Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
This is going to be quite a debate ... especially separating science from economics from politics
Coronavirus?!
- Thread starter Hamlet
- Start date
- Status
And yet he gets away with it again.
I'm glad our governors are in control. We can run 50 experiments.
I actually meant a debate on the media ... I have no intention of engaging that sort of subject here... it would most probably only cause conflict and lead nowhere. And yes, Joey does get away with a lot of things...
What's the point of a lockdown when you allow this?
But I'm sure it is scientific post though, that worked the last time.
Analog Ground
- Joined Apr 24, 2019
- 460
IMHO, our situation should still be a public health issue but with different goals. Move on from "flattening the curve". We need important metrics, like "Ro", and there should be a goals for them. For example, Ro = 0.7. Then, open things up consistent with reaching target values. Think of it as a closed loop control system. Do you want overshoot or undershoot? How much? In my state, I think we are headed into a seriously over damped situation.
For me, the question boils down to lives. That is, how many lives would it cost to open up the economy too soon? And that question should be paired with: how many lives would it cost not to open the economy soon enough?
The optimal point would be where those two answers intersect, IMHO.
djsfantasi
- Joined Apr 11, 2010
- 9,237
I’ve never heard anyone suggest a model for the number of lives lost by NOT opening up the economy.
The second problem is a sociological one. Who knows what R0 is? How do we proliferate that understanding?
I doubt there's anyone that can answer that objectively... on the other hand, subjective as it may sound, a quick study should be made on the question of lives lost due to a closed economy... perhaps that question is just as hard to answer as its counterpart.
Hello,
Here is some info on R0 from the WorldOmeter:
How contagious is the Wuhan Coronavirus? (Ro)
The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.
WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]
Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].
Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]
An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.
For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Bertus
Here is some info on R0 from the WorldOmeter:
How contagious is the Wuhan Coronavirus? (Ro)
The attack rate or transmissibility (how rapidly the disease spreads) of a virus is indicated by its reproductive number (Ro, pronounced R-nought or r-zero), which represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus.
WHO's estimated (on Jan. 23) Ro to be between 1.4 and 2.5. [13]
Other studies have estimated a Ro between 3.6 and 4.0, and between 2.24 to 3.58. [23].
Preliminary studies had estimated Ro to be between 1.5 and 3.5. [5][6][7]
An outbreak with a reproductive number of below 1 will gradually disappear.
For comparison, the Ro for the common flu is 1.3 and for SARS it was 2.0.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Bertus
justtrying
- Joined Mar 9, 2011
- 439
No one is even talking about it. Some of the obvious ones are - cancer patients are not getting treatment, surgeries are cancelled, we are headed for potential medication shortages in multiple areas of treatments.
Across the board this affects predominantly those over 60 and immunocompromised. So what is the aim here going forward like this?
And I still cannot get over how bad the data given out is.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jo...who-dies-of-the-pandemic-will-die-of-covid-19
Last edited:
Chloroquine: anecdotal evidence, only???
Known anti-viral effect since 2005.
Note: SARS-CoV is a coronavirus.
Known anti-viral effect since 2005.
Note: SARS-CoV is a coronavirus.
Apparently the chinesium masks just don't quite make the grade...
Medical workers share concerns about masks delivered by Patriots plane
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04...erns-about-masks-delivered-by-patriots-plane/
Medical workers share concerns about masks delivered by Patriots plane
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04...erns-about-masks-delivered-by-patriots-plane/
Small chloroquine study stopped after irregular heart beats detected in subjects
https://thehill.com/policy/internat...opped-after-irregular-heart-beats-detected-in
Did you read the dosages of the two groups?
As an aside, it is now my understanding that chlorquine and hydroxychloroquine are not the same drugs. I have no idea how either of these studies correspond with the use -- or lack thereof -- of hydroxychloroquine.
Sars and covid19 are both corona viruses but not the same strain. So that report is pretty useless.
My sister in law takes it for Lupus. BUT any reputable doctor gives a pretty large battery of testing for the other complications it may cause to some, but not all patients.
- Status
