-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Ya, Japan seems to be falling. All new cases are from Local transmissions from unknown sources.
I did not realize that they continue to to let flights from China land. Must be because of the olympics.
The diamond princess experiment is giving very interesting results. ~10% infection rate with containment in place. ~ 3% in intensive care. Which is similar to the death rate. Which means the death rate in wuhan is probably due to overloaded systems.
Bad news is that it seems to hit hard on The young and non smoking population as well, just not as many.
If you go to the source (link posted earlier) you can point at each destination, and get the updated data. I find it useful for especially for following the situation in Shanghai. If you look in the left corner of the map, you will see that I pointed at Shanghai, as I find it to be most relevant to us/Tesla factory. The situation in Shanghai looks stabilized for the past days. Se snippet from picture. I also find the total situation for the most affected countries informative.
FYI: Watts Up With that is a climate denial site. Probably not the best place to be posting scientific references from.
The guy you're linking is this guy:
https://www.amazon.com/Blowing-Smoke-Essays-Energy-Climate-ebook/dp/B00OJSOCNK
Last edited:
Seriously? Did you read the article? Please read it before making such comments. At the very least it is irresponsible. If the article has solid information (which it does) then warding off other people from reading it does everyone a gross disservice. If it helps, the article isn’t written by the blog author.
As noted above, the article is written by this guy:
https://www.amazon.com/Blowing-Smoke-Essays-Energy-Climate-ebook/dp/B00OJSOCNK?tag=tmc064-20
A person who plays amateur contrarian climatologist is now playing amateur contrarian epidemiologist. People should have a strong "reader beware" sign posted before clicking that link.
(I'll just note that the thing that got me to check the URL of the site - which I didn't notice initially, and which ultimately led me to look up the author - was that I noticed some glaring errors in what I was reading)
Last edited:
Misusing R0 (including trying to estimate it from a single case). Erroneous mean incubation period (it's not 7-10 days; one study pinned it at 3d, another at 5,2d, and another at 6,2d). Misinterpreting exceptional case reports as being characteristic. Grossly misinterpreting the mortality / recovery ratio (treating it as a mortality rate). Repeatedly contradicting actual experts in the field. Lots of things. His Diamond Princess example is particularly bad, as he appears to have forgotten entirely about the incubation period when talking about his "37 new cases per day for 4 days", and is simply wrong about everyone who has symptoms being removed from the ship as soon as their symptoms develop (e.g. a "symptomless R0 experiment"):
11 crew on the quarantined coronavirus cruise ship have contracted the disease — and the rest are afraid they'll be next
The policy so far has only been to remove people after a test confirms that they have the disease, not the moment that they develop symptoms. There's a lag between both symptoms and testing, and between testing and removal. The policy has changed over time, and is still changing. Additionally, a common complaint has been the poor isolation of the crew in general; only the passengers are on lockdown (and not the same restrictions for all passengers).
That's not to say that there can't be asymptomatic transmission - there seems to be a general consensus that it can occur, but is not the primary mode of spreading "in the wild". It's just that his description of the cruise ship as "an artificial (close quarters) symptomless R0 experiment" is false, because people on the ship have symptoms for significant length of time before removal, and the incubation lag time is unaccounted for. And indeed, we come back to misusing R0, because by the very definition of R0, it's inapplicable in an artificial setting (R0 only applies to "normal environments" where people behave normally).
But regardless, this is just the stuff that cued me in to check exactly what I was reading and who was posting it. And then I saw the site, which raised a big red flag, because the site is famously full of "intelligent-sounding" pseudoscience written by people "playing climatologist". So I then looked up the author.
(BTW, it's after 5:30 AM here, and I have no interest in playing "amateur epidemiologist vs. amateur epidemiologist". People are advised to stick to listening to expert consensuses, not climate denial blog authors)
Last edited:
Singer3000
Member
Coronavirus could kill 400,000 Brits if deadly bug sweeps across the nation, ‘concerned’ expert warns
Check-out the sensationalism here. And before you say "It's the Sun", the quotes are from a professor at Imperial College London, so are treated seriously by people.
The sort of thing that that in my view makes a 2020 recession now perhaps more likely than not. Might still be ok if the media gets bored and the news cycle moves onto something else.
Check-out the sensationalism here. And before you say "It's the Sun", the quotes are from a professor at Imperial College London, so are treated seriously by people.
CORONAVIRUS has the "potential" to kill 400,000 Brits if the killer bug sweeps across the nation, an expert has warned. Professor Neil Ferguson said the figure is "not absurd" and the deadly disease “concerns” him more than any other illness he has worked on.
The sort of thing that that in my view makes a 2020 recession now perhaps more likely than not. Might still be ok if the media gets bored and the news cycle moves onto something else.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
One way I look at it is, I take the worst case prediction of the worst fear mongers and average it out by the best case prediction of the deniers.
Then I look at the qualification of the fear mongers. How related they are to this field and the qualification of the deniers and how related they are to this field. Especially, who are the ones claiming "this is just a flue dude". Based on their education on this field, I give their prediction weighting and then redo the average
People can form their opinions themselves.
What I don't like seeing right now, is local Jap to Jap transmission and local Sing to Sing transmission. These are not cases of Chinese travelers who landed in foreign countries. And it seems to hit front line healthcare workers first as patients sees their doctors thinking this is just a flu. Singapore proves that this virus can survive in hot weather.
I have a suspiscion that the virus cannot survive in colder weather, which is why the case report in Canada is so low right now and the cases in Germany did not spread further.
Then if you want to go to the extreme. You can look up the SOS website that people in China under quarantine can use to call for help. It makes this whole thing very real and very depressing very fast.
Edit: Darpa and los alamos crunched the numbers and R0 is estimated to be 4.7~6.6. I don't know if you can treat this as fear mongering anymore.
Last edited:
Yuri_G
Member
Disagree. Say there is a journalist that primarily covers the oil industry and they are tasked with reviewing an electric car... Credentials are huge when it comes to reporting and journalism.
There's a huge range in published R0 figures, and there always is early on; the study you refer to funded by DARPA and LANL ("The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript") is by far the highest, among many. But as an example, measles has an R0 of 12-18, and people still control outbreaks of it among unvaccinated populations. R0 is also only one parameter among many used in determining the severity of a threat:
Basic reproduction number - Wikipedia
Similar threads
