mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-03-15, 17:47   #177
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

1111000010012 Posts
Default simulitis

One thing the simulations are missing is no dots turn dark, stop moving, and get removed after being counted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...pop_b&itid=sf_
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-15, 21:31   #178
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Rep├║blica de California

2·5,591 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
On the Dutch schools: the government is convening a meeting of all the dissenting experts tomorrow to try and reach a concensus.
I'm having a hard time understanding why there is not an obvious consensus of "the experts" to effect that "we must shut down the schools because the young, as a consequence of the fact that they tend to get a milder form of the infection, are much more likely to want to continue their normal busy social interactions and then infect the very-at-risk older people they come into contact with." The death rate above age 70 is frighteningly high.

Edit: just saw post to effect "Tonight the Netherlands shut down nearly completely, except for supermarkets, food stores, pharmacies, etc. No restaurants, schools, gyms, universities, bars, movies, museums, etc. for the foreseeable future. An eerie silence has descended on Amsterdam." Better late than never.

Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2020-03-15 at 21:34
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-15, 21:55   #179
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Out of my Body

33·67 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1call View Post
*Assuming an incubation period of 14 days:

**Theoretically speaking if all the people avoid close contact for just 15 days then the carriers could be recognized and the epidemic could be eradicated

**Theoretically speaking if all the people would live in close contact in groups numbering a maximum of 2 people avoiding close contact for just 30 days would be sufficient to eradicate the epidemic

** ...
..
**Theoretically speaking if all the people would live in close contact in groups numbering a maximum of n people avoiding close contact for just n.(14+1) days would be sufficient to eradicate the epidemic

Just my 2 cents
I think we have seen evidence that what works is isolation in small scale such as has been done in China, South-Korea and now Austria with banning gatherings of more than 5 people.
At this stage where exponential growth in infections are in most countries of the world, large scale isolation such as closing of the boarders is completely ineffective and a waste of effort and resources. We are all citizens of Earth and should isolate in as small groups as possible to have this disease eradicated as soon as possible, IMHO.
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-15, 22:18   #180
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

125158 Posts
Default

Well, I just love all the amateur pandemic experts here.

Shutting down the planet has many other consequences, some of which are worse than the disease. People needing medicines, from places that stop producing them, will die. Children not in school need their health worker parents to leave work to look after them, depriving more needy patients of care. etc. etc. etc. Have you all done the sums and figures to see which action has the best net outcome?
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-15, 23:56   #181
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

62638 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
Well, I just love all the amateur pandemic experts here.

Shutting down the planet has many other consequences, some of which are worse than the disease. People needing medicines, from places that stop producing them, will die. Children not in school need their health worker parents to leave work to look after them, depriving more needy patients of care. etc. etc. etc. Have you all done the sums and figures to see which action has the best net outcome?
Good evening. My name is Paul Ryan. I used to be Speaker of the House. Dr Sardonicus has kindly let me post using his login.

Everyone's bound to get infected anyway, so we should just get on with life as usual. Not only would this be much less disruptive than shutting down all social gatherings, schools, restaurants, international travel, etc., but it will truly end the epidemic as quickly as possible. Besides, with a "frighteningly high" mortality rate among the elderly, it would work wonders to solve the financial problems of Medicare and Social Security.

Thank you.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-16, 00:48   #182
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

384910 Posts
Default

Tonight's numbers: total 167444, deaths 6440, recovered 76038
high bound cfr 6440/(76038+6440) = 0.078 =7.8% of resolved cases
low bound cfr 6440/167444 = .0385 = 3.85% of all cases
Low bound is understated because death rate of active cases is unlikely to be zero;
high bound is thought to be overstated because some deaths occur quickly while recovery takes longer.
Active cases 167444-6440-76038 = 84966.
Over the weekend China's case total has been exceeded by the rest of the globe.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-16, 00:54   #183
a1call
 
a1call's Avatar
 
"Rashid Naimi"
Oct 2015
Out of my Body

33·67 Posts
Default

<sarcasm>
Precisely, specially since they only have one, perhaps two years to live anyways. Why postpone the inevitable?
Let's alt just sit back and let the herd nature take its course, just as if we are watching a movie.
<\sarcasm>

