• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Coronavirus - Official Notifications Etc. PM Stannis with Official Updates for Posting

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
When the California forest fires were making the air dangerous, I bought an air purifier with UV-C light to kill off germs. They are available for a little under a hundred bucks. Last spring it seemed like we were healthier and took less sick days, so we have had it running for two years straight. If you want to feel a little more power over this thing, you should look into having one shipped.
 
​
​
​
Man Called X said:
This. Can't say this enough. But that doesn't allow the ultra elite to continue destroying wealth for the collected masses. I'm in full 100% conspiracy bunker mode at this point. Bugging out and going dark at the end of the week at this rate.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from. To be honest, I'd be far more concerned about a foreign adversary taking advantage of the situation than the ultra elites in the US. Whether or not you believe the numbers, Russia only has 147 reported cases and no deaths. While China's had a lot of infections and death, relative to their total population it's not very high.

Hubei, where Wuhan is located, has seen 67,800 infections and 3,122 deaths in an overall population of 58.5 million. This is the epicenter of the whole thing though.

Outside of Hubei, the rest of China's population of nearly 1 Billion has reported about 140 deaths and 14,000 cases. If true, that's actually remarkable given what's happened in places like Italy and Iran up to this point. How is that possible with how their cities are constructed? What measures did they take / what do they know about dealing with it that the rest of the world (for the most part) doesn't?

It would stand to reason that if the lab was in Wuhan, they'd have to have some type of containment strategies in place in the event something like this happens. Even if the Chinese are a bit lax with how they deal with disposing of lab animals, those numbers just don't make a lot of sense.
 
The Imperial College report has a lot of flaws. First, it runs the simulation largely using data from Italy, which is the worst-case scenario.

Second, the "18 months" is only one scenario they discuss.

Third, while counting for vaccines, it largely ignores any possibility of treatments arising (such as chloroquine, which is being used effectively in China and South Korea).

Fourth, it does not consider the "contact tracing" whereby, after ~3 weeks of social isolation, society starts realizing who is sick and they begin quarantining themselves, which is what we are seeing in South Korea.

Fifth, they do not consider how cases spread. I.E., most cases of identified COVID-19 are not air-spread, but by coming in contact with someone's germs. This happens frequently because of the long-time with asymptomatic illness. BUT, this means social isolation has a benefit that the Imperial College study does not address: those germs become contained.

Sixth, it barely accounts for a possibility where militaries are mobilized to build beds and other hospital infrastructure.

Seventh, these were the same guys that advocated for the herd-strategy until they realized the potential damage, then they switched their policy recommendation.

A link to a review that addresses the fourth and fifth points, specifically.


Listen, this will suck, it really will. Lots of people will die. But this Imperial College study is dangerous in that it ignores ergodicity in their simulation.
 
Update- Got my note to return to work tomorrow but the doctor declined to test for the virus. I have a feeling if I pushed for it he would have but his quote was we need to use some common sense, you have an upper respiratory infection, no fever and no other symptoms. So ultimately did not get tested.
 
Why was H1n1 etc so different? How did we get through other ones without all this?
 
jking948 said:
The Imperial College report has a lot of flaws. First, it runs the simulation largely using data from Italy, which is the worst-case scenario.

Second, the "18 months" is only one scenario they discuss.

Third, while counting for vaccines, it largely ignores any possibility of treatments arising (such as chloroquine, which is being used effectively in China and South Korea).

Fourth, it does not consider the "contact tracing" whereby, after ~3 weeks of social isolation, society starts realizing who is sick and they begin quarantining themselves, which is what we are seeing in South Korea.

Fifth, they do not consider how cases spread. I.E., most cases of identified COVID-19 are not air-spread, but by coming in contact with someone's germs. This happens frequently because of the long-time with asymptomatic illness. BUT, this means social isolation has a benefit that the Imperial College study does not address: those germs become contained.

Sixth, it barely accounts for a possibility where militaries are mobilized to build beds and other hospital infrastructure.

Seventh, these were the same guys that advocated for the herd-strategy until they realized the potential damage, then they switched their policy recommendation.

A link to a review that addresses the fourth and fifth points, specifically.


Listen, this will suck, it really will. Lots of people will die. But this Imperial College study is dangerous in that it ignores ergodicity in their simulation.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
Okay, I'll admit I had to look that one up. Anyone else?
Click to expand...
Ha! Sorry, I get excited.

The way I teach it to students is to imagine if you flip one coin 100 times or you have 100 people flip a coin one time. You should get an ergodic situation. The results should be the same! But if you take this into something like gambling, where the results are different, then the situation is non-ergodic. In a non-ergodic situation, over time, the individual does not get the same average as the group.

The grand majority of human systems are non-ergodic. If I lose all your money taking a bet that most people profit off of, you, in no way, are comforted.

In this case, the ICL study treats new infections as a function of the fraction of currently infected people and developed immunity. That's a problem because it means infection rate remains stable, even after benefits of social isolation that they do not consider (contact tracing, hospitals having more beds due to controlled rate of infection, the possibility of treatments, mobilization of the military to build hospital infrastructure, etc.).
 
It's really nice to see some voice of reason here. I keep telling myself and my family that we need to wait two more weeks to get any sort of a handle on what we're looking at here. Simulations and studies predicting the future based on the minimal data we currently have should, IMO, be viewed as guesswork.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top