Dude, you rock.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.).
I don’t know a ton about epidemiology... but I do about statistics. And it seems like most epidemiologists don’t trust the study, something that confirmed my doubts about the statistical reliability of such large numbers.Dude, you rock.
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.).
As we stand, after 12 days of worst case it would be over 8k.2nd Positive test came on Feb 29th. If we went by worst case scenario and the amount of positive tests doubled daily, we’d be over a million today.
As of right now, 1:12pm we have just over 7k total.
First positive case was Jan 19th and everything I’ve seen, he has recovered.
2nd Positive test came on Feb 29th. If we went by worst case scenario and the amount of positive tests doubled daily, we’d be over a million today.
As of right now, 1:12pm we have just over 7k total.
First positive case was Jan 19th and everything I’ve seen, he has recovered.
It all depends on availability of testing. Could be a lot of people that have it but can't get to a testing location / were just told to stay home by their doctor because they're not in the at risk category. Though I don't believe it's that widespread yet, it wouldn't surprise me if that many people in the US have it but haven't been confirmed.
Hopefully the measures taken so far have curbed it, but we likely won't know that for a few days. More likely this time next week.
Why was H1n1 etc so different? How did we get through other ones without all this?
The other question they are trying to answer in Israel is if, due to genetic disposition, certain people are more likely to be in the group that dies versus gets really sick versus get a bad cold. This also relates to immunity. If they can figure that out then making a vaccine will happen quicker, social isolation will become more effective, and more of this can be controlled with lighter measures.The modified herd-immunity thing starts to get interesting at that point. Assuming you can't truly catch it a second time -- and I realize that's an "if" at that point -- and we can effectively test for immunity/antibodies, then it might make sense to permit those who are now immune to return to more normal activities. The reason is that the more people we have who can return to normal activities, the sooner businesses, etc., can stop the losses, and the longer those who still are at risk will be able to remain more quarantined without everything collapsing completely. I suppose it would also require solid data on the period of time that needs to elapse before a person who tests positive is no longer contagious.
It all depends on availability of testing. Could be a lot of people that have it but can't get to a testing location / were just told to stay home by their doctor because they're not in the at risk category. Though I don't believe it's that widespread yet, it wouldn't surprise me if that many people in the US have it but haven't been confirmed.
Hopefully the measures taken so far have curbed it, but we likely won't know that for a few days. More likely this time next week.
This one has a mortality rate that is far worse.
Italy is on pace to have more casualties than China.
Which tells me China isnt being truthful. Neither is Russia.