Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
41
I have eight books that are "wide" and six in Kindle Unlimited.  I'm curious if anyone else has them in both...and if so, how are the results?

Since I write in different genres, I thought it would be worth a try.  Fantasy, non-fiction and a few others are wide, while I put sweet romance and women's fiction in KU.
42
I would think if your breathing is impaired, anything that affects your breathing negatively is going to be more severe. I did some research on carbon monoxide poisoning for my last book. Smokers always have CO bonding to their red blood cells. The more you smoke, the worse it is. Now add a disease that prevents oxygen from getting into the blood stream and combine that with the decreased ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen...not good.
43
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Holding New Releases
« Last post by Lorri Moulton [Lavender Lass Books] on March 31, 2020, 03:24:56 AM »
My non-fiction has been selling more than usual.  They're my most expensive ebooks, so I guess it just depends on what people feel like reading right now.
44
I've read a few mentions of high amount of smokers in some European countries and that northern Italy had a lot of air pollution from factories. 

It has been suggested that air quality and smoking, etc. might have an impact since this virus attacks the lungs, but I don't know if any official statement has been made.

Also, very sad how many people who survived cancer are dying from the virus.  I'm willing to stay home for another month if it will make a difference.
45
From Dr. Mike Ryan, World Health Organization, just now:

Quote
The question is how do you go down [flatten the curve]? And going down, isnít just about a lockdown and let go. To get down from the numbers, not just stabilize, requires a re-doubling of public health efforts, to push down. It won't go down by itself, it will be pushed down.
46
I commuted on the NYC subway system for high school and when I worked summers into Manhattan. My family only owned a car for about 3 months when I was 7. (I'm fifty-one). We went everywhere on the subway. The phrase packed in like sardines in a can is not an understatement. On a given commute during rush hour I probably shared respiratory vapors with a hundred people in each direction. 
47
For example, I can't see a good explanation for why infection rates and death rates are higher in Italy than in adjacent countries. If we don't know what causes accelerated contagion, how do we really know that any model will be accurate.

Cultural issues.

As I've said before, Italians are kissers and huggers. They greet people by kissing them on both cheeks. That's an immediate transfer of body fluids, where the virus is ejected from the body through the mouth. Hugging places the mouth alongside the neck, and transmission could be through the ears.

Large parts of Europe have the same sort of greetings.

As I've also suggested, New York, which is heavily high-rise in nature, has elevator buttons and stair rails to transfer from person to person via. The hands touch, and go to the face.

Australians on the other hand are mainly hand shakers, and that stopped pretty quickly. As did hugging greetings.
48
Please everyone needs to watch/listen to this. It's essential info

We're in a phase now of normalizing the horror statistics and to such a degree that 100,000 deaths could be viewed as dodging the bullet (I don't personally feel we'll get anywhere near that number). It's important to keep in mind 20,000 possibly avoidable deaths is an extraordinarily high number to take lightly.

But I think the real story here will be told in the aftermath. It's clear millions of Americans face another month of uncertainties and the emotional damages may be severe.

Not to take lightly but to understand that it is not exceptional; in fact, the 20,000 cited in the revised United Kingdom numbers is very close to the annual deaths in the United Kingdom from flu which average 17,000 per year, with a range in recent years of 15,000 to 28,000. (U.S. flu deaths average 46,000 with recent years as low as 32,000 and as high as 61,000.)

And it's certainly not grounds for policies that are destroying not only the economy but lives. We live with far greater numbers of daily tragedies. Annual worldwide flu deaths are 300,000 to 600,000 per CDC, annual traffic fatalities worldwide are 1,350,000 per CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html ), annual worldwide deaths from malaria 450,000 to 550,000, etc.

The early, woefully inaccurate models have precipitated policy reactions that will reap far more lives in suicides, broken marriages, homelessness, lack of medical care from loss of jobs leading to preventable deaths from any number of causes, and so on.
Being an optimist, I'd love to believe your assessment of the situation. Two things keep me from immediately leaping on board:

First, why is it that so many medical professionals don't seem to agree with Dr. Birx? Dr. Fauci was just saying in the last couple of days that the worst case scenario for the US (assuming no preventive measures) was 100,000 deaths. I know models can be inaccurate, but it's interesting that we aren't seeing agreement on what the inaccuracies are. It's also important to note that we have many years of data on flu deaths and infection patterns. We have data on Covid-19 in humans for only a short period of time. So maybe the more pessimistic models were inaccurate, but who's to say the adjusted models will pan out? Maybe the 20,000 estimated deaths in the UK is an underestimate. The truth is that we don't know yet.

Second, what current data we do have on Covid-19 is doubtless influenced by measures taken to mitigate the infection rate. How do we know what would have happened if, for example, the US and the individual states had been doing a lot less? The fact that the US has a higher infection rate than China (which took much more drastic measures much earlier) is suggestive in this regard. The variations in local infection rates also suggest there may be variables we haven't isolated yet. For example, I can't see a good explanation for why infection rates and death rates are higher in Italy than in adjacent countries. If we don't know what causes accelerated contagion, how do we really know that any model will be accurate.

