhibitors like these are easy to manufacture this specific medicine and very common. Pretty sure that you can manufacture several types of medication that may also include Ivermecitin as a primary inhibitor. Since this virus is pretty slow in terms of mutation, chances of it adepting to these sort of things are also pretty slim (its also a good indication on why vaccines will work very well). This is also a huge implication that this might work well on humans, I think that we know more about how Ivermecitin works against SARS-CoV-2 during the month of May.

Sources: Regarding the study previously written about, in german

Another source, also in german

Some explaination, this time in english (most important link for most of you folks)

Regarding the subject of Ivermecitin

Could be. It's about the required processes, you can't take chances.

That is good to hear(and the cake baking thing is also touching to hear about).

Also good to hear.....when you post it i'll be sure to link it in the OP post as well. :)
===================================================

Don't you think they already are by making staff re-use their gear for up to a week?

this is a false equivalence.

Explain how, then....it is not enough to say "this is x or y" without showing what you mean.

(Also legal issues aside: are you trying to say/infer that it's better to use used old gear than new gear just because the new gear isn't "vetted" by the administration/bought by them?)

I am saying that the introduction of gear is a different issue to the use and allocation of approved gear. It doesn't matter if the gear is sufficient, acceptable, useful, even vaguely decent, it's a different thing. I'm not suggesting what's right, I'm responding to your question.

Then tell me what you think is right, if you could oblige me on this.

No. You've twisted the conversation, I was never pontificating on right or wrong, I was trying to help you to understand why the link you'd posted with the implication there was injustice there, was in fact reasoned, and explaining my belief as to what their reasons were.