J
John S
Guest
On 3/23/2020 3:46 AM, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
Very interesting and great detective work! Thanks for the link.
Very interesting and great detective work! Thanks for the link.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:11:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
The human genome is a 98% match with that of the common mouse.
Any other questions?
What's not reliable is the Chinese data. It is CCP data and therefore full of inconsistencies and fabrications.
"As physicians and researchers have seen since the start of the outbreak, many infected people never become sick. As few as 14% of people in Wuhan with early coronavirus infections were being detected, said epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who led a study published on Monday in Science on undocumented coronavirus infections."
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:17:53 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
RL
That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction.
Sure, you can have all sorts of fun with a math model. Or a
spreadsheet. But the chloroquine might help, seems to help.
Flu viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal. It's not in their
interest to quickly kill the hosts that spread them.
But what impresses me is that an entire planet worth of viruses mutate
together. No one virus mutates and passes the less-lethal trend to its
offspring.
The people who study these things think this one we have now is some kind of hybrid of two wild strain corona viruses that exist naturally in nature. This would strengthen the theory that mixing up the animals in wild meat markets created the virus. Probably a bat/pangolin merger, or interspecies zoonosis.
Covid-19 is 96% identical with the ancestral bat corona virus. How this hydbridisation between what would have to be two closely related viruses might have happened needs to be discussed - they'd both have had to infected the same cell at the same time for any RNA mixing to have occurred.
The human genome is a 98% match with that of the common mouse.
Any other questions?
Quite why it might have seemed sensible to hypothesise isn't made clear either.
Fred isn't good at getting hold of reliable data. The Wuhan data listed 20% of those infected as being seriously or critically ill so his 99% not requiring hospitalisation is a very odd figure.
What's not reliable is the Chinese data. It is CCP data and therefore full of inconsistencies and fabrications.
"As physicians and researchers have seen since the start of the outbreak, many infected people never become sick. As few as 14% of people in Wuhan with early coronavirus infections were being detected, said epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who led a study published on Monday in Science on undocumented coronavirus infections."
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:32:48 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
And enormously larger.
> Any other questions?
What made you think that this might be of any relevance?
This is claimed from time to time. The claim even less reliable than the Chinese data - basically a conspiracy theory fabrication.
> "As physicians and researchers have seen since the start of the outbreak, many infected people never become sick. As few as 14% of people in Wuhan with early coronavirus infections were being detected, said epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who led a study published on Monday in Science on undocumented coronavirus infections."
They got better a picking them out as the cases accumulated.
> https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/
Jeffrey Sharman isn't listed as an author on the paper you seem to be relying on.
Not yet peer-reviewed and dated February 13, 2020, written by people a rather long way away from the actual patients
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7#author-information
is the published version that came out on the 19th March.
It seems to drag in a lot of non-CCP data, and makes it clear that it is based on a lot of assumptions (which are spelled out).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:11:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:17:53 AM UTC+11, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:53 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
RL
That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction.
Sure, you can have all sorts of fun with a math model. Or a
spreadsheet. But the chloroquine might help, seems to help.
Flu viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal. It's not in their
interest to quickly kill the hosts that spread them.
But what impresses me is that an entire planet worth of viruses mutate
together. No one virus mutates and passes the less-lethal trend to its
offspring.
The people who study these things think this one we have now is some kind of hybrid of two wild strain corona viruses that exist naturally in nature. This would strengthen the theory that mixing up the animals in wild meat markets created the virus. Probably a bat/pangolin merger, or interspecies zoonosis.
Covid-19 is 96% identical with the ancestral bat corona virus. How this hydbridisation between what would have to be two closely related viruses might have happened needs to be discussed - they'd both have had to infected the same cell at the same time for any RNA mixing to have occurred.
The human genome is a 98% match with that of the common mouse.
And enormously larger.
> Any other questions?
What made you think that this might be of any relevance?
Quite why it might have seemed sensible to hypothesise isn't made clear either.
Fred isn't good at getting hold of reliable data. The Wuhan data listed 20% of those infected as being seriously or critically ill so his 99% not requiring hospitalisation is a very odd figure.
What's not reliable is the Chinese data. It is CCP data and therefore full of inconsistencies and fabrications.
This is claimed from time to time. The claim even less reliable than the Chinese data - basically a conspiracy theory fabrication.
> "As physicians and researchers have seen since the start of the outbreak, many infected people never become sick. As few as 14% of people in Wuhan with early coronavirus infections were being detected, said epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who led a study published on Monday in Science on undocumented coronavirus infections."
They got better a picking them out as the cases accumulated.
> https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/
Jeffrey Sharman isn't listed as an author on the paper you seem to be relying on.
Not yet peer-reviewed and dated February 13, 2020, written by people a rather long way away from the actual patients
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7#author-information
is the published version that came out on the 19th March.
