TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 37 of 138 FirstFirst ... 27121722273233343536373839404142475257626772778287137 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 925 of 3426

Thread: ☣ Coronavirus ☣

  1. #901
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    That is just one (scientific) paper. And the title is "paper suggest that ... may increase risks".
    I think SubJeff's point is that a lot of all the new-found information has not been checked yet. No real peer-reviews. No follow-up research yet. No other research that confirms the first research yet. In other words: these are all still just research-topics, nothing certain, no proof, just hunches, directions where to go next to find solutions.

    I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else). And that taking these early clues as the full truth irritates him. I can understand that. So all we need to do is point at new clues and new research, and be aware it's not the truth yet. Just clues, hunches, directions, possibilities.
    Do you want some other meat?

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021...LTIKRtBlz3BpA8
    Last edited by lowenz; 25th Mar 2020 at 08:41.

  2. #902
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Today our parliament got briefed by our research institutions. One notable fact was: since we started doing "social distancing", and recently a more serious form of lockdown, the spreading slowed down significantly. 2-3 weeks ago, every infected person would infect 2 other persons. That number is now down to where each infected person infects on average only 1 other person. Good news. And as our lockdown/isolation keeps getting thighter every few days, this number should go down still.

  3. #903
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    "I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else)" -> Zombe is of course a researcher/medic.

    SubJeff is the classic (GOOD) skeptic.

  4. #904
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.

    Compare it to Trump. This week he has suggested that covid-19 can be cured with Chloroquine. "The results look good, they look very good". Trump claims the drug has already been tested, all the side-effects are known (and harmless), etc. The fact is that doctors and researchers are still look at Chloroquine to see if it is effective, how effective it is, what the side-effects are, etc, etc. Again, research versus proven reality. It turns out he's way way too positive, and nobody for sure knows if Chloroquine is gonna be really helpful or not.

    I don't wanna pick a fight with you. I really don't. But SubJeff has a point that some of the stuff you link to is still research, not proven science yet.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 25th Mar 2020 at 09:00.

  5. #905
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    If you've been around, you'll know SubJeff is an anesthesiologist because he's talked about it before. Needless to say, it's the kind of work where one needs to be dead sure what the science says because people's lives and health depend on it. So even if this specifically is out of his field, he'll probably have good instincts about the difference between "researchers are seeing some interesting findings and are still discussing it, but nobody professional is about to put it into practice until another three to five years of testing or whatever", and hard established science based on which doctors make life-affecting decisions.

    In that respect, though, the stakes should be lower for this thread because nobody should be taking advice from anything said anywhere on here about an actual health decision they face to begin with. Go see a doctor.

  6. #906
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
    As I wrote, it was reported this morning in NL that after the social distancing (and now partial lockdown), the R0 (R nought) in NL went down from 2 to 1. That means that before, every infected person would infect 2 others. And now every infected person infects only 1 other person.

  7. #907
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Maupertuis
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.
    As a physicist, I've learned that most pop physics is trash. Maybe one in ten peer-reviewed physics articles are junk, but they're often controversial and interesting junk, and they thus get boosted by science journalists more than other papers. If you come across an academic paper via a journalistic outlet, its likelihood of being junk is much higher than normal.

    Unless you're a researcher in the field, you simply cannot evaluate the quality of a paper in another field. Thus, a good rule of thumb is to rely only on textbooks and review papers when citing results from unfamiliar scientific fields.

  8. #908
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    I mean the person goes to the hospital about 2 weeks after they've contracted the illness where it's actually counted. They could be in the hospital longer, but I'm talking about the number in the statistic of "new cases today". Put another way: the number you see in the statistic for "today" is actually the number of cases contracted about "two weeks ago". You won't see the actual number of cases contracted "today" until two weeks from now. It could be a little longer or shorter depending on the individual. But the point is, you should expect the number of "new cases" to jump significantly in the two weeks after a lockdown starts.

    The duration "two weeks" comes from when they polled people testing positive the date their symptoms started, which (when you add the latency from contraction to symptoms) tended to be 2 weeks, or so the article I read on it claimed the data it was showing in the graph said.
    New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?

