The Coronavirus, not the beer

[nsacpi]

I appreciate your response here.

It is not conclusive to say it was spreading late 2019 yet until we can get a similar autopsy result so I am stretching to fit my bias.

In terms of what it would change...That gives more credence to the idea that we have much wider spread than thought which would lower fatatlity rate.

But we already have data from a hard hit state, New York, that implies a fatality rate of .5%.

Moving the first case to December is not going to change that. Trying to infer the fatality rate from the start date is pretty unreliable. Why even engage in that exercise when we have solid data that tells us what it is. And we will soon have even more data as more tests for antibodies get rolled out.

 

[thethe]

But we already have data from a hard hit state, New York, that implies a fatality rate of .5%.

Moving the first case to December is not going to change that. Trying to infer the fatality rate from the start date is pretty unreliable. Why even engage in that exercise when we have solid data that tells us what it is. And we will soon have even more data as more tests for antibodies get rolled out.

Its not using it as a data point for calculation. Its helps inform and support a position but ultimately the only true way is with randomized serological testing.

 

[nsacpi]

Seriously?

If the virus has a specific base R naught that we are comfortable with and it was introduced earlier that doesn't indicate more infection in the population?

cuz there is a yuge amount of randomness at the start of the infection...R naught can only be estimated reliably once you have thousands of infections.

its like a mutation...the first person who has that mutation either has children or not...but once that mutation is in say 10% of the population we can be certain 10% of the next generation will have it

 

[thethe]

cuz there is a yuge amount of randomness at the start of the infection...R naught can only be estimated reliably once you have thousands of infections.

its like a mutation...the first person who has that mutation either has children or not...but once that mutation is in say 10% of the population we can be certain 10% of the next generation will have it

I agree with this but you get to the 10% faster the sooner the original seed infection is there

Thats the whole point.

All of these other variables of population impacts can never be quantified so its not worth considering them IMO. I have to assume regular transmission within a population set.

 

[Metaphysicist]

Of course the study wasn't perfect but they actually administered the treatment and knew of the conditions of their subjects prior to introducing the variable.

Thats a big ****ing deal if you ask me.

Don't know why you think they didn't know the conditions of the patients.

Seriously?

If the virus has a specific base R naught that we are comfortable with and it was introduced earlier that doesn't indicate more infection in the population?

As explained to you multiple times, and even by you yourself when arguing other points, R0 is not a "specific base" that describes the rate that every individual promulgates. Having a few cases doesn't mean you can just plug in R0 and know the whole population months later. What you want to know is when it was in a a large enough portion of the population that R0 becomes a useful descriptor, not when the literal first person had.

EDIT:

Its not using it as a data point for calculation. Its helps inform and support a position but ultimately the only true way is with randomized serological testing.

So you agree the only way to actually know is to test, but you are just arguing to be a dick got it.

 

[thethe]

The virus absolutely has a 'base' that we can assume and will go up or down based on the population characteristics

Identifying original seed infection is a huge part of the equation in not calculating the death rate but to drive our research in the appropriate direction which is that this virus has been spreading since late 2019 (my opinion of course)

 

[thethe]

It has been confirmed now that China was behind the mass texts about martial law being instiuted in mid march.

I fear a war that has been brewing for a while is now coming to a head.

 

[nsacpi]

I agree with this but you get to the 10% faster the sooner the original seed infection is there

not necessarily...when only 1 person is carrying that seed even if R naught is 2 there is a significant chance the infection dies off without large numbers of people getting it

date of initial infection adds muy poquito information...it is something we have a natural curiosity about, but the infection that triggers a widespread outbreak might be the fifth or sixth or twelfth seed...not necessarily that first one

 

[thethe]

not necessarily...when only 1 person is carrying that seed even if R naught is 2 there is a significant chance the infection dies off without large numbers of people getting it

This is highly unlikely considering the asymptomatic spread properties as well as other items that have recently come out that indicate the virus can live outside of the host in upwards of 12 hours.

I'm sorry but your assessment is kind of wishful thinking.

 

[nsacpi]

This is highly unlikely considering the asymptomatic spread properties as well as other items that have recently come out that indicate the virus can live outside of the host in upwards of 12 hours.

I'm sorry but your assessment is kind of wishful thinking.

not only is there a significant chance the first infection dies off without becoming widespread...but even if it gets transmitted, the first few rounds of transmission will have a lot of randomness...that is the nature of small samples...it is only as we get significant numbers of people infected that the R naught calculations become reliable

 

[thethe]

not only is there a significant chance the first infection dies off without becoming widespread...but even if it gets transmitted, the first few rounds of transmission will have a lot of randomness...that is the nature of small samples...it is only as we get significant numbers of people infected that the R naught calculations become reliable

There is a significant chance that the original infection that arrived via plane into an airport has a significant chance of dying off?

Is that serious?

 

[Metaphysicist]

Is that serious?

It's a question many of us have been asking.

 

[thethe]

It's a question many of us have been asking.

You should be asking that question regarding the point of a highly infectious disease dying out when it was transported here in an enclosed space with a healthy number of uninfected hosts.

Its an irrational point.

 

[nsacpi]

There is a significant chance that the original infection that arrived via plane into an airport has a significant chance of dying off?

Is that serious?

sure...you could be having lunch with an infected person and not get it...in many households one family member gets it and others don't...in some households they all get it...the spread does not become predictable until the numbers infected are large

 

[thethe]

sure...you could be having lunch with an infected person and not get it...in many households one family member gets it and others don't...in some households they all get it...the spread does not become predictable until the numbers infected are large

Being surrounded in a plane with lets say 200+ people and there would be no spread?

Walking around in an airport with conceivably 100K people and there would be no spread?

Come on now

 

[nsacpi]

You should be asking that question regarding the point of a highly infectious disease dying out when it was transported here in an enclosed space with a healthy number of uninfected hosts.

Its an irrational point.

Some diseases have R naughts of 10 or higher. Those are highly infectious. Fortunately COVID is not like that.

 

[nsacpi]

Being surrounded in a plane with lets say 200+ people and there would be no spread?

Walking around in an airport with conceivably 100K people and there would be no spread?

Come on now

Seriously, you are not going to come close to 100K people in an airport. On a plane maybe the 2 people in your row have significant risk of catching it. But the point is that an R naught of 2 or 3 leaves considerable room for an initial seeding to die out.

If you don't think there is a lot of randomness, take a look at rural counties in GA. And ask yourself why one or two are getting hit hard and others not. It is because when the numbers are small unpredictable things will happen.

Over a small number of at bats Pedro Ciriaco will hit better than Freddie Freeman. Strange things happen with a small number of observations.

 

[thethe]

Seriously, you are not going to come close to 100K people in an airport. But the point is that an R naught of 2 or 3 leaves considerable room for an initial seeding to die out.

Of course you are not going to come close to them. The idea is that with that type of density you are going to encounter hundreds and its very likely the virus spread immediately after the original seed infection.

 

[Carp]

It has been confirmed now that China was behind the mass texts about martial law being instiuted in mid march.

I fear a war that has been brewing for a while is now coming to a head.

Nah, I bet it was Ukraine, posing as China, in order help Joe Biden and the dems. I'm sure there's a server somewhere.

 

[thethe]

Love the Pedro reference on the edit.

It still doesn't account for the fact thats its extremely likely spread started with the original seed infection based on its path into the US.