It seems to drag in a lot of non-CCP data, and makes it clear that it is based on a lot of assumptions (which are spelled out).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
bitrex
Guest
On 3/23/2020 4:34 AM, Mikko OH2HVJ wrote:
Why? all it requires is random sampling. if one person who has an
infection stays home and doesn't transmit their population to anyone and
someone else spreads their case around that's effectively random
sampling. virus doesn't have any control over that.
bitrex <user@example.net> writes:
On 3/22/2020 5:35 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
But what impresses me is that an entire planet worth of viruses mutate
together. No one virus mutates and passes the less-lethal trend to its
offspring.
Genetic drift drives populations towards uniformity over time, there
isn't really infinite variation there's a hysteresis-effect where
alleles get fixed and lost with certainty through the whole population
past thresholds of rarity or common-ness.
In the case of RNA virii you should check antigenic drift. Genetic drift
requires sexual reproduction, IIRC.
Why? all it requires is random sampling. if one person who has an
infection stays home and doesn't transmit their population to anyone and
someone else spreads their case around that's effectively random
sampling. virus doesn't have any control over that.
J
Jeroen Belleman
Guest
On 2020-03-23 15:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
Not that it matters, but all mammals have a genome size of
roughly 3G base-pairs. Mice and humans are pretty close.
The really big genome sizes are found in some plants and
fish, with up to ~130 Gbp.
I was about to draw a parallel with modern software, but
I'll refrain.
Jeroen Belleman
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:32:48 AM UTC+11,
bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip!]
The human genome is a 98% match with that of the common mouse.
And enormously larger.
Not that it matters, but all mammals have a genome size of
roughly 3G base-pairs. Mice and humans are pretty close.
The really big genome sizes are found in some plants and
fish, with up to ~130 Gbp.
I was about to draw a parallel with modern software, but
I'll refrain.
Jeroen Belleman
R
Rick C
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
> What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
The culture of people and their relationship with their governments seems to be playing a major factor in this disease. The far east is more hands off with the populace not asserting their rights above the authority of the government as much as here. So the government is able to act in times of extreme danger and resolve issues more easily. Seems to have worked.
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
> What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
She might mean chlorine bleach? IDK, haven't spoken to her yet.
But, Serbia is more locked-down than the US.
Of course, it's a much smaller country, and they're quite literally used to war.
The culture of people and their relationship with their governments seems to be playing a major factor in this disease. The far east is more hands off with the populace not asserting their rights above the authority of the government as much as here. So the government is able to act in times of extreme danger and resolve issues more easily. Seems to have worked.
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
M
mpm
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
You know, if it were "just me", I could take offense.
I've owned guns my whole adult life (never shot anybody).
Now comes the Coronavirus and gun stores across the country, including huge swaths of the distribution chain, are sold out in under two weeks!!
You don't strike me as the "bandwagon" type, but have you considered that you might be an outlier on gun ownership at this point?
I just tried to Skype her in Serbia but couldn't reach her. English is not her first language, or even 2nd (she speaks five), so I really don't know what she meant by "Chlorine". But yes, clearly not Chlorine gas!! (Even I know that - but could have been more precise with my vocabulary). I suspect it's just bleach, or whatever is cheap enough to be able to pour on the street.
But No, I don't know why they'd be spraying the streets?
Maybe just to keep people off of them?
Or - IF the Coronavirus really can survive on the pavement until well after nightfall, then we here in the USA are completely screwed!
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
She might mean chlorine bleach? IDK, haven't spoken to her yet.
But, Serbia is more locked-down than the US.
Of course, it's a much smaller country, and they're quite literally used to war.
The culture of people and their relationship with their governments seems to be playing a major factor in this disease. The far east is more hands off with the populace not asserting their rights above the authority of the government as much as here. So the government is able to act in times of extreme danger and resolve issues more easily. Seems to have worked.
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
You know, if it were "just me", I could take offense.
I've owned guns my whole adult life (never shot anybody).
Now comes the Coronavirus and gun stores across the country, including huge swaths of the distribution chain, are sold out in under two weeks!!
You don't strike me as the "bandwagon" type, but have you considered that you might be an outlier on gun ownership at this point?
I just tried to Skype her in Serbia but couldn't reach her. English is not her first language, or even 2nd (she speaks five), so I really don't know what she meant by "Chlorine". But yes, clearly not Chlorine gas!! (Even I know that - but could have been more precise with my vocabulary). I suspect it's just bleach, or whatever is cheap enough to be able to pour on the street.
But No, I don't know why they'd be spraying the streets?
Maybe just to keep people off of them?
Or - IF the Coronavirus really can survive on the pavement until well after nightfall, then we here in the USA are completely screwed!
Guest
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:35:40 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com>
wrote:
Virus drama. SPEND MONEY! DO SOMETHING!
