Coronavirus - Overall
-
so China's figures still (hopefully true) very low, less new infections than us, 5 deaths and only 3460 active cases left.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
remember that this is just what the models predict.
I model stuff professionally (well, I used to). All models are wrong, some models are useful. These models can struggle to accurately represent the really complicated actual behaviour of interactions. Dollars to donuts, this is a model that just assumes uncontrolled spread once the restrictions get lifted.
What these don't show is the effect of testing, of people knowing they have had the disease and become largely immune, of being able to maintain some bigger bubbles (like construction sites), all with the intent of reducing the spread of the disease until a vaccine/cure becomes available.
So, yes, if you don't change the underlying assumptions then this will continue to spit out catastrophic outcomes. I'm way more optimistic than that, and suspect that societal behaviour changes will modify the way that this spreads in our communities.
Kind of like HIV. Totally changed sexual habits - normalised condom use, disclosure to partners, STI testing, you name it.
That's a good point, but didn't some of the earlier models also predict HIV to die out in a bell shape curve?
Right now, I'm waiting pretty anxiously to find out whether people who have had it don't get it again (and whether it can easily mutate to start again) as most of our ideas about return to normal (quickly) assume that once you've had it, you're immune to further infection. Has that been shown yet? I hope so)
-
@gt12 said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
remember that this is just what the models predict.
I model stuff professionally (well, I used to). All models are wrong, some models are useful. These models can struggle to accurately represent the really complicated actual behaviour of interactions. Dollars to donuts, this is a model that just assumes uncontrolled spread once the restrictions get lifted.
What these don't show is the effect of testing, of people knowing they have had the disease and become largely immune, of being able to maintain some bigger bubbles (like construction sites), all with the intent of reducing the spread of the disease until a vaccine/cure becomes available.
So, yes, if you don't change the underlying assumptions then this will continue to spit out catastrophic outcomes. I'm way more optimistic than that, and suspect that societal behaviour changes will modify the way that this spreads in our communities.
Kind of like HIV. Totally changed sexual habits - normalised condom use, disclosure to partners, STI testing, you name it.
That's a good point, but didn't some of the earlier models also predict HIV to die out in a bell shape curve?
Right now, I'm waiting pretty anxiously to find out whether people who have had it don't get it again (and whether it can easily mutate to start again) as most of our ideas about return to normal (quickly) assume that once you've had it, you're immune to further infection. Has that been shown yet? I hope so)
I think in the future it will have to be largely absorbed by the health system. I.E. we'll have vaccines that are not 100% but keep overall numbers lower, and some people will still need hospitalisation if they contract it.
Longer term I think we really need to look harder at how we avoid preventable diseases like type 2 diabetes etc. We all need to be collectively a lot fitter to put less strain on our health systems. This sort of thing is inevitable in a globally connected world - it's really our WW3 except we're all on the same team.
-
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@gt12 said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
remember that this is just what the models predict.
I model stuff professionally (well, I used to). All models are wrong, some models are useful. These models can struggle to accurately represent the really complicated actual behaviour of interactions. Dollars to donuts, this is a model that just assumes uncontrolled spread once the restrictions get lifted.
What these don't show is the effect of testing, of people knowing they have had the disease and become largely immune, of being able to maintain some bigger bubbles (like construction sites), all with the intent of reducing the spread of the disease until a vaccine/cure becomes available.
So, yes, if you don't change the underlying assumptions then this will continue to spit out catastrophic outcomes. I'm way more optimistic than that, and suspect that societal behaviour changes will modify the way that this spreads in our communities.
Kind of like HIV. Totally changed sexual habits - normalised condom use, disclosure to partners, STI testing, you name it.
That's a good point, but didn't some of the earlier models also predict HIV to die out in a bell shape curve?
Right now, I'm waiting pretty anxiously to find out whether people who have had it don't get it again (and whether it can easily mutate to start again) as most of our ideas about return to normal (quickly) assume that once you've had it, you're immune to further infection. Has that been shown yet? I hope so)
I think in the future it will have to be largely absorbed by the health system. I.E. we'll have vaccines that are not 100% but keep overall numbers lower, and some people will still need hospitalisation if they contract it.