  9. #909
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Third grave from left.
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
    I have been keeping an eye on this virus situation since we got our first cases. Brothers wife is a medical worker and he is also in a risk group due to some underlying health problems. And then inevitably i learned that i am too in high risk group. Since then various stuff has happened - like their child getting tested positive (seems that the worst has passed, recovering but not done yet). So, currently we serve as their legs and arms outside their home.

    Anyway, i have been keeping track of various stats and stuff - some of which might be of interest here:



    Number before "exp" is calculated spread multiplier (red line). The two numbers before it determine the exact range used to calculate that multiplier. Blue line is new cases and yellow is deaths.

    A spread multiplier below 1.0 means that the virus is dying out.

    est = some tin-pot-little mythical country no-one can find on any map (too early to tell).
    ita = Italy (has been bending down for quite some time already - hope it keeps that up)
    ger = Germany (has started to bend down)
    kor = South Korea (has been pointing down for quite some time already)
    usa = the land of the oranges, i think (very worrying. a few days ago the rate was once even over 1.43)
    spa = Spain (volatile, currently bending down)
    fra = France (bent some and now is unchanging)
    wor = The whole fluffy world (fuck)

    X-axis ~= days ago (2 = yesterday)

    On the subject of restrictions having an effect - it has a massive lag time.
    1. restrictions getting adhered takes time ... then ...
    2. virus has a incubation period of 2-14 days, with a mean of 5 days ... then ...
    3. it takes time for people to decide to get tested and/or convincing someone to test them and arrange it etc ... then ...
    4. it takes time to get the result of the test ... finally.

  10. #910
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.

    Compare it to Trump. This week he has suggested that covid-19 can be cured with Chloroquine. "The results look good, they look very good". Trump claims the drug has already been tested, all the side-effects are known (and harmless), etc. The fact is that doctors and researchers are still look at Chloroquine to see if it is effective, how effective it is, what the side-effects are, etc, etc. Again, research versus proven reality. It turns out he's way way too positive, and nobody for sure knows if Chloroquine is gonna be really helpful or not.

    I don't wanna pick a fight with you. I really don't. But SubJeff has a point that some of the stuff you link to is still research, not proven science yet.
    Chloroquine is a good route because it acts as antiviral AND immunosuppressor. This is ALREADY known.
    Of course its practical clinical use can't be a "magical elixir" like Trump suggests.

  11. #911
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by zombe View Post
    kor = South Korea (has been pointing down for quite some time already)
    Hmm... I wonder what they are doing differently. Might be worth testing.

  12. #912
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Third grave from left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Hmm... I wonder what they are doing differently. Might be worth testing.
    Early panic + taking it immediately seriously + massive rapid testing.
    Last edited by zombe; 25th Mar 2020 at 09:42. Reason: made implicit "rapid" explicit

  13. #913
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?
    The number of deaths was a third curve with its peak even further in front of the lockdown date, I forget how far but I think another two weeks or more in front of the new cases. So that's right, the number of deaths wouldn't start going down until maybe 4 weeks after the lockdown. I guess this is what you were trying to say before. I was talking about the stat for new cases from the beginning; the stat for deaths is the same principle just pushed even further out.

    But the number of deaths is going to already be coming from the number of known cases in a known way (if the fatality rate stands), so that's why I thought the number of new cases is the one to pay attention to, because before the person is tested & counted it's unclear where the number exactly stands. You just have an extrapolation, but different factors might surprise people with the reality being higher or lower than the expectation.

  14. #914
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?
    Someone correct me if I'm massively off-base, but my understanding was that the typical progression seems to be infection, two weeks asymptomatic, then (in the case of vulnerable individuals) illness, declining health, and then death over the next several weeks.

    So deaths should be occurring 3-5 weeks after infection, meaning if it's been two weeks since quarantine was enacted, the death rate should continue to rise for at least another two weeks before it starts to drop again.

    Edit: Oops, demagogue beat me to it.