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
She might mean chlorine bleach? IDK, haven't spoken to her yet.
But, Serbia is more locked-down than the US.
Of course, it's a much smaller country, and they're quite literally used to war.
The culture of people and their relationship with their governments seems to be playing a major factor in this disease. The far east is more hands off with the populace not asserting their rights above the authority of the government as much as here. So the government is able to act in times of extreme danger and resolve issues more easily. Seems to have worked.
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
You know, if it were "just me", I could take offense.
I've owned guns my whole adult life (never shot anybody).
Now comes the Coronavirus and gun stores across the country, including huge swaths of the distribution chain, are sold out in under two weeks!!
You don't strike me as the "bandwagon" type, but have you considered that you might be an outlier on gun ownership at this point?
I just tried to Skype her in Serbia but couldn't reach her. English is not her first language, or even 2nd (she speaks five), so I really don't know what she meant by "Chlorine". But yes, clearly not Chlorine gas!! (Even I know that - but could have been more precise with my vocabulary). I suspect it's just bleach, or whatever is cheap enough to be able to pour on the street.
But No, I don't know why they'd be spraying the streets?
Maybe just to keep people off of them?
Virus drama. SPEND MONEY! DO SOMETHING!
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
R
Rick C
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:35:48 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
I can't think of a single reason why you should not take offense. I am trying my best to ridicule your opinion with a dry humor. Should I make it a bit more obvious?
> You don't strike me as the "bandwagon" type, but have you considered that you might be an outlier on gun ownership at this point?
Irrelevant. I have made a lot of money being right when the rest of the stock market was wrong. I've been right about many things when popular opinion was wrong and I relish that. I don't give a rat's ass about following the herd. If the coronavirus situation becomes one where having a gun matters one whit, we are all fucked so hard the gun will ultimately not matter.
Who cares if the CV can survive on the sidewalk after nightfall??? I don't lick the sidewalk. I don't shake hands with the sidewalk. We don't know for sure how this virus is transmitted, but no one has talked about sanitizing your shoes before removing them. Whatever. This is silly. I guess one of the down sides of a more authoritarian government is less push back when they do silly things. But at least they are doing things rather than asserting the authority to do things and then doing nothing. Yup, we got a President who has asserted his authority to do nothing.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
You know, if it were "just me", I could take offense.
I've owned guns my whole adult life (never shot anybody).
Now comes the Coronavirus and gun stores across the country, including huge swaths of the distribution chain, are sold out in under two weeks!!
I can't think of a single reason why you should not take offense. I am trying my best to ridicule your opinion with a dry humor. Should I make it a bit more obvious?
> You don't strike me as the "bandwagon" type, but have you considered that you might be an outlier on gun ownership at this point?
Irrelevant. I have made a lot of money being right when the rest of the stock market was wrong. I've been right about many things when popular opinion was wrong and I relish that. I don't give a rat's ass about following the herd. If the coronavirus situation becomes one where having a gun matters one whit, we are all fucked so hard the gun will ultimately not matter.
I just tried to Skype her in Serbia but couldn't reach her. English is not her first language, or even 2nd (she speaks five), so I really don't know what she meant by "Chlorine". But yes, clearly not Chlorine gas!! (Even I know that - but could have been more precise with my vocabulary). I suspect it's just bleach, or whatever is cheap enough to be able to pour on the street.
But No, I don't know why they'd be spraying the streets?
Maybe just to keep people off of them?
Or - IF the Coronavirus really can survive on the pavement until well after nightfall, then we here in the USA are completely screwed!
Who cares if the CV can survive on the sidewalk after nightfall??? I don't lick the sidewalk. I don't shake hands with the sidewalk. We don't know for sure how this virus is transmitted, but no one has talked about sanitizing your shoes before removing them. Whatever. This is silly. I guess one of the down sides of a more authoritarian government is less push back when they do silly things. But at least they are doing things rather than asserting the authority to do things and then doing nothing. Yup, we got a President who has asserted his authority to do nothing.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 2:14:42 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Yes, John. We all know you are a drama queen. Now, it's time to get off the stage and take off your makeup and that garish wig.
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:35:40 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
She might mean chlorine bleach? IDK, haven't spoken to her yet.
But, Serbia is more locked-down than the US.
Of course, it's a much smaller country, and they're quite literally used to war.
The culture of people and their relationship with their governments seems to be playing a major factor in this disease. The far east is more hands off with the populace not asserting their rights above the authority of the government as much as here. So the government is able to act in times of extreme danger and resolve issues more easily. Seems to have worked.
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
You know, if it were "just me", I could take offense.
I've owned guns my whole adult life (never shot anybody).
Now comes the Coronavirus and gun stores across the country, including huge swaths of the distribution chain, are sold out in under two weeks!!
You don't strike me as the "bandwagon" type, but have you considered that you might be an outlier on gun ownership at this point?
