신종코로나 바이러스 몸속 침투 이후 10단계의 증상

 

1) 바이러스 최초 흡입

 

2) 4시간 후, 미미한 발열 증세+약간의 나른 함

 

3) 이후 다시 안정된 후 7~14일 잠복기 (면역력에 따라 기간이 다름)

 

4) 잠복기 끝남과 동시에, 다시 미미한 발열 증세 + 가벼운 감기 증상

 

5) 다음날 아침, 면역력 약한 사람은 고열을 동반한 몸살감기 기운으로 발전

 

6) 그 날 밤부터 기침+가래 시작

 

7) 초기 급성 폐렴증상

 

8) 호흡곤란

 

9) 적절한 치료를 받지 못하면

 

10) 돌연사  / 일베

2단계에서 선제적으로 치료해야 한다. 이전 블로그에서 소개한 형방패독산(건강한 사람)이나 인삼패독산(조금 허약한 사람)을 쓰는 것도 한 방법이다. 아래 사진은 우한 폐렴의 치료제로 추천되었다는 중국의 과립제 약.

중국에는 아래 약 외에도 우한 폐렴에 복용할 수 있는 기존의 제약사 약들이 제법 많다. 그리고 이번에 우한 폐렴에 대항하기 위한 중약들도 긴급히 제정되어 출시되고 있다. 따라서 환자들은 약국에 가서 필요에 따라 약을 사서 복용할 수 있는데, 한국에는 안타깝게도 서구적 치료 방법만이 주로 쓰이고 있다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

우한 폐렴은 잠복기가 길고, 치사율이 높으며, 또 위와 같이 무증상자들이라도 폐렴을 전파할 수 있는 등, 기존의 바이러스와 차별되는 특성들이 있다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

최연화의 하보미TV] 백만송이장미

https://youtu.be/YoEqGmQB0Mc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

반복해서 당신을 "나의 친구"라고 부르는 사람이,  당신을 배신할 가능성이 가장 높은 사람이다.

--->옛날에 말끝 마다 "존경하고 사랑하는 국민 여러분"이라고 하던 사람이, 국민과 국가를 가장 크게 배신한 기억이 난다. 

탈레브, 프로크루스테스의 침대

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

엉터리 경제를 가르치는 요즘의 경제학과

 

경제학 교실에서 시장의 이해나 가치가 등한시 되고 있다. 그 대신 경제학을 이용해 경제에서의 국가의 행동을 정당화 하는데 중점을 두고 있다.

 

 

It's Easy to Believe AOC Has an Economics Degree

 

Ryan McMaken

 

It has become something of a tradition in the free-market corners of social media to express shock and dismay over the possibility that New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) — an avowed "democratic socialist" — has an economics degree from Boston University.

 

This is how it works: AOC makes a statement that is notably anti-market, pro-socialist, or generally clueless about general concepts from the field of economics.

 

Her critics then post responses questioning whether she actually has a degree, or that she must have not been paying attention in class, etc.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

But why is it so hard to believe that she has a degree in economics? It seems far too many people have rather inaccurate ideas about what is taught in economics programs nowadays.

 

The truth is there is little emphasis on understanding markets in economics programs, and little emphasis on the value of markets. The emphasis is now on using economics to justify state action in the economy. And any bias that may have once existed in favor of unhampered markets in these departments is vanishing.

 

The idea that economics is the dispassionate study of understanding how hiring is affected by an imposed price floor (i.e., minimum wages), or how opportunity cost affects consumer choices, is rapidly becoming hopelessly outdated.

 

Sure, twenty years ago, that sort of thing could still often be observed. But microeconomics of that sort is now about as fashionable as other relics of that time, such as the Backstreet Boys.

 

Basic principles that were once a given — i.e., the notion that making labor more expensive means employers buy less of it — are now out the window.

 

But this trend didn't start yesterday. For decades now, economics has moved further and further away from teaching microeconomics and how firms and households work. Instead, by the late 1990s, economics was well down the road of constructing elaborate and purely hypothetical mathematical models that had little bearing on everyday life. These model builders claimed they could predict the future, but of course, they completely missed the huge financial crisis of 2008.

 

Another trend in recent decades has been toward conducting an enormous number of studies that produce statistical correlations. But as the correlations can be interpreted any number of ways, they often end up being used to support whatever policy the researchers prefer. Out of this has come the drive to make economics into a discipline that depends on tinkering and trial and error. Some now insist we can't really guess what the results of a policy might be until we "test" it using methods from the physical sciences.

 

This is now what's fashionable, and a December article at Quartz tells us, "the new era of big data ... has led economists to revisit the wisdom of some long held assumptions."

 

Those old "assumptions" are what many people wrongly think is a focus of economics instruction. Last year, for example, Vox happily reported that in a new introductory economics course at Harvard, "[t]here’s little discussion of supply and demand curves, of producer or consumer surplus, or other elementary concept.." Moreover, it's getting easier to get through an economics program without any knowledge of economics because economists are increasingly less interested in economics proper.

 

As I noted here at mises.org last year, economists nowadays seem to spend a lot of time ripping off the insights of historians, sociologists, psychologists, and political scientists. They then slap some new labels on the research and give it names like "behavioral economics."

 

In the sorts of "economics" classes that focus on such topics, one learns that government planning is what gets a poor country out of poverty. They learn that people can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves. They learn bailing out billionaires in the financial sector again and again has no real downside, morally or otherwise.

 

There's no reason to believe that a student with an economics degree is going to graduate with a deep understanding of how government intervention distorts markets or impoverishes consumers. The theoretical foundations behind such things are mentioned, of course, but at many institutions they are most certainly not emphasized.

 

Far more likely, one learns in these programs that central banks can be relied upon to fix almost any economic problem faced in the course of a business cycle. And if a certain problem becomes especially difficult, the answer surely lies in giving the central bank even more power.

 

Moreover, economics students believe all sorts of fantasies that most normal people would easily identify as obvious nonsense were they not told otherwise by "wise" economists. Only economics students, for example, are naive enough to think that central banks are "independent" and non-political institutions. This is why the most revealing research on the Fed as a political institution is conducted primarily by political scientists. (For example, see John T. Woolley's "The U.S. Federal Reserve and the Politics of Monetary and Financial Regulatory Policy.")

 

So, it's entirely plausible AOC took any number of economics courses and came out with good grades after learning virtually nothing accurate about entrepreneurship, wages, money, or consumer choice. What she did learn on these topics was likely built on the premise that the state ought to be intervening and tinkering with all these things.

 

AOC appears to have the same beliefs as many economics grads.

 

Meanwhile, AOC's critics make fun of her for being a bartender. But they're getting things backward. Being a bartender is possibly the best thing on her C.V. These snide remarks one often sees about "the bartender AOC" seem to assume bartending is some sort of disreputable line of work that only idiots pursue. It's not. "Serving" in Congress is much less impressive. Besides, tending bar is likely one of the more instructive thing AOC has done as far as understanding markets goes. There's certainly no reason to assume the economics faculty at BU was any help in this regard

-----------------------------------------------------