Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through postpandemic period

Post by tgb » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

JetSetWilly wrote: post #29

tgb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0 out of 100 controls and 6 out of 500 gives a very wide confidence interval. You could easily get those numbers with 1% false positives and no true positives in either group. Is your prior for false positives low enough to rule that out?

They did two independent assays so I would think the false positives rate should be far below 1% - certainly the authors seem to think so. Secondly if they were false positives, I would expect them to be randomly distributed. Not concentrated in the affluent capital city, and not solely in the second cohort with none in the early march cohort (as you would predict if exponential growth is occurring).

Post by guscost » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #30

JetSetWilly wrote: post #4

This paper seems to have every imaginable scenario of which 2022 is a worst case. But, now actual data is starting to come in - such as the extremely interesting serum testing in Scotland (1) - which suggests that the infection rate is much much higher than previously supposed. The Scotland serum testing shows that around 35000 people were infected at a time when only 110 cases were known officially, and strongly sug…

And also a similar study in Germany with similar results [1]. The result is of course to mechanically reduce the fatality rate to a number close to that of the flu (the problem for hospitals being not so much the fatality rate than the high number of infections), and well within the 0.1-1% range that US health authorities have been advertising for a while. Regarding models, it seems 0.15% is the new basis [2]. Even o…

Post by watwut » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

orbifold wrote: post #32

DennisP wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intermittent seems quite possible. Every time the death rate spikes, we'll have to lock down again. Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it.

Yeah no this is not happening, the young people will revolt before that. You can suspend civil liberties for a few months, that's fine, but not intermittently over several years. No way that governments in western countries will get away with that. I expect this to be an event that will remove most baby-boomers from power and bring in the millennial generation, they expect us to support ~5 old people through most of…

Post by Der_Einzige » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

orbifold wrote: post #32

DennisP wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intermittent seems quite possible. Every time the death rate spikes, we'll have to lock down again. Chances are, some region will decide against doing that, and their outcome will provide a clear incentive for everyone else to be more rigorous about it.

Yeah no this is not happening, the young people will revolt before that. You can suspend civil liberties for a few months, that's fine, but not intermittently over several years. No way that governments in western countries will get away with that. I expect this to be an event that will remove most baby-boomers from power and bring in the millennial generation, they expect us to support ~5 old people through most of…

Post by loftyal » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

JetSetWilly wrote: post #4

This paper seems to have every imaginable scenario of which 2022 is a worst case. But, now actual data is starting to come in - such as the extremely interesting serum testing in Scotland (1) - which suggests that the infection rate is much much higher than previously supposed. The Scotland serum testing shows that around 35000 people were infected at a time when only 110 cases were known officially, and strongly sug…