I just tried to Skype her in Serbia but couldn't reach her. English is not her first language, or even 2nd (she speaks five), so I really don't know what she meant by "Chlorine". But yes, clearly not Chlorine gas!! (Even I know that - but could have been more precise with my vocabulary). I suspect it's just bleach, or whatever is cheap enough to be able to pour on the street.
But No, I don't know why they'd be spraying the streets?
Maybe just to keep people off of them?
Virus drama. SPEND MONEY! DO SOMETHING!
Yes, John. We all know you are a drama queen. Now, it's time to get off the stage and take off your makeup and that garish wig.
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
D
David Brown
Guest
On 23/03/2020 17:31, Rick C wrote:
I can think of two possibilities.
One is that virus particles (from coughs, sneezes, etc.) will fall to
the ground during the day. The next day, they may be blown back into
the air by wind, air flow from cars, people walking and kicking up dust,
etc. This will get the virus back into the air again. (But don't ask
me if this is a significant effect, or if spraying bleach will stop it -
I really have no idea.)
The other theory is that it keeps people off the streets at night, as no
one wants to get sprayed.
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean
that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine"
means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach
smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap
and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all.
Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is
spread in the street.
I can think of two possibilities.
One is that virus particles (from coughs, sneezes, etc.) will fall to
the ground during the day. The next day, they may be blown back into
the air by wind, air flow from cars, people walking and kicking up dust,
etc. This will get the virus back into the air again. (But don't ask
me if this is a significant effect, or if spraying bleach will stop it -
I really have no idea.)
The other theory is that it keeps people off the streets at night, as no
one wants to get sprayed.
J
John S
Guest
On 3/23/2020 11:31 AM, Rick C wrote:
Do you know the lifestyle in Serbia? Maybe they relieve themselves in
the streets from time to time.
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
Do you know the lifestyle in Serbia? Maybe they relieve themselves in
the streets from time to time.
J
John S
Guest
On 3/23/2020 12:35 PM, mpm wrote:
You have to have very good aim to shoot a virus.
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine" means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all. Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is spread in the street.
She might mean chlorine bleach? IDK, haven't spoken to her yet.
But, Serbia is more locked-down than the US.
Of course, it's a much smaller country, and they're quite literally used to war.
The culture of people and their relationship with their governments seems to be playing a major factor in this disease. The far east is more hands off with the populace not asserting their rights above the authority of the government as much as here. So the government is able to act in times of extreme danger and resolve issues more easily. Seems to have worked.
We may lose millions of lives to this disease in the US, but at least we'll still have our guns! We need to protect our right to complain about the hand sanitizer dispensers at Walmart.
You know, if it were "just me", I could take offense.
I've owned guns my whole adult life (never shot anybody).
Now comes the Coronavirus and gun stores across the country, including huge swaths of the distribution chain, are sold out in under two weeks!!
You have to have very good aim to shoot a virus.
Guest
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:23:31 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
Third idea: it's very visible and dramatic action.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 23/03/2020 17:31, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:37:11 AM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Just because my sister-in-law claims it to be Chlorine doesn't mean
that it actually is. (Although I suspect it is.)
Chlorine is easy to tell from the smell. Typically saying "Chlorine"
means bleach, sodium hypochlorite. Don't we all know what bleach
smells like? Hard to mistake.
What else would governments use to spray down streets that's cheap
and effective?
I have no idea why a government would be spraying the streets at all.
Do you? I've not heard anyone (credible or not) say the infection is
spread in the street.
I can think of two possibilities.
One is that virus particles (from coughs, sneezes, etc.) will fall to
the ground during the day. The next day, they may be blown back into
the air by wind, air flow from cars, people walking and kicking up dust,
etc. This will get the virus back into the air again. (But don't ask
me if this is a significant effect, or if spraying bleach will stop it -
I really have no idea.)
The other theory is that it keeps people off the streets at night, as no
one wants to get sprayed.
Third idea: it's very visible and dramatic action.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 11:46:35 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
Not exactly. It recognises that even limited social networks overlap. and once a new network gets it's disease carrier, it too will start contributing..
The Diamond Princess was supposed to be on lock down, with individual passengers isolated in their cabins. The ships crew weren't trained in looking after isolated patients, and the isolation wasn't anything like as good as it should have been. It's not great example.
They do seem to resist it, and it only takes one carrier to infect a lot of other people.-
The South Korean religious cult that went in for three hour shoulder-to-shoulder church services managed to spread the virus from one carrier to some 900 people before the authorities got on top of it.
They were in self-isolation, and were known to be potential carriers of a dangerous disease.
They won't have been exhibiting typical behaviour. Active symptom monitoring would have reminded them that they were a potential threat to public health.
