This Thread Blows - C19 and beyond

rick81721

Lothar
given more time mixed together, "everyone" would get it. in the statistical sense - cause some would be spared, and
probably not because of immunity, just random non-contact or non-contraction (say the contraction rate was 5% of contact?)
- i'm not sure of the tech term for this, too lazy to look it up. but it is just the chance of getting it when exposed to an individual that has it.
(is that virulance?) -

Think of it like shooting a gun, except the bullets fly erratically in every direction and will only hit you if within 6 ft and within an hour or two from firing. f people are packed in like sardines and you shoot from 3 ft away, yes you will get everyone. Spread everyone out further and further, modify their movements, and the rate drops.
 

a.s.

Mr. Chainring
Think of it like shooting a gun, except the bullets fly erratically in every direction and will only hit you if within 6 ft and within an hour or two from firing. f people are packed in like sardines and you shoot from 3 ft away, yes you will get everyone. Spread everyone out further and further, modify their movements, and the rate drops.
Except bullets don't fall and land everywhere and still have the ability to kill or injure you for 2-3 days after firing.
 

Patrick

Overthinking the draft from the basement already
Staff member
Think of it like shooting a gun, except the bullets fly erratically in every direction and will only hit you if within 6 ft and within an hour or two from firing. f people are packed in like sardines and you shoot from 3 ft away, yes you will get everyone. Spread everyone out further and further, modify their movements, and the rate drops.

that goes into the "factor" -

eventually you will get hit, or the shooting will stop.
again, if we don't do anything, there will be more people shooting, upping the chances.
it isn't a random density problem, like hitting digits in the lottery.
 

jShort

2018 Fantasy Football Toilet Bowl Lead Technician
Team MTBNJ Halter's
If everyone can get it, the infection rate on the diamond princess would have been much higher.

Someone from my BIL’s family is a nurse who has been tasked with going to certain patients homes and testing them. In a more than 1 occasion, only 1 or 2 of the household tested positive.

It really adds more questions than answers but it just confirms that we really don’t know enough to say.
 

Captain Brainstorm

Well-Known Member
If everyone can get it, the infection rate on the diamond princess would have been much higher. So many variables here - no way to figure out the "factor". People are social distancing like never before - this is uncharted territory to try to predict. We are testing people with the appropriate symptoms, as of right now, over 50K have been tested - 90% test negative.

The Diamond Princess was the worst-case scenario - lots of people in the highest-risk group, stuck together for a very long time on a small boat, using shared dining, recreation, and toilet facilities. Waited on by a common crew who could all have been carriers, moving back and forth between all of the passengers. This was the "agar or petri-dish" scenario.
given more time mixed together, "everyone" would get it. in the statistical sense - cause some would be spared, and
probably not because of immunity, just random non-contact or non-contraction (say the contraction rate was 5% of contact?)
- i'm not sure of the tech term for this, too lazy to look it up. but it is just the chance of getting it when exposed to an individual that has it.
(is that virulance?) -

This is 100% not true, people need to stop spreading this around. Given enough time 100% would absolutely NOT get it or be carriers of it. Nothing has a 100% attack rate, and this is no exception. Some people have a robust enough innate immune response that it would take care of it within days of exposure (most kids, lots of healthy people for example). The reason infected people are contagious before symptoms appear is because the Interferon type 1 response is suppressed by the virus, allowing it to replicate unchecked before your innate response kicks in and you become symptomatic. In some people though, the innate response takes care of it before immune evasion can occur.

Someone from my BIL’s family is a nurse who has been tasked with going to certain patients homes and testing them. In a more than 1 occasion, only 1 or 2 of the household tested positive.

It really adds more questions than answers but it just confirms that we really don’t know enough to say.

Problem with these rapid tests is that there is sometimes cross-reactivity between the antibodies that can lead to a false-positive. Immune based tests are not 100% accurate. You need to confirm with RtPCR.
 

rick81721

Lothar
that goes into the "factor" -

eventually you will get hit, or the shooting will stop.
again, if we don't do anything, there will be more people shooting, upping the chances.
it isn't a random density problem, like hitting digits in the lottery.

how would you "eventually get hit" if you stay away from people for a few weeks? does not compute! And again. why do people keep saying "if we do nothing "? That's already not the case.
 

Patrick

Overthinking the draft from the basement already
Staff member
Someone from my BIL’s family is a nurse who has been tasked with going to certain patients homes and testing them. In a more than 1 occasion, only 1 or 2 of the household tested positive.

It really adds more questions than answers but it just confirms that we really don’t know enough to say.

it is allergy season - people are in a panic. I'm glad people are getting good news, even if frightened for a few days.

The confirmed-cases, and trajectory are clear.
Yes it is empirical, we aren't exposing people in a controlled environment to lock-in the exact rates.
Does it matter what the exact number is?

New cases per day, not total cases in this graph.
At a quick glance, I believe many miss that point.

1584467113460.png
 

rick81721

Lothar
The Diamond Princess was the worst-case scenario - lots of people in the highest-risk group, stuck together for a very long time on a small boat, using shared dining, recreation, and toilet facilities. Waited on by a common crew who could all have been carriers, moving back and forth between all of the passengers. This was the "agar or petri-dish" scenario.


This is 100% not true, people need to stop spreading this around. Given enough time 100% would absolutely NOT get it or be carriers of it. Nothing has a 100% attack rate, and this is no exception. Some people have a robust enough innate immune response that it would take care of it within days of exposure (most kids, lots of healthy people for example). The reason infected people are contagious before symptoms appear is because the Interferon type 1 response is suppressed by the virus, allowing it to replicate unchecked before your innate response kicks in and you become symptomatic. In some people though, the innate response takes care of it before immune evasion can occur.



Problem with these rapid tests is that there is sometimes cross-reactivity between the antibodies that can lead to a false-positive. Immune based tests are not 100% accurate. You need to confirm with RtPCR.

Math guys don't understand biological sciences! :D
 

Patrick

Overthinking the draft from the basement already
Staff member
how would you "eventually get hit" if you stay away from people for a few weeks? does not compute! And again. why do people keep saying "if we do nothing "? That's already not the case.

You are an individual, we are talking about large groups, and statistics - so yes, you put yourself in a low-risk-to-contract.
Do you claim zero chance of getting it?
in the next two weeks? in the next year?
 

rick81721

Lothar
You are an individual, we are talking about large groups, and statistics - so yes, you put yourself in a low-risk-to-contract.
Do you claim zero chance of getting it?
in the next two weeks? in the next year?
zero chance? of course not - minimal chance, absolutely.
 

rick81721

Lothar
it is allergy season - people are in a panic. I'm glad people are getting good news, even if frightened for a few days.

The confirmed-cases, and trajectory are clear.
Yes it is empirical, we aren't exposing people in a controlled environment to lock-in the exact rates.
Does it matter what the exact number is?

New cases per day, not total cases in this graph.
At a quick glance, I believe many miss that point.

View attachment 121876

Expect new cases per day to increase for at least another week - there were ~ 20K tests as of last Friday - now it's getting close to 10K per day.
 

stb222

Love Drunk
Jerk Squad
One thing I have noticed is that people who's li
Someone from my BIL’s family is a nurse who has been tasked with going to certain patients homes and testing them. In a more than 1 occasion, only 1 or 2 of the household tested positive.

It really adds more questions than answers but it just confirms that we really don’t know enough to say.
giphy.gif
 
Top Bottom