Maybe. I think it's a strange assumption to make in the model that people search for new contacts to maintain an existing number of contacts when they isolate themselves, and if they do these contacts may be made online (a guy quarantined in Wuhan turned up on a Facebook group I'm a member of precisely because he was feeling lonely and fed up). Who knows? As the paper says, because of the complexity of the situation, a partial reduction in the number of contacts may have a counterintuitive effect of worsening the situation but I don't think it makes it not worth trying, particularly with people feeling better with some action than no action from leaders.This one is on target: Individual preventive social distancing during an epidemic may have negative population-level outcomes
"However, the aim of our paper is to show, in a theoretical context, that rational individual-level preventive measures can have counterintuitive consequences for the population-level. Public health interventions that aim at changing individual behaviour through social distancing could have adverse consequences, for example, school closures could reduce social contacts between children in the school classes but may (partly) be replaced by social contacts outside of school. But similarly, these measures could be beneficial for the population. As our results show, it is not necessarily straightforward what effects such behaviour may have at the population level, where much may depend on the disease and population under consideration. "
I think it's a strange assumption to make in the model that people search for new contacts to maintain an existing number of contacts
. . . truncated before the quote . . . Old people have to die eventually. _ and after _
the real number of infected people is likely to be a lot higher than currently being reported
To help avoid the mass transmission of a virus that kills about 2% of the people it infects.And why in the world should all that money be spent to test people who have mild symptoms of.....something?
a virus that kills about 2% of the people it infects.
It has been mentioned in passing that people who have recovered are now immune. There's no reason for it not to work that way, it's just that to become immune that way you have to first be sick.Well, has anyone heard any medical Top Dog explain about our systems becoming immune to this Covid-19? Or would that idea be completely absurd for this particular nasty bug?
It is as contagious as the common cold (it really isn't different from any other coronavirus in that respect) and at least as lethal as the ordinary flu. The ordinary flu is something we are used to, but is by no means a minor issue.this thing has got to be a bigger worry for the medical folks, and the insurance companies behind them, than the common cold. There is just way too much Top Dog Doc focus on this particular bug for us to be able to pull up numbers for this and that and just compare it to the common cold. Something has the docs spooked.
To help avoid the mass transmission of a virus that kills about 2% of the people it infects.
Well, has anyone heard any medical Top Dog explain about our systems becoming immune to this Covid-19? Or would that idea be completely absurd for this particular nasty bug?
This is actually all very heavily studied already. Remember that coronavirus is responsible for much of the common cold as well as SARS and MERS. It's true that it is very likely to mutate... it's hard to find articles right now because of the news cycle dominating the search results, but as I recall, it's roughly 2-4 years before a strain fades away. Part of that is herd immunity (enough people have become immune that the old strain has trouble propogating) and part of it is mutation rate. Mutations are constant in cold and flu viruses, which is a significant part of why we haven't just eliminated them like we did with smallpox. Also, of course - partly because of the mutation rate - there are a *lot* of strains out there.I mean how much mutation is enough that they can detect before they start labeling it as a different strain? At what point do your antibodies no longer fight a new mutation?
This is actually all very heavily studied already. Remember that coronavirus is responsible for much of the common cold as well as SARS and MERS. It's true that it is very likely to mutate... it's hard to find articles right now because of the news cycle dominating the search results, but as I recall, it's roughly 2-4 years before a strain fades away. Part of that is herd immunity (enough people have become immune that the old strain has trouble propogating) and part of it is mutation rate. Mutations are constant in cold and flu viruses, which is a significant part of why we haven't just eliminated them like we did with smallpox. Also, of course - partly because of the mutation rate - there are a *lot* of strains out there.
specific questions and points...such as when EXACTLY Covid-19 has new mutations, when EXACTLY its basically gone or dying out or when EXACTLY a new mutation will evade our antibodies. 5 years from now 20/20 hindsight will kick in and the medical community will tell us a whole bunch.
I think the most important part of that article is this,there are now two distinct strains of the virus
You seem to be angry at the complexity of nature or at the scientific method itself here, or both. These are difficult problems, and I'm sorry that human capacity to deal with them doesn't meet your approval.
These kinds of specifics of course will not be known until after the fact.
Collecting, analyzing, and distributing the data will take time of course, but not 5 years.
The WHO are taking the coronavirus extremely seriously - hysteria and fearmongering so that they can justify their salaries or an appropriate response by medical experts? The latter is more plausible.No. I am angry about all the utter crap human responses, such as the hysteria and fear mongering, as if the world has never seen flu and cold viruses before.
It was on the news this morning that there are now two distinct strains of the virus - it has already mutated.
The WHO are taking the coronavirus extremely seriously - hysteria and fearmongering so that they can justify their salaries or an appropriate response by medical experts? The latter is more plausible.
I think it's a rather dangerous trend to start dismissing the work of experts by claiming "they would say that, just look at human nature". That's exactly one of the arguments used by global-warming deniers, and has led to the rise of leaders such as Trump and Johnson who are completely out of their depth when it comes to understanding the complexity of issues. Indeed, why bother training and employing experts at all if we're going to dismiss them out of hand for having vested interests when they come to a different conclusion to a layperson?I don't know how you figured that the latter is more plausible. I suggest you don't know human "leaders" very well.
Also, you left out the desire to feel important regardless of the salary.
And you left out the idea that this is an ongoing experiment/preparation for an actual emergency.
Further I mentioned earlier a comment by Beau of the Fifth column about how a body guard will tell you the worst that can happen and prepare for the worst, never just giving you a straight up conversation about what is most likely. The WHO operates the same way....worst case scenario. They take EVERYTHING seriously whether its warranted in the layman's world or not. And the media just runs with it when they see fit. They are not giving a clear picture of the WHO in general, but only focusing on it now in this manufactured crisis.