I'm sure that you found the report useful to confirm your existing opinion. You are expert at finding confirmation where less partisan commentators would find none at all.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
RL
That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction.
The exponential model ignores people's limited social networks, and
assumes they will continue to infect new people at the same rate,
ad infinitum.
Not exactly. It recognises that even limited social networks overlap. and once a new network gets it's disease carrier, it too will start contributing..
But only 20% of the Diamond Princess' sardines got WuFlu, inconsistent
with simple exponential growth. And only 3% of Wuhan's population were
ultimately infected.
The Diamond Princess was supposed to be on lock down, with individual passengers isolated in their cabins. The ships crew weren't trained in looking after isolated patients, and the isolation wasn't anything like as good as it should have been. It's not great example.
Also, the plain exponential model assumes people won't change their
behaviors.
They do seem to resist it, and it only takes one carrier to infect a lot of other people.-
The South Korean religious cult that went in for three hour shoulder-to-shoulder church services managed to spread the virus from one carrier to some 900 people before the authorities got on top of it.
I found this report useful--
Active Monitoring of Persons Exposed to Patients with Confirmed COVID-19 â United States, JanuaryâFebruary 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909e1.htm?s_cid=mm6909e1_w
quote
Among the first 10 patients with travel-related confirmed
COVID-19 reported in the United States, a total of 445 persons ...
who had close contact with one of the 10 patients on or after the
date of the patientâs symptom onset were identified...
Active symptom monitoring of the 445 close contacts ... for 14 days
following the last known exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19,
was conducted by local health jurisdictions. During the 14 days of
active symptom monitoring, 54 (12%) close contacts developed new or
worsening symptoms deemed by local public health authorities to be
concerning for COVID-19 ... and subsequently were tested for SARS-CoV-2.
Two persons who were household members of patients with confirmed
COVID-19 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This yielded a symptomatic
secondary attack rate of 0.45% (95% confidence interval [CI] > 0.12%â1.6%) among all close contacts, and a symptomatic secondary
attack rate of 10.5% (95% CI = 2.9%â31.4%) among household members.
Both persons with confirmed secondary transmission had close contact
with the respective source patient before COVID-19 was confirmed and
were isolated from the source patient after the patientâs COVID-19
diagnosis.
No other close contacts who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 had a positive
test... An additional 146 persons exposed to the two patients with
secondary COVID-19 transmission underwent 14 days of active monitoring.
Among these, 18 (12%) developed symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and
were considered PUIs. All tested negative, and no further symptomatic
COVID-19 cases (representing tertiary transmission) have been
identified.
/quote
They were in self-isolation, and were known to be potential carriers of a dangerous disease.
They won't have been exhibiting typical behaviour. Active symptom monitoring would have reminded them that they were a potential threat to public health.
I'm sure that you found the report useful to confirm your existing opinion. You are expert at finding confirmation where less partisan commentators would find none at all.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Rick C
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:46:35 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
No, it doesn't ignore anything. It acknowledges that different people are in contact with others at different rates and durations, so it works off the average.
Nothing will be ad infinitum since it has to end at 100%. But clearly as the number of infected becomes a significant fraction of the population the rate of further infection has to drop off. We aren't talking about that point. We are talking about a much lower level of infection where the exponential growth model is still very accurate. We don't have to have a significant fraction of the population sick from this disease before the hospitals are overcrowded and the limited resources are exhausted meaning people with other diseases can't get treatment. Overall with an infected population of just 1 million we can expect to see massively overwhelmed hospitals and ICUs. They will have trouble just performing triage on all the patients.
With the present actions being taken in a handful of states we may find the exponential rate dropping off somewhat, but until we do what they did in China I can't see the infection rate dropping. But maybe "social distancing" will be enough. It mostly depends on how frightened people become I think. This may be a time when fear is a good thing.
Try hard to understand. Once they detected the disease they isolated everyone. I believe the crew, who still had to circulate to do their job, was more infected than the passengers.
In Wuhan they enacted extreme isolation procedures relatively early on. They worked. We aren't doing that.
Yes, precisely. Or more accurately, they won't change their behaviors in time. I still say we are going to reach 1 million infected by the first week of April, but I can't be certain because I don't really know how others are taking the recommendations. From my window I see water and trees. I can't see if people are still out shopping and getting together or not. We had a couple of nice days this weekend. I'm guessing people went out.
If I understand correctly, they only tested 54 of the 445. So considering that some people don't display symptoms but still carry the disease (it's been reported, not sure how accurate that is) 391 people who could have had the disease were not tested? I believe they repeated the same flawed process with the close contacts of the two who found to be infected from the initial group.
I would also point out the definition of "close contact" includes "100 (22%) were community members who were exposed** to a patient in a health care setting; and 222 (50%) were health care personnel" Don't health care personnel typically use reasonable measures to prevent infection like hand cleansers? I know when I leave a hospital I use the cleaning stations. So I would not expect many infections in that group. It's actually hard to imagine being significantly exposed to 22 people when you visit a healthcare facility. That's a LOT! I expect the included everyone who walked by.
