Live data from Hacker News

Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

reuters.com

521–530 of 544 posts

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public schools remain open for example. Universities and high schools have been closed for almost a month now, that's pretty much the same timeline as most other countries. Elementary schools are not closed, but they're very empty, most kids are staying home. The reasoning behind this is that elementary schools function as babysitters, and this frees up adults in essential occupations so that they can go to work no…

> There's also starting to appear evidence that kids might not be a serious disease vector, contrary to pretty much everyone's gut feeling. This is intriguing. Any source where I can dig up further?

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/apr/school-closures-play-mar...

"Professor Russell Viner (UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) said, "We know from previous studies that school closures are likely to have the greatest effect if the virus has low transmissibility and attack rates are higher in children. This is the opposite of COVID-19.""

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they can't get statistical significance. You'd ballpark a 0.5% infection rate in the Bay Area going by deaths and current best guesses for IFR. Your false positive rate might exceed that. These tests are better done in highly infected areas like NYC.

> current best guesses for IFR The entire point of the study is that we don't have good estimates of the IFR.

We have randomized PCR studies and ships where everyone got tested. Yes, there is error there (false negatives), but there's an upper bound to how much there can be.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#523
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you of the opinion that this is simply just a slightly worse flu? I mean I'm about 95% sure I already had it. Had literally every single symptom but the local health authority (Alberta, Canada) wouldn't test me. My SO had it worse but again, they wouldn't test her. Felt like a worse flu + more coughing and shortness of breath. Worse fever. My symptoms were bad for about 3 days, then felt like a cold for about a…

> In Canada hospitalisation rates are way less than predicted. Let me guess - these are the predictions that were made before the social isolation actions were taken? Its the Y2K hoax all over again?

Nah they were predictions assuming the measures we put into place a month ago. But as far as I could tell their assumptions also used data from Italy, whose population is significantly older and whose health care system is less functional.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#524
post #216
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you of the opinion that this is simply just a slightly worse flu? I mean I'm about 95% sure I already had it. Had literally every single symptom but the local health authority (Alberta, Canada) wouldn't test me. My SO had it worse but again, they wouldn't test her. Felt like a worse flu + more coughing and shortness of breath. Worse fever. My symptoms were bad for about 3 days, then felt like a cold for about a…

When did you have it

Late February.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#525
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you of the opinion that this is simply just a slightly worse flu? I mean I'm about 95% sure I already had it. Had literally every single symptom but the local health authority (Alberta, Canada) wouldn't test me. My SO had it worse but again, they wouldn't test her. Felt like a worse flu + more coughing and shortness of breath. Worse fever. My symptoms were bad for about 3 days, then felt like a cold for about a…

How would more asymptomatic cases make this an overblown situation? Sure, there's evidence that there are lots of unreported cases but there's also quite incontrovertible evidence of death spikes in places that didn't implement swift restrictions. I get being frustrated at lockdown but your reasoning sounds motivated to me.

More asymptomatic and mild cases would lower the death rate to something more akin to the flu. It would also mean that we'll achieve herd immunity quicker than previously assumed.

Lots of the fear was based on assumptions that this would be as deadly as SARS or MERS but at this rate we're looking at overall deaths that is slightly higher than the flu but lower than things like cancer or heart disease.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#526
post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the logistic curves are lazy S curves and approach a limit asymptotically from below. Here's the calculus: At FedEx, the BoD wanted some revenue projections. We knew (1) the current revenue and (2) the revenue for serving all the target customers. So, for time t in days, let y(t) be the revenue per day at time t, t = 0 corresponds to the present, y(0) is the current revenue. Let b be the revenue when serving all…

You can't have half person infected. At some point, everyone is infected and no new person will be infected. At that point, it is constant. You are modeling it wrong, because you ignore real world parameters.

> You can't have half person infected. At some point, everyone is infected and no new person will be infected.

Yes, of course. We all know that.

Can say the same thing for a lot of mathematical physics and other applied math. E.g., when a ball bounces, with the usual freshman physics view, there is a discontinuity in velocity so can't differentiate to get acceleration. General relativity considers mass-energy as a continuum and does differential geometry and uses differential equations, but a simple view of atoms is that they are points and not part of something continuous or we consider atoms as fuzz balls of uncertainty -- all that gets ignored in general relativity. We just saw a general relativity application: A star orbits a black hole at the center of our galaxy, and each orbit is more than 360 degrees around, like Einstein and not like Newton. That the star is made of lots of discrete atoms we ignore.

Such use of continuous and even differentiable several times functions to approximate discrete situations is standard. I saw that issue as a sophomore physics student. But there are no or not many famous research papers showing how using smooth functions to approximate does or does not work. Instead, people understand and accept that, when the discrete case has numbers large enough, we can use continuous approximations.

Heck, linear programming gets used in economic, production, and logistic situations where the real world items are discrete. Often works fine. Was the source of at least one Nobel prize in economics. Yes, when the numbers are small, especially just 0-1, the continuous math can flop badly, and we can encounter the grand question of P versus NP. But if doing resource allocation at General Motors producing 10 million cars a year, can do continuous math, and no one will care about half a water pump.

We can do predator-prey problems -- deer eating the grass, wolves eating the deer, eagles eating the dead deer and wolves, humans shooting the deer, raccoons eating the eagle eggs, the deer eating all the low forage, humans shooting the deer, etc. So, get a system of ordinary differential equations, right, for discrete deer, wolves, eagles, raccoons, and humans. Such equations need differentiable functions, all of which are continuous and differentiable approximations to discrete quantities that are not differentiable or even continuous. People have done that.