Longer term I think we really need to look harder at how we avoid preventable diseases like type 2 diabetes etc. We all need to be collectively a lot fitter to put less strain on our health systems. This sort of thing is inevitable in a globally connected world - it's really our WW3 except we're all on the same team.
As in all wars it is probably time for nations to start diverting money into fighting on this new front and then building a preventative defense system
-
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Longer term I think we really need to look harder at how we avoid preventable diseases like type 2 diabetes etc. We all need to be collectively a lot fitter to put less strain on our health systems. This sort of thing is inevitable in a globally connected world - it's really our WW3 except we're all on the same team
it's a lot easier to convince people to fight ze Germans than it is to convince them to stop being fat fluffybunnies
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Modelling in Minnesota shows that they can't avoid the curve with a lockdown, only delay when the peak arrives. They are doing it anyway to rapidly expand their health system in the meantime.
Imperial College London's modelling which is guiding the UK's response shows the same.
The top bloke has said demand on health services will be like a slow tsunami rather than a breaking wave and last far longer then the peak as the backlog of patients they have put on hold to fight the virus need fixing
Looks like we might in this for a while.
These three paragrpahs alone point out the idiocy:
Even the best-case scenario is hard to swallow. It assumes restrictions similar to the lockdown now in place - but suggests that unless testing, contact tracing, and isolation cut the number of cases to just a handful, the restrictions might need to remain in place for over a year.
And if the cases can't be stamped out under those restrictions, the eventual peak will swell well beyond hospital capacity as soon as any lockdown ends, unless a vaccine or treatment is found in the interim.
"When controls are lifted after 400 days, an outbreak occurs with a similar peak size as for an uncontrolled epidemic," Hendy and his colleagues wrote in a paper rushed out yesterday. "In other words, these strategies can delay but not prevent the epidemic."
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
Precisely. No herd immunity because everyone's locked up. Can't open the borders because inevitably carriers will come in and give it to others. Lockdown. Rinse. Repeat.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@gt12 said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
remember that this is just what the models predict.
I model stuff professionally (well, I used to). All models are wrong, some models are useful. These models can struggle to accurately represent the really complicated actual behaviour of interactions. Dollars to donuts, this is a model that just assumes uncontrolled spread once the restrictions get lifted.
What these don't show is the effect of testing, of people knowing they have had the disease and become largely immune, of being able to maintain some bigger bubbles (like construction sites), all with the intent of reducing the spread of the disease until a vaccine/cure becomes available.
So, yes, if you don't change the underlying assumptions then this will continue to spit out catastrophic outcomes. I'm way more optimistic than that, and suspect that societal behaviour changes will modify the way that this spreads in our communities.
Kind of like HIV. Totally changed sexual habits - normalised condom use, disclosure to partners, STI testing, you name it.
That's a good point, but didn't some of the earlier models also predict HIV to die out in a bell shape curve?
Right now, I'm waiting pretty anxiously to find out whether people who have had it don't get it again (and whether it can easily mutate to start again) as most of our ideas about return to normal (quickly) assume that once you've had it, you're immune to further infection. Has that been shown yet? I hope so)
I think in the future it will have to be largely absorbed by the health system. I.E. we'll have vaccines that are not 100% but keep overall numbers lower, and some people will still need hospitalisation if they contract it.
Longer term I think we really need to look harder at how we avoid preventable diseases like type 2 diabetes etc. We all need to be collectively a lot fitter to put less strain on our health systems. This sort of thing is inevitable in a globally connected world - it's really our WW3 except we're all on the same team.
As in all wars it is probably time for nations to start diverting money into fighting on this new front and then building a preventative defense system
What's preventative? Building a massive ICU capability?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@No-Quarter said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@gt12 said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
remember that this is just what the models predict.
I model stuff professionally (well, I used to). All models are wrong, some models are useful. These models can struggle to accurately represent the really complicated actual behaviour of interactions. Dollars to donuts, this is a model that just assumes uncontrolled spread once the restrictions get lifted.