Doesn't sound like much of a rigorous study. In the Italian city Vo where everyone was tested they found 3% of the population infected even though few or no one displayed symptoms.
In the study you cite, did they draw any conclusions about the transmission rate of this disease in general or did they simply report their results without drawing a conclusion about the disease? No, they just reported their findings and don't expect anyone to take one report too seriously.
Clearly this disease is easy to transmit. That's why the infected count rises from a few dozen to 10's of thousands in a few weeks. How else can it be explained? Is North Korea exposing out population to the disease on the subway?
--
Rick C.
++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
RL
That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction.
The exponential model ignores people's limited social networks, and
assumes they will continue to infect new people at the same rate,
ad infinitum.
No, it doesn't ignore anything. It acknowledges that different people are in contact with others at different rates and durations, so it works off the average.
Nothing will be ad infinitum since it has to end at 100%. But clearly as the number of infected becomes a significant fraction of the population the rate of further infection has to drop off. We aren't talking about that point. We are talking about a much lower level of infection where the exponential growth model is still very accurate. We don't have to have a significant fraction of the population sick from this disease before the hospitals are overcrowded and the limited resources are exhausted meaning people with other diseases can't get treatment. Overall with an infected population of just 1 million we can expect to see massively overwhelmed hospitals and ICUs. They will have trouble just performing triage on all the patients.
With the present actions being taken in a handful of states we may find the exponential rate dropping off somewhat, but until we do what they did in China I can't see the infection rate dropping. But maybe "social distancing" will be enough. It mostly depends on how frightened people become I think. This may be a time when fear is a good thing.
But only 20% of the Diamond Princess' sardines got WuFlu, inconsistent
with simple exponential growth. And only 3% of Wuhan's population were
ultimately infected.
Try hard to understand. Once they detected the disease they isolated everyone. I believe the crew, who still had to circulate to do their job, was more infected than the passengers.
In Wuhan they enacted extreme isolation procedures relatively early on. They worked. We aren't doing that.
Also, the plain exponential model assumes people won't change their
behaviors.
Yes, precisely. Or more accurately, they won't change their behaviors in time. I still say we are going to reach 1 million infected by the first week of April, but I can't be certain because I don't really know how others are taking the recommendations. From my window I see water and trees. I can't see if people are still out shopping and getting together or not. We had a couple of nice days this weekend. I'm guessing people went out.
I found this report useful--
Active Monitoring of Persons Exposed to Patients with Confirmed COVID-19 â United States, JanuaryâFebruary 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909e1.htm?s_cid=mm6909e1_w
quote
Among the first 10 patients with travel-related confirmed
COVID-19 reported in the United States, a total of 445 persons ...
who had close contact with one of the 10 patients on or after the
date of the patientâs symptom onset were identified...
Active symptom monitoring of the 445 close contacts ... for 14 days
following the last known exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19,
was conducted by local health jurisdictions. During the 14 days of
active symptom monitoring, 54 (12%) close contacts developed new or
worsening symptoms deemed by local public health authorities to be
concerning for COVID-19 ... and subsequently were tested for SARS-CoV-2.
Two persons who were household members of patients with confirmed
COVID-19 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This yielded a symptomatic
secondary attack rate of 0.45% (95% confidence interval [CI] > 0.12%â1.6%) among all close contacts, and a symptomatic secondary
attack rate of 10.5% (95% CI = 2.9%â31.4%) among household members.
Both persons with confirmed secondary transmission had close contact
with the respective source patient before COVID-19 was confirmed and
were isolated from the source patient after the patientâs COVID-19
diagnosis.
No other close contacts who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 had a positive
test... An additional 146 persons exposed to the two patients with
secondary COVID-19 transmission underwent 14 days of active monitoring.
Among these, 18 (12%) developed symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and
were considered PUIs. All tested negative, and no further symptomatic
COVID-19 cases (representing tertiary transmission) have been
identified.
/quote
If I understand correctly, they only tested 54 of the 445. So considering that some people don't display symptoms but still carry the disease (it's been reported, not sure how accurate that is) 391 people who could have had the disease were not tested? I believe they repeated the same flawed process with the close contacts of the two who found to be infected from the initial group.
I would also point out the definition of "close contact" includes "100 (22%) were community members who were exposed** to a patient in a health care setting; and 222 (50%) were health care personnel" Don't health care personnel typically use reasonable measures to prevent infection like hand cleansers? I know when I leave a hospital I use the cleaning stations. So I would not expect many infections in that group. It's actually hard to imagine being significantly exposed to 22 people when you visit a healthcare facility. That's a LOT! I expect the included everyone who walked by.
