Jump to content

wilby-wilbert

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About wilby-wilbert

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

291 profile views
  1. Sound like a peeler to me
  2. I suppose if cases arent increasing exponentially that is a positive in a way. But its not on its own an indication that the rate of spread is in any way manageable for health services that are already beyond capacity. Something like number of hospital/icu beds or ventilators needed vs number available on a given day would be a better measure to my mind. That situation can worsen while the daily % increase in cases falls. From limited reading the average time from first symptoms to death is between 2 and 3 weeks.
  3. I find daily % increase as a measure intuitively misleading. If there were 1000 new cases every day for a week then the % increase would go down each day which gives the impression things are getting better when in reality the number of people who can possibly get the disease is getting smaller but the actual number of people getting infected is the same. I think this exacerbated by the presumption that the infections will follow a normal distribution pattern (or bell curve) as this is often how the basic "flatten the curve" graphs are presented. In practice this is unlikely to be the case.
  4. I think its almost guaranteed to reemerge in the winter given the chances of a vaccine before then are almost 0 from what I have read.
  5. Herd immunity is the only way we return to normal life. The two ways herd immunity is achieved are 1) by sufficient numbers getting infected or 2) by vaccine. This was massively poorly managed by the government in how they introduced the term into the lexicon. In reality both of the approaches mentioned (herd immunity vs lockdown) are aimed at achieving herd immunity but with varying proportions of the herd achieving it through vaccine vs infection.
  6. The term "meme" was coined in the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins in 1976. Nothing to do with the internet or jokes specifically. You were right on "hard to define" though evidently.
  7. Thanks, I wasnt doubting the accuracy of your numbers, just wanting to get an idea of where they came from. The unsettling thing about all of the modelling is that so much of this is based on very limited data and with so mamy variables at play and thus a serious degree of uncertainty. So we could be looking at infection rates of anywhere between say 20 and 80%, mortality rates (direct from the disease) of anywhere from below 0.5% to 5 or 6 times that, then shortages of ventilators, beds etc will have a massive effect and there will be all the deaths by other causes that wouldnt have happened were it not for the strain on the health system. It seem that in order to act rationally from the perspective of society as a whole, many will have to vastly over react from a strictly individual perspective.
  8. Whats the assumption on % of cases needing to be hospitalised/ length of stay here?
×
×
  • Create New...