What these don't show is the effect of testing, of people knowing they have had the disease and become largely immune, of being able to maintain some bigger bubbles (like construction sites), all with the intent of reducing the spread of the disease until a vaccine/cure becomes available.
So, yes, if you don't change the underlying assumptions then this will continue to spit out catastrophic outcomes. I'm way more optimistic than that, and suspect that societal behaviour changes will modify the way that this spreads in our communities.
Kind of like HIV. Totally changed sexual habits - normalised condom use, disclosure to partners, STI testing, you name it.
That's a good point, but didn't some of the earlier models also predict HIV to die out in a bell shape curve?
Right now, I'm waiting pretty anxiously to find out whether people who have had it don't get it again (and whether it can easily mutate to start again) as most of our ideas about return to normal (quickly) assume that once you've had it, you're immune to further infection. Has that been shown yet? I hope so)
I think in the future it will have to be largely absorbed by the health system. I.E. we'll have vaccines that are not 100% but keep overall numbers lower, and some people will still need hospitalisation if they contract it.
Longer term I think we really need to look harder at how we avoid preventable diseases like type 2 diabetes etc. We all need to be collectively a lot fitter to put less strain on our health systems. This sort of thing is inevitable in a globally connected world - it's really our WW3 except we're all on the same team.
As in all wars it is probably time for nations to start diverting money into fighting on this new front and then building a preventative defense system
What's preventative? Building a massive ICU capability?
Stockpiles of PPE and other medical supplies, investment in scanning equipment at all airports, more funding for CDCs and research into understanding these coronaviruses for a start.
-
Great. I can't wait for transiting airports to be even worse than it currently is.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Overall:
Great. I can't wait for transiting airports to be even worse than it currently is.
I reckon it's pretty tough right now as it is.... In terms of scanning equipment I was thinking in terms of Taiwan, who were able to roll out the gear they had already used for SARS when things were starting to slide, as opposed to trying to control influx and having no actual capability (like us) other than asking people to volunteer information
-
Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?query=featured_homeSARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A).
SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces
-
@antipodean So is SARS 2 the current virus? Graphically they look very similar
-
Don't know whether this has already been posted (can't keep up with you lot).
More numbers.
-
Not a meme
-
@antipodean England? Oz? (I bloody well hope not) NZ?
-
@gt12 said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Overall:
so, what does this mean? There is no way these restrictions can last 400 days. That's insane to even consider.
And, on top of that, they may not even do anything? So what's the plan? Delay and hope a solution comes later? Are they just buying time to the detriment of a hell of a lot?
remember that this is just what the models predict.
I model stuff professionally (well, I used to). All models are wrong, some models are useful. These models can struggle to accurately represent the really complicated actual behaviour of interactions. Dollars to donuts, this is a model that just assumes uncontrolled spread once the restrictions get lifted.
What these don't show is the effect of testing, of people knowing they have had the disease and become largely immune, of being able to maintain some bigger bubbles (like construction sites), all with the intent of reducing the spread of the disease until a vaccine/cure becomes available.
So, yes, if you don't change the underlying assumptions then this will continue to spit out catastrophic outcomes. I'm way more optimistic than that, and suspect that societal behaviour changes will modify the way that this spreads in our communities.
Kind of like HIV. Totally changed sexual habits - normalised condom use, disclosure to partners, STI testing, you name it.
That's a good point, but didn't some of the earlier models also predict HIV to die out in a bell shape curve?
Right now, I'm waiting pretty anxiously to find out whether people who have had it don't get it again (and whether it can easily mutate to start again) as most of our ideas about return to normal (quickly) assume that once you've had it, you're immune to further infection. Has that been shown yet? I hope so)
Best guess is that it's like many viruses, each season there can be a new strain and no immunity for that. But if anyone got it they should be safe for six months plus.
-
@Machpants said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@antipodean England? Oz? (I bloody well hope not) NZ?
St Kilda (Melbourne) apparently.