Doesn't sound like much of a rigorous study. In the Italian city Vo where everyone was tested they found 3% of the population infected even though few or no one displayed symptoms.
In the study you cite, did they draw any conclusions about the transmission rate of this disease in general or did they simply report their results without drawing a conclusion about the disease? No, they just reported their findings and don't expect anyone to take one report too seriously.
Clearly this disease is easy to transmit. That's why the infected count rises from a few dozen to 10's of thousands in a few weeks. How else can it be explained? Is North Korea exposing out population to the disease on the subway?
--
Rick C.
++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Guest
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:46:29 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
Probably a minority of people can ever catch the virus. 20% is likely
in the ballpark.
The exponential growth can only continue early on in an infection. All
flus start exponentially. Exponential growth always stops being
exponential. Even in simulation you run out of floating point range.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
RL
That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction.
The exponential model ignores people's limited social networks, and
assumes they will continue to infect new people at the same rate,
ad infinitum.
But only 20% of the Diamond Princess' sardines got WuFlu, inconsistent
with simple exponential growth. And only 3% of Wuhan's population were
ultimately infected.
Probably a minority of people can ever catch the virus. 20% is likely
in the ballpark.
Also, the plain exponential model assumes people won't change their
behaviors.
The exponential growth can only continue early on in an infection. All
flus start exponentially. Exponential growth always stops being
exponential. Even in simulation you run out of floating point range.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"
R
Rick C
Guest
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:06:52 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
It is amazing that JL understand the issue so well. Yes, this disease will stop growing exponentially. I recall in a college class it was pointed out that Petri dish cultures grow exponentially for a time, then maintain at a level for some time, then crash exponentially. In an actual Petri dish the exponential growth ends about the time the dish is around half full because the waste products start to kill off cells. Typically a disease will not spread that widely in a population. We might see as high as 10% or 20% if we do nothing further to contain it.
The significance of the exponential growth in the early stage is that it IS exponential and so reaches a high value very quickly, much more quickly than someone might expect. Even when the numbers were in the low thousands the course of this disease was very clear. Unfortunately we did far too little to stress the urgency of the situation and now we have very little time remaining (if any) to prevent a massive overrun of our medical facilities.
--
Rick C.
+++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
The exponential growth can only continue early on in an infection. All
flus start exponentially. Exponential growth always stops being
exponential. Even in simulation you run out of floating point range.
It is amazing that JL understand the issue so well. Yes, this disease will stop growing exponentially. I recall in a college class it was pointed out that Petri dish cultures grow exponentially for a time, then maintain at a level for some time, then crash exponentially. In an actual Petri dish the exponential growth ends about the time the dish is around half full because the waste products start to kill off cells. Typically a disease will not spread that widely in a population. We might see as high as 10% or 20% if we do nothing further to contain it.
The significance of the exponential growth in the early stage is that it IS exponential and so reaches a high value very quickly, much more quickly than someone might expect. Even when the numbers were in the low thousands the course of this disease was very clear. Unfortunately we did far too little to stress the urgency of the situation and now we have very little time remaining (if any) to prevent a massive overrun of our medical facilities.
--
Rick C.
+++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:06:52 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snip>
The Diamond Princess passengers were supposed to isolated from one another on the ship. The crew managing the isolation were not well-trained in doing that, but it's not evidence about what happens in real life.
Wuhan got put into lockdown after enough people had gotten sick to get the attention of the authorities. That's what limited the infection rate to 3%.
There's absolutely no evidence to support this fatuous suggestion.
Of course it does. It wouldn't be a plain exponential model otherwise.
Italy does demonstrate that it can be remarkably difficult to get people to chance their behaviour. Australia has just been put into drastic lock-down because large swathes of the population had decided that they didn't need to practice social distancing
Actually, you run out of people to infect first.
The problem is that the usual limiting mechanism - herd immunity - requires lots of people to have had the disease, recovered from it, and become immune.
Covid-19 isn't as infectious as the measles, and about 60% herd immunity would reduce R0 below one.
But Covid-19 kills an appreciable proportion of those it infects - roughly ten times as many as seasonal flu - so getting that level of herd immunity kills a lot of people
Like the flu, it kills more elderly people than young people, but it kills a lot more young people than the flu does.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:46:29 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
<snip>
But only 20% of the Diamond Princess' sardines got WuFlu, inconsistent
with simple exponential growth. And only 3% of Wuhan's population were
ultimately infected.
The Diamond Princess passengers were supposed to isolated from one another on the ship. The crew managing the isolation were not well-trained in doing that, but it's not evidence about what happens in real life.
Wuhan got put into lockdown after enough people had gotten sick to get the attention of the authorities. That's what limited the infection rate to 3%.
Probably a minority of people can ever catch the virus. 20% is likely
in the ballpark.
There's absolutely no evidence to support this fatuous suggestion.