  15. #915
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    My understanding, but I have no numbers to back it up:
    1) infection
    2) 4-7 days of no symptoms
    3a) symptoms for 1 week, light illness, then recovery, or
    3b) symptoms for 1 week, getting worse
    4) hospitalization
    5a) get pneumonia, die within 1 week, or
    5b) get severely ill (could be pneumonia too), stay in hospital 3 weeks, slowly recover

    Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/incomplete.

  16. #916
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    My understanding, but I have no numbers to back it up:
    1) infection
    2) 4-7 days of no symptoms
    3a) symptoms for 1 week, light illness, then recovery, or
    3b) symptoms for 1 week, getting worse
    4) hospitalization
    5a) get pneumonia, die within 1 week, or
    5b) get severely ill (could be pneumonia too), stay in hospital 3 weeks, slowly recover

    Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/incomplete.
    Good enough.
    For old people 4->4->critical state (ICU if not already in ICU)

  17. #917
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    The number of deaths was a third curve with its peak even further in front of the lockdown date, I forget how far but I think another two weeks or more in front of the new cases. So that's right, the number of deaths wouldn't start going down until maybe 4 weeks after the lockdown. I guess this is what you were trying to say before. I was talking about the stat for new cases from the beginning; the stat for deaths is the same principle just pushed even further out.
    Yeah, I was responding more to icemann who was wondering why the number of deaths is still going up after (in Italy's case 2) weeks of lockdown, but I was away from the computer for 15 minutes and you managed to post before I hit send.
    Last edited by Starker; 25th Mar 2020 at 11:00.

  18. #918
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Now here in Lombardy there's the spike of YOUNG (? 40/50 yo) people after 2 weeks of fever at home.

    Maybe not in "critical condition" but lungs are damaged nonetheless and they totally need hospitalization in sub ICU and sometimes ICU too.
    Every man over 40 can develop a critical condition.
    Still ~0 under 30 yo (maybe young men with already a critical condition, tipically in dialysis)
    Last edited by lowenz; 25th Mar 2020 at 11:02.

  19. #919
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
    Did you forget about China already?

    South Korea, Taiwan, Estonia, Qatar also appear to be over the hump. And quite a few countries seem to be past the exponential growth phase and are seeing more linear growth. Italy and Iran are among them.

    China showed us how to beat this thing. We didn't pick up the playbook because we were in denial.

  20. #920
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I don't think I really trust the numbers from Iran and China not being massaged at least a little bit. And Russia seems to have a suspiciously low number of cases too.

  21. #921
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Russia closed its borders really early on.

  22. #922
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    Russia closed its borders really early on.
    How can you close Siberia?

  23. #923
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Did you forget about China already?
    There's a lot of evidence of China tampering with the numbers. Last month, there appeared to be a leak with numbers that more closely matched what some experts had predicted. This month, their cell networks reported a loss of 21 million cell users. Their attitude towards containment has also been widely criticized, in particular the idea of quarantine being an effective measure on its own.

    I'm not sure I'd use China as a role model. We will never actually know how effective their measures were.
    Last edited by catbarf; 25th Mar 2020 at 12:34.

  24. #924
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Fantastic.....now the SNOW.
    It feels like Auschwitz :/

  25. #925
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    My understanding, but I have no numbers to back it up:
    1) infection
    2) 4-7 days of no symptoms
    3a) symptoms for 1 week, light illness, then recovery, or
    3b) symptoms for 1 week, getting worse
    4) hospitalization
    5a) get pneumonia, die within 1 week, or
    5b) get severely ill (could be pneumonia too), stay in hospital 3 weeks, slowly recover

    Please someone correct me if I'm wrong/incomplete.
    From what I've read, it's probably more like:

    1) initial infection
    2) 5-14 days of no symptoms
    3) 2-3 days of light symptoms
    4) Heavy flu like symptoms for 1-2 weeks, then recovery.
    5) Or it develops into pneumonia
    6) If pneumonia worsen, then hospitalization is required. Possibly put on ventilator, moderately long recovery time
    7) Or pneumonia develops into ARDS. Ventilation and intensive care is required. Very long recovery time, with possible long term damage.

Page 37 of 138 FirstFirst ... 27121722273233343536373839404142475257626772778287137 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •