Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 234 posts

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#181

Post by nkrisc »

ineedasername wrote: post #48
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Due to the emergence of the coronavirus, Kinsa is receiving two to three times more thermometer readings per day than in previous flu seasons. Historically, Kinsa’s methods have been able to account for a sharp rise in the number of people taking tests, said Benjamin Dalziel, a professor at Oregon State University who studies infectious diseases. For his research, Dalziel has ensured that a spike in testing didn’t…

That'll teach me to rush to comment when I see something "off" instead of reading the whole thing. I'm tempted to delete a post that isn't useful now, but I should leave it as a minor embarrassing lesson to myself. I wish people would stop upvoting me though... Each one makes me cringe: another person who didn't read very carefully.

Even if you jumped to an incorrect conclusion in this case, it's still a useful one in other cases. And anyone who maybe would not have thought of that might learn something from your comment, even if it wasn't applicable in this specific instance.

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#182

Post by logicallee »

robocat wrote: post #174
lukevdp wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you come to the .5% death rate after 3 weeks assumption?

Pick whatever numbers you think are reasonable based on the data you have read - I think you will end up with a worrying result. I use this analysis because the number of deaths is hard to fudge, and the fatality rate after x days, and the infection rate are somewhat measurable (I believe there are statistically valid measurements of those numbers). Any analysis based upon detected cases is deeply flawed IMHO, becaus…

The number of deaths is hard to judge but as for

>Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore:

... you're not allowed to assume that. It means on April 26th two thirds of all Americans (204.8 million）will be infected.

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#183

Post by [deleted] »

tomerico wrote: post #169

Here is a reason to believe that the data is biased. If you look at any county in California - you’d see a large drop on the exact date that the statewide shelter in place was ordered. This is obviously before any of the effects of isolation would manifest themselves. The reason is likely due to larger amount of testing done due to the panic, that is not properly accounted for in their algorithm.

[deleted]

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#185

Post by Lewton »

myself248 wrote: post #128
saalweachter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This current situation had me wondering how hard it would be to coordinate a regular -- maybe not yearly -- global self-isolation for say 2-3 weeks at a time. Aside from the difficulties of getting everyone in the world to agree that the first three weeks of February during a leap year are observed through social distance, it doesn't seem like it would be as bad on a recurring basis as it is during an emergency like…

I've theorized this about sexually transmitted diseases, too. It's even less realistic to imagine compliance, but suppose everyone only had sex with people who were born the same year as them. Any given disease would lose the ability to spread into younger people, and simply fall off the end of the age conveyor-belt.

In an ideal world you wouldn't even have to go that far. Just say that anyone born before 2020 is not allowed to have sex with anyone born in 2020 or later

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#187

Post by PeterisP »

lukevdp wrote: post #160
robocat wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that US COVID19 fatalities are 1,031 today. Assuming 0.5% death rate after 3 weeks, then 3 weeks ago there were 200000 infected. Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore: The US has 3.2 million infected.

How did you come to the .5% death rate after 3 weeks assumption?

It's roughly consistent with the data from South Korea which was quite liberal with testing potential cases based on contact tracing (so they have records of also the infected but asymptomatic or very mild symptomatic carriers) and they got 0.6%-0.7% case fatality rate, and the median time from infection to death is something like 3 weeks.

You get a much higher fatality rate if you're testing only people with severe symptoms or those who get hospitalized, which is what many countries are doing. For example, if you have mild symptoms, UK health service will tell you to isolate at home and call them for hospitalizatin if you get worse, and you'll get tested only if that happens. You also get a much higher fatality rate if hospitals are overloaded and people can't get proper lifesaving treatment, which wasn't the case yet in USA, so an estimate based on these numbers seems reasonable now.

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#188

Post by Lewton »

cycomanic wrote: post #163
mrfusion wrote: post #49

Influenza only has an R0 of 1.3. I really wonder if we’ve managed to push it below 1.0 world wide. Pretty wild to think about. 1.3 really isn’t that much. What if all the new people who’ve started washing their hands keeps it below 1.0?

And then we would get an pandemic of another influenza type virus rushing through the population like wildfire because nobody is immune. It's very difficult to completely eliminate infections (even polio is still around despite extensive immunisation), especially if it mutates as much as influenza. A little known fact btw, most of the influenza virii are descendents of the Spanish flu which have mutated to be less de…

Couldn't we just vaccinate people with all the known flu vaccines we have now to get the same result?

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#189

Post by PeterisP »

logicallee wrote: post #182
robocat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick whatever numbers you think are reasonable based on the data you have read - I think you will end up with a worrying result. I use this analysis because the number of deaths is hard to fudge, and the fatality rate after x days, and the infection rate are somewhat measurable (I believe there are statistically valid measurements of those numbers). Any analysis based upon detected cases is deeply flawed IMHO, becaus…

The number of deaths is hard to judge but as for >Assuming cases double every 5 days, then multiply that by 2^4, therefore: ... you're not allowed to assume that. It means on April 26th two thirds of all Americans (204.8 million）will be infected.

You can assume that as long as you're far below saturation. Yes, the logistic curve comes to play at some point, slowing down the spread, stopping at some large proportion of the population - it's plausible that two thirds of Americans will be infected, but that will take longer.

However, until the total number of infected is less than, say, 10% of total population, it certainly makes sense to just use the average doubling rate.

Re: Social distancing slowing not only Covid-19, but other diseases too

#190

Post by SuoDuanDao »

stOneskull wrote: post #140
myself248 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've theorized this about sexually transmitted diseases, too. It's even less realistic to imagine compliance, but suppose everyone only had sex with people who were born the same year as them. Any given disease would lose the ability to spread into younger people, and simply fall off the end of the age conveyor-belt.

I don't like embracing Big Brother

You will learn to love him eventually >:)
Post reply on HN