Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

niart17

Members
  • Content Count

    4,520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About niart17

  • Rank
    Life Member (Mon-Key Handler)

Recent Profile Visitors

20,960 profile views
  1. What!!? You mean there isn't supposed to be outrage over every little possible misunderstanding of a potentially offensive statement? I thought that was the new norm. You MUST be offended by EVERYTHING or else you're not doing your part to prevent the spread of hatred....oh and probably spreading Covid-19 as well.
  2. I believe all the pics I currently have are on photobucket so no longer show up. I will try to get a shot of it this evening when I get home. Edit, I found an old one on my phone. It's in the background but you can see the tank on the left of the desk. This is vomit brown. I'll have to see if I can find out what the new name of it is.
  3. IF these look like that pic, I'm thinking they almost have to be raised screen printed. I just can't fathom what we call a 3D printer printing color that clearly. Perhaps I'm behind on the tech but I REALLY would love to know how he's doing these...assuming they are really what's showing. Curious to see a review.
  4. For a tank that is in the orange stage of aging, I used a color from Citadel that used to be called Vomit Brown. It was in my eyes a pretty dead on match for the orange colored time. I believe they've renamed their line so I'm not sure what it's currently called but i've been told they do still make the same shade. I like it because there is no mixing to get it the same.
  5. Begs the question, I wonder what the tech is behind this? I wonder if it's more like 3D screen printing rather than 3d printing. Unless color printers have really made a huge leap, I can't see how a 3D printer could do color that fine. Perhaps though. I wonder if it's closer to how they are screen printing raised patterns on costumes like they do for movie props.... hmm....
  6. I'm sorry if you've taken my post to mean that I'm suggesting not to social distance and that this isn't a very scary thing. It is. I am worried for you and your loved ones as much as I am for everybody on the planet. It's bad and I'm praying for everyone! I'm just suggesting that there has to be balance or the deaths are going to be much much higher in the long run. Please accept my apology if sounded like I'm putting some measurement on the lives of some over others. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm suggesting that a world-wide panic and economic melt-down would lead to the deaths of many many more. Surely those deaths are just as scary as the ones from the virus aren't they? This isn't someone saying worry about a 401K or a investment portfolio. I'm saying without a measured response that takes ALL aspects in to account, finding toilet paper is going to be a distant memory. Finding food to live is going to become a reality. And those that are most at risk from the virus will also be most at risk from a total global economic melt-down. That's all I'm saying. Please continue to take this serious!
  7. It will without a doubt have a more devastating effect on the planet than the flu, that is the ONLY certainty. Weather the worst of the effect is the virus itself or the financial and sociological destruction is yet to be seen. Even the experts that are most concerned of the virus are saying the same thing. You guys think I'm saying we shouldn't be taking it seriously. That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying we still don't know how bad the virus itself will be. To make claims of it being a more deadly virus than the flu at this phase is foolish. Just as foolish as saying it definitely isn't. We don't know yet!
  8. It most certainly was true up until more recently when more test are now available. The initial phase of testing was only being performed on those people showing symptoms, that were already tested negative for flu and were having the more extreme breathing issues. They have now relaxed those standards but it certainly was the case up until the last several days. That's is my point. Once we start testing more people with the more minor symptoms it's likely we might find more people catch it and survive. That's why I believe there have been a huge amount of people that have already recovered and didn't even know they had it.
  9. I do have a sense of the severity, but NOBODY has a real sense of it YET. It's too early to make any claims that it will do worse than the flu. I'm not saying we shouldn't be taking it serious and doing what we are doing, and possibly more. But the estimates from scientists and statisticians are all over the place. Currently it's about the 49th highest cause of death in China so far this year, and somewhere around 19th if I recall in the hotspot area of Wuhan. One study said millions will die and then came back and said that the actual number may really be in the 100's of thousands. That's the same source with a huge swing of estimates. That should tell you that MUCH more data is needed to make and kind of claim. But on the converse of that, the economic effects of this are also equally unknown. And there is no way to compare that to any other situation because it has never happened like this. I am only suggesting that the problem needs to be addressed with balance from both sides. Some people, usually those in the fields of infectious disease study, are saying we shouldn't care at all about the economy. That is crazy talk. It is very much a real concern. Put the world in a serious depression and the effects will be felt for a very very long time.
  10. I agree, we aren't testing much. which means only those that are really sick because of it are testing, and that means that the percentage of people dying from it is pretty much only based on those tested with the worst conditions. If we find out that a lot more people have it then initially suspected, that would in some ways be a good thing. Not saying it's good that they have it, but it would mean that it's not as deadly as originally thought Perhaps it's not any deadlier than the flu but rather just faster spreading than it. While that certainly can be a problem, it it's true, it's a much less problem than it could be.
  11. Looking GREAT! Makes me want to pull out my Diag Falcon. Keep up the great work.
  12. Another thing that I'm curious to find out eventually is what percentage of the deaths attributed to Covid-19 would normally have crossed over to deaths from flu. If we find that the number of flu related deaths decreases this year at or about the same number as are attributed to Covid-19, AND they are of the same age/health goups. It may be that this is no different. It is odd that hospitals seemed to be overrun so quickly when the total numbers don't reflect they should be. I suppose its due to the quickness of the spread and not so much the total rate over time. No matter what, this is a bad situation for everyone. I pray we don't make it worse on ourselves by doing the wrong thing or not doing the right. Time will tell.
  13. But if you look at the number of cases/deaths per 1 mil. people you'll find that the rates are ALMOST exact. 3 deaths per million of population for both the U.S. and S. Korea and 208 per mil total cases in U.S. vs. 180 per mil in S. Korea, That kind of suggest that they are pretty close to on par with one another. True, there is a 5 day difference, that we know of. I still suspect we will find out that there were cases in the U.S. way before the reported date because those people never went reported and are over it.
  14. I think it's an unknown, and unknown things create uncertain strategies. I suspect (granted I'm a nobody when it comes to this) but I suspect that we're going to find out that a LOT more people had the infection and never knew it and recovered. I suspect the mortality rate is going to be MUCH less than initially anticipated. I think that's due to many things, among them under-reporting of information coming from China initially. I suspect we're going to find a huge number of people were in New York as early as Dec.-Jan. that have had this, thought it was the flu or a cold and recovered un-announced. We likely won't know that for some time but there are many sources of data that are supporting this theory. Can you blame some of these people for reacting with the amount of caution as they have when there is so little information out there? No, I think decisions are being made with what little is known and that could go either way. BUT you DO have to consider ALL potential positives and negatives when if comes to this. And I feel enough focus isn't being put on what the economic and other social downfalls are to the reaction we are currently having. Time will tell how "bad" this is. My gut (which means ZERO in reality) is that we will find the re-action to it will be much worse than the virus. That's not to say we shouldn't continue being careful. By all means, we're in it for good now. We pretty much have to see this through.
  15. I don't think he was trying to downplay the deaths. Deaths are horrible and no matter the cause or anything, the families and those effected by death are dealing with tragedy. But if you compare the actual numbers of deaths from this (curently around 22,180) to something like the average flu death rate per year (between 291,000 & 646,000) it could appear to be mild. That's not to downplay the numbers and yes, this is still REALLY early to make a full fledged comparison. BUT it seems to be shaping up to be at least milder than some think. numbers based on these sources. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1213-flu-death-estimate.html https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
×
×
  • Create New...