Also, the plain exponential model assumes people won't change their
behaviors.
Of course it does. It wouldn't be a plain exponential model otherwise.
Italy does demonstrate that it can be remarkably difficult to get people to chance their behaviour. Australia has just been put into drastic lock-down because large swathes of the population had decided that they didn't need to practice social distancing
The exponential growth can only continue early on in an infection. All
flu starts exponentially. Exponential growth always stops being
exponential. Even in simulation you run out of floating point range.
Actually, you run out of people to infect first.
The problem is that the usual limiting mechanism - herd immunity - requires lots of people to have had the disease, recovered from it, and become immune.
Covid-19 isn't as infectious as the measles, and about 60% herd immunity would reduce R0 below one.
But Covid-19 kills an appreciable proportion of those it infects - roughly ten times as many as seasonal flu - so getting that level of herd immunity kills a lot of people
Like the flu, it kills more elderly people than young people, but it kills a lot more young people than the flu does.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
The exponential model ignores people's limited social networks, and
assumes they will continue to infect new people at the same rate,
ad infinitum.
But only 20% of the Diamond Princess' sardines got WuFlu, inconsistent
with simple exponential growth. And only 3% of Wuhan's population were
ultimately infected.
Also, the plain exponential model assumes people won't change their
behaviors.
I found this report useful--
Active Monitoring of Persons Exposed to Patients with Confirmed COVID-19 â United States, JanuaryâFebruary 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909e1.htm?s_cid=mm6909e1_w
<quote>
Among the first 10 patients with travel-related confirmed
COVID-19 reported in the United States, a total of 445 persons ...
who had close contact with one of the 10 patients on or after the
date of the patientâs symptom onset were identified...
Active symptom monitoring of the 445 close contacts ... for 14 days
following the last known exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19,
was conducted by local health jurisdictions. During the 14 days of
active symptom monitoring, 54 (12%) close contacts developed new or
worsening symptoms deemed by local public health authorities to be
concerning for COVID-19 ... and subsequently were tested for SARS-CoV-2.
Two persons who were household members of patients with confirmed
COVID-19 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This yielded a symptomatic
secondary attack rate of 0.45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12%â1.6%) among all close contacts, and a symptomatic secondary
attack rate of 10.5% (95% CI = 2.9%â31.4%) among household members.
Both persons with confirmed secondary transmission had close contact
with the respective source patient before COVID-19 was confirmed and
were isolated from the source patient after the patientâs COVID-19
diagnosis.
No other close contacts who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 had a positive
test... An additional 146 persons exposed to the two patients with
secondary COVID-19 transmission underwent 14 days of active monitoring.
Among these, 18 (12%) developed symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and
were considered PUIs. All tested negative, and no further symptomatic
COVID-19 cases (representing tertiary transmission) have been
identified.
</quote>
Cheers,
James Arthur
On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 1:45:40 PM UTC-4, legg wrote:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
RL
That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction..
The exponential model ignores people's limited social networks, and
assumes they will continue to infect new people at the same rate,
ad infinitum.
But only 20% of the Diamond Princess' sardines got WuFlu, inconsistent
with simple exponential growth. And only 3% of Wuhan's population were
ultimately infected.
Also, the plain exponential model assumes people won't change their
behaviors.
I found this report useful--
Active Monitoring of Persons Exposed to Patients with Confirmed COVID-19 â United States, JanuaryâFebruary 2020
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909e1.htm?s_cid=mm6909e1_w
<quote>
Among the first 10 patients with travel-related confirmed
COVID-19 reported in the United States, a total of 445 persons ...
who had close contact with one of the 10 patients on or after the
date of the patientâs symptom onset were identified...
Active symptom monitoring of the 445 close contacts ... for 14 days
following the last known exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19,
was conducted by local health jurisdictions. During the 14 days of
active symptom monitoring, 54 (12%) close contacts developed new or
worsening symptoms deemed by local public health authorities to be
concerning for COVID-19 ... and subsequently were tested for SARS-CoV-2.
Two persons who were household members of patients with confirmed
COVID-19 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This yielded a symptomatic
secondary attack rate of 0.45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12%â1.6%) among all close contacts, and a symptomatic secondary
attack rate of 10.5% (95% CI = 2.9%â31.4%) among household members.
Both persons with confirmed secondary transmission had close contact
with the respective source patient before COVID-19 was confirmed and
were isolated from the source patient after the patientâs COVID-19
diagnosis.
No other close contacts who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 had a positive
test... An additional 146 persons exposed to the two patients with
secondary COVID-19 transmission underwent 14 days of active monitoring.
Among these, 18 (12%) developed symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and
were considered PUIs. All tested negative, and no further symptomatic
COVID-19 cases (representing tertiary transmission) have been
identified.
</quote>
Cheers,
James Arthur