We do know one thing. When cases continue to escalate, the infection is not yet contained. NY predictions suggest the problem will get worse for the next 21 days before it peaks. By that time, California may be experiencing rates comparable to what NY has now. We just don't know yet.

We all want the current shutdown to be relaxed or eliminated as soon as possible. But there's still a lot we don't know--or at least, that's how it seems to me.
Everything about lockdown stinks but I am willing to continue doing it until we have a handle on this thing.  Until we are really sure we have a handle on it.
49
Please everyone needs to watch/listen to this. It's essential info

We're in a phase now of normalizing the horror statistics and to such a degree that 100,000 deaths could be viewed as dodging the bullet (I don't personally feel we'll get anywhere near that number). It's important to keep in mind 20,000 possibly avoidable deaths is an extraordinarily high number to take lightly.

But I think the real story here will be told in the aftermath. It's clear millions of Americans face another month of uncertainties and the emotional damages may be severe.

Not to take lightly but to understand that it is not exceptional; in fact, the 20,000 cited in the revised United Kingdom numbers is very close to the annual deaths in the United Kingdom from flu which average 17,000 per year, with a range in recent years of 15,000 to 28,000. (U.S. flu deaths average 46,000 with recent years as low as 32,000 and as high as 61,000.)

And it's certainly not grounds for policies that are destroying not only the economy but lives. We live with far greater numbers of daily tragedies. Annual worldwide flu deaths are 300,000 to 600,000 per CDC, annual traffic fatalities worldwide are 1,350,000 per CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html ), annual worldwide deaths from malaria 450,000 to 550,000, etc.

The early, woefully inaccurate models have precipitated policy reactions that will reap far more lives in suicides, broken marriages, homelessness, lack of medical care from loss of jobs leading to preventable deaths from any number of causes, and so on.
Being an optimist, I'd love to believe your assessment of the situation. Two things keep me from immediately leaping on board:

First, why is it that so many medical professionals don't seem to agree with Dr. Birx? Dr. Fauci was just saying in the last couple of days that the worst case scenario for the US (assuming no preventive measures) was 100,000 deaths. I know models can be inaccurate, but it's interesting that we aren't seeing agreement on what the inaccuracies are. It's also important to note that we have many years of data on flu deaths and infection patterns. We have data on Covid-19 in humans for only a short period of time. So maybe the more pessimistic models were inaccurate, but who's to say the adjusted models will pan out? Maybe the 20,000 estimated deaths in the UK is an underestimate. The truth is that we don't know yet.

Second, what current data we do have on Covid-19 is doubtless influenced by measures taken to mitigate the infection rate. How do we know what would have happened if, for example, the US and the individual states had been doing a lot less? The fact that the US has a higher infection rate than China (which took much more drastic measures much earlier) is suggestive in this regard. The variations in local infection rates also suggest there may be variables we haven't isolated yet. For example, I can't see a good explanation for why infection rates and death rates are higher in Italy than in adjacent countries. If we don't know what causes accelerated contagion, how do we really know that any model will be accurate.

We do know one thing. When cases continue to escalate, the infection is not yet contained. NY predictions suggest the problem will get worse for the next 21 days before it peaks. By that time, California may be experiencing rates comparable to what NY has now. We just don't know yet.

We all want the current shutdown to be relaxed or eliminated as soon as possible. But there's still a lot we don't know--or at least, that's how it seems to me.
50
Marketing Loft [Public] / Re: Holding New Releases
« Last post by Bill Hiatt on March 31, 2020, 12:32:31 AM »
I'm conflicted. May 1 could be better--last I heard the prediction from NY was that it would peak in 21 days. On the other hand, it's possible other areas will get worse. I haven't found any statistics yet today, but California's case count has been doubling every three or four days, and some were worried it would surpass NY as the viral epicenter. Here and elsewhere, much depends on how effective the attempts to mitigate the spread have been. That can't really be judged until they're at least two weeks old. If the curve generally starts to flatten, that's a good sign. If the increase rate on the whole keeps escalating, not so much.

On the other hand, a lot of people are still working and/or will be making about their regular salary when the new, improved unemployment kicks in. A lot of them may be looking for escape. For at least the ardent readers, books will be their escape of choice. And some of those may be ardent fans of yours, eagerly awaiting your next book. (I'm sure all three of mine are awaiting my next book. :icon_rofl:)

It's hard to predict how people will respond to a situation many countries haven't experienced in our lifetime. The weird let's-take-a-vacation response we see from a lot of people is a good example. It never would have occurred to me that people would do that. Will readers start buying books again, even in uncertain times? It's hard to say. Maybe.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »