Jump to content

Coronavirus


Xd the great

Recommended Posts

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.04004.pdf

This paper was posted up the thread a ways, and is the paper with the network model. They've revised it with more data.

These guys think total outbreak size is closer to 15%, though with uncertainty range up to 40% (paper page 3). They think the k parameter is high (low variance), but R0 sort of low.

High k makes outbreaks harder to contain, since everyone tends to actually infect the R0 number of people—a low k parameter means that some people might infect very few or no people, with superspreaders driving the outbreak, and those are easier to mitigate (close large group meetings, etc).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light," the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, "and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it.

"And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting," the president continued.

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

"So it'd be interesting to check that."

Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177

I would not be surprised if, in a few days, unusually high number of people started getting dead from acute alcohol poisoning, or some other, as of now, uncommon kind of poisoning, but related to disinfectant ingredients.

Also, a rise of weird and horrible sunburns.

You can't make this up.

Poor Dr. Birx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

  

55 minutes ago, tater said:

I'm all for thinning the herd.

59 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

I would not be surprised if, in a few days, unusually high number of people started getting dead from acute alcohol poisoning,

Only thin and sober will stay by the end of summer, after eating all canned and bottled food in spring.

5 minutes ago, VoidCosmos said:

Did I miss anything?

How could we say? Probably, yes. Everyone is missing sometimes. But depends on what you have taken aim at.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this before, but it shows estimated Rt (R effective) by State.

https://rt.live/

More densely populated States top out at ~1.6 (NY closer to 2), and the site starts tracking a half a week or more before various gov mandated mitigations took effect (some ~March 12, others in the following weeks)

Herd immunity is based on R0, but functionally it's the same as Rt for time periods when the populations are behaving "as usual," they are not immutable characteristics of the virus.

So if we look at the pre-shutdown values, that alone tells us what herd immunity could look like in a population concerned about COVID-19, but not mandated to do anything about it.

Rt = 1.6 requires ~37.5% infection for herd immunity. Less crowded States start in the 1.2 to 1.4 range, though—~17% to 29% infection rate to get herd immunity as long as norms continue along the pre-lockdown norms (voluntary distancing, more work from home if possible, staying home if sick, etc).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Shpaget said:

I would not be surprised if, in a few days, unusually high number of people started getting dead from acute alcohol poisoning, or some other, as of now, uncommon kind of poisoning, but related to disinfectant ingredients.

Also, a rise of weird and horrible sunburns.

Last time he mentioned hydroxychloroquine, there were exactly two fatalities. Don't overestimate the readiness of people to consume odd substances - Tide Pods, after all, were just a meme.

As to UV-c, it absolutely works and should be aggressively introduced as we're nearing a point where the lockdowns will be either prematurely lifted, or widely disregarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydroxychloroquine is significantly less available than off the shelf disinfectants, ethanol or rubbing alcohol.

UV-C does work, but shining it at a live subjects, especially at "tremendously powerful" levels will most certainly not cure you of corona, and will in fact cause you some serious issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

UV-C does work, but shining it at a live subjects, especially at "tremendously powerful" levels will most certainly not cure you of corona, and will in fact cause you some serious issues.

Ah, yes. Especially when you shine it at e.g. the lung tissue. *evilgrin*

In the last few days I often think back to what a high-school (well, in the US it would have been junior high school) biology teacher told us once: "You can kill viruses easily, just point a flame-thrower at them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DDE said:

As to UV-c, it absolutely works and should be aggressively introduced as we're nearing a point where the lockdowns will be either prematurely lifted, or widely disregarded.

UV-c would be great for disinfecting objects and surfaces which cannot readily be dunked in bleach or rubbing alcohol. For example, if hair salons want to reopen, they can do so if the beauticians pass an antibody test and all surfaces get zapped with 10 minutes of skin-blistering UV between each customer.

UV-c does jack sh*t as a preventative or a treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, tater said:

 

The funniest thing is that the comic isn’t completely wrong about epigenetics. My lab studies DNA methylation (an epigenetic modification), and when we need to show a modified nucleotide (usually methylcytosine) in a sequence, we just underline it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shpaget said:

UV-C does work, but shining it at a live subjects, especially at "tremendously powerful" levels will most certainly not cure you of corona, and will in fact cause you some serious issues.

5 watts or so is enough to cleanse a surface pretty thoroughly.

9 hours ago, AHHans said:

Ah, yes. Especially when you shine it at e.g. the lung tissue. *evilgrin*

Oh, you may jest about swallowing blacklight lightbulbs... but since COVID seems to be isn't so much a pneumonia as a general bloodborne pathology,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783265/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5066074/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DDE said:

5 watts or so is enough to cleanse a surface pretty thoroughly

How many watts is needed to fully penetrate the human body to the core? That's what was being suggested.

Edited by Superfluous J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/doctors-from-california-fly-in-to-assist-on-navajo-nation/5709020/

Quote

The Navajo Nation is uniquely challenged-- with 40% of residents living without electricity, and 30% without running water.  

The patients end up in hospitals in AZ, or here in NM—where as many people have died in San Juan County, NM (extreme NW, some of where Navajo Nation is) as here in Bernalillo County even though we have 5.5X the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sh1pman said:

The funniest thing is that the comic isn’t completely wrong about epigenetics.

That's pretty much true for all XKCD comics.

During the years when I was working with ICAO to create the CO2 certification standard, I used to check XKCD mid-week when I would be at the meetings. And it was remarkable how often the comic was dead on for what we were doing at that meeting. So often, in fact, it felt like Munroe must have actually been in the room with us.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stories are starting to come out that suggest that COVID-19 has more ways to kill people than was previously realized. Strokes and blood clots are now starting to be associated with positive COVID tests. And they are affecting people of younger ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184

"At triage, 30.7% of patients were febrile"

So fewer than 1/3 who were sick enough to admit to the hospital had a fever. Meanwhile, checking temos is a thing to let people into some workplaces (including hospitals).

 

12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Stories are starting to come out that suggest that COVID-19 has more ways to kill people than was previously realized. Strokes and blood clots are now starting to be associated with positive COVID tests. And they are affecting people of younger ages.

How many, though?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200423143100.htm

A significant % of people admitted have PEs. Yeah, that's no bueno. Would be interesting to see them look at people who were sent home (without admission), and maybe even people who never sought care, but who have antibodies. (to see if this is a feature of severe disease, or if it increases chances substantially for moderate, and mild disease as well).

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...