Last fiddled with by a1call on 2020-03-16 at 00:57
a1call is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-16, 04:48   #184
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

22·5·293 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
Shutting down the planet has many other consequences, some of which are worse than the disease. People needing medicines, from places that stop producing them, will die. Children not in school need their health worker parents to leave work to look after them, depriving more needy patients of care. etc. etc. etc. Have you all done the sums and figures to see which action has the best net outcome?
My state's health department will have many people missing this week because the school system has just closed. Everyone is frantic; they're looking for a way to get them back because they already have a manpower shortage. There are hard choices here.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-16, 04:50   #185
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

2×3×31×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
Good evening. My name is Paul Ryan. I used to be Speaker of the House. Dr Sardonicus has kindly let me post using his login.

Everyone's bound to get infected anyway, so we should just get on with life as usual. Not only would this be much less disruptive than shutting down all social gatherings, schools, restaurants, international travel, etc., but it will truly end the epidemic as quickly as possible. Besides, with a "frighteningly high" mortality rate among the elderly, it would work wonders to solve the financial problems of Medicare and Social Security.

Thank you.
Well put. If all get infected, and "at risk" persons like me and folks who are older have the common decency to die quickly and quietly, it will be much better for the insurance industry, at least. Hospital and Pharma BUSINESSES may have different takes on this.
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-16, 09:44   #186
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

27558 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
Tonight's numbers: total 167444, deaths 6440, recovered 76038
high bound cfr 6440/(76038+6440) = 0.078 =7.8% of resolved cases
low bound cfr 6440/167444 = .0385 = 3.85% of all cases
Low bound is understated because death rate of active cases is unlikely to be zero;
high bound is thought to be overstated because some deaths occur quickly while recovery takes longer.
Active cases 167444-6440-76038 = 84966.
...
Aren't the bounds you compute overstated because of the mild cases that are not diagnosed but do transmit the virus ? Obviously those cases are not counted, but there seem to be a consensus that their number is significant.

Jacob
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-03-16, 12:39   #187
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

3×1,283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S485122 View Post
Aren't the bounds you compute overstated because of the mild cases that are not diagnosed but do transmit the virus ? Obviously those cases are not counted, but there seem to be a consensus that their number is significant.

Jacob
Perhaps so. But we can't use data we don't have. People that are not symptomatic are not being tested or diagnosed. Tests are not 100% reliable.
I suppose a lowest bound would use the nation's human population in the denominator. But that stat seems both very optimistic and not useful for making extrapolations while the pandemic is going on.

If we wanted to determine how many had been exposed, and cost/effort/testkit-supply was no issue, how slight an encounter between the virus and a person's immune system would be detectable; how many viable virii at peak level in a person? Would antibodies from prior contact with SARS be distinguishable from COVID-19 exposure response? Does an immune response killing a single weakened virus particle, or breaking down and disposing of a single dead virus particle, picked up from a metal surface, "count" as infection or exposure to the virus?

One way to look at it is we're attempting to gauge case fatality rate. There's a definition for that. It's the fatality rate among diagnosed cases. Cases so mild they're not diagnosed are not part of the computation, by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fatality_rates Note that this list has SARS at 11% CFR.
That distinction of diagnosed cases versus all cases and possible immunity/carrier status of the asymptomatic leads back to the need for social distancing for everyone, not only the symptomatic or recovering or particularly vulnerable due to age or other preexisting conditions. There are cases diagnosed for which no infection source could be identified, and there does seem to be transmission from some that are not symptomatic, or not symptomatic for a few more days after transmission. The propagation rate R0 must be lowered.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-03-16 at 13:08
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 18:16.

Sat Jun 6 18:16:44 UTC 2020 up 73 days, 15:49, 1 user, load averages: 1.94, 1.97, 1.92

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.