Can also attack such predator-prey problems with a continuous time, discrete state space Markov process (stochastic process).

Once in grad school, I mentioned to a prof that for predator-prey problems, the systems of differential equations and the Markov processes, thus, are approximating each other.

Indeed, once the Navy asked for an evaluation of the survivability of the US SSBN (ballistic missile firing) submarines under a special scenario of global nuclear war limited to sea. They wanted their results in two weeks. So it was lots of weapon types -- SSBNs, attack submarines, airplanes patrolling with magnetic anomaly detectors, planes that can drop sonar buoys and homing torpedoes, long range bombers, destroyer ships with good sonar, depth charges, and torpedoes, aircraft carriers, etc. with some numbers of each for each of Red and Blue. So, lots of Red and Blue things shooting at each other.

So for a solution I used a WWII paper by Koopman and saw a continuous time, multi-dimensional, discrete state space Markov stochastic process, wrote the code to generate sample paths, typically 500 for a particular case, using the Oak Ridge random number generator

X(n+1) = X(n) * 5^15 + 1 Mod 2^47

and the Navy got their results on time. Well, the results, the average decline of the SSBNs, looked continuous! Likely the expectation was continuous. So, we have a discrete stochastic situation that yields continuous expectation results.

Lesson: There are lots of continuous situations approximating discrete ones and expectations of stochastic discrete situation being continuous ones.

We are all supposed to know that lesson.

For my derivation for FedEx revenue, packages, and customers, each of those is discrete -- we know that. TV sets are also discrete yet nicely closely followed a logistic curve.

The virus infects people, who are discrete, but we would be foolish to ignore the role of an exponential which is continuous, differentiable, and infinitely differentiable, none of which the people are.

But as I gave at the end, can also get essentially the same result from a continuous time discrete state space Markov process, and there we can handle people one at a time, discretely, right to the end with the last person who gets infected and either gets well or dies at which time the process has an absorbing state and the exact result you mentioned -- no more continuous, asymptotic, limiting stuff.

So, as for the SSBN work, that Markov process addresses your concerns about the discrete nature of the virus and the last person to have the disease.

But for a curve for the virus, if you want to be careful down to the last person and not work with some curve that might have half a case, then there is no curve. Why? The spread of the virus is a stochastic process (random over time; at each time the value is a random variable) and not deterministic (if you will, special case of the general situation that nothing in the universe is deterministic). So, instead of a curve, all we get is a sample path of the process with discrete numbers. So, for analysis and prediction, we face many different sample paths. So, instead of looking at the blizzard of all of those sample paths, we consider expectations and confidence intervals, likely both of which are continuous, that we approximate with empirical averages, say, from running our model 500 times as I did for the SSBN fleet problem.

Lesson: Even if we handle the discreteness explicitly, due to the stochastic aspect, we are driven back to a continuous curve, an average approximating an expectation, that might end with 1/2 a case of the virus.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of those hypotheses coincided with claims that the lockdown was unnecessary or excessive. This is it. The (short-term) financial incentives to opening up the economy are _massive_. Anyone trying to support that will jump all over some weakly supported hypothesis like this.

As are the social incentives for those of us who are lonely and bored. A hypothetical young healthy man might be quite happy to accept 0.37% of people dying (the vast majority of whom are old and/or near death any way) if it means he doesn't have to put his life on hold for a year and can start dating again. Young males routinely take much higher risks for mating opportunities. I'm honestly surprised at the level of…

True, and that 0.37% number is probably the number with adequate hospital resources. If everyone caught this at once, there will be triaging of patients and the overall mortality rate would be higher.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#528
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt it, but where did you hear that?

This South Korean COVID expert says people are contagious 2 days before symptoms show. https://youtu.be/QwoNP9QWr4Y?t=97

He says that they are contagious, but he doesn't say highly contagious (I know you're not the one who made that claim, I just wanted to clarify). I'm not sure if we know yet how contagious people without symptoms are, but it's most likely going to be less than a person with symptoms simply because they're no longer coughing.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely - as an early outbreak centre that town is referred to as "Germany's Wuhan", and is expected to have among the highest proportion of infected inhabitants. So actually the 15% figure came as a disappointment and something of a surprise.

A disappointment? NYC has among the highest testing rates in the world and has only found about 1.5% of people infected. If there's another 14% in NYC that have been infected without needing medical attention, that is fantastic news.

The German town of Gangelt is the study case that the OP was referring to, which thanks to a small population and a well-attended carnival party with many infected attendees and a legion of subsequent linked cases had acquired the reputation that everyone must have been exposed, i.e. a place that would have established something like herd immunity. So to discover that only one in seven inhabitants had detectable antibodies was indeed dismaying: either the infection pattern or the immune response wasn't as expected. Or both.

Re: Coronavirus clue? Most cases aboard U.S. aircraft carrier are symptom-free

#530
post #351

IMHO, this article is intentionally misleading. The incubation period is currently estimated to be 2-14 days (mean is 5.6 days per CDC, similar per WHO). The article doesn’t mention any dates or time frames, but does mention: ”Roughly 60 percent of the over 600 sailors who tested positive so far have not shown symptoms of COVID-19” — note how “so far” is ambiguous in that sentence. It also states, “The Navy’s testing…

> This paper [1] found that testing of all pregnancy patients in a hospital yielded 34% asymptomatic cases. For a second, I thought you were saying 34% of them didn't have pregnancy symptoms.

Ha! If only we could invent something to make pregnancy asymptomatic... :)
Post reply on HN