Posted on 01/25/2020 3:58:02 PM PST by janetjanet998
Steve Lookner about to go live for updates
There are currently 1,764 confirmed cases worldwide, including 54 fatalities.
Clarity is of paramount importance here.
First, this isn't from WHO; it is from "WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, J-IDEA, Imperial College London, UK... This is an extended version of an analysis previously shared with WHO, governments and academic networks between 22/1/20 - 24/1/20. "
In other words, this is from an academic group that collaborates with WHO. Further, if you check out the bona fides of the signatories, they are primarily mathematicians and statisticians, not medical doctors. Indeed, as I'll show shortly, this paper is pure math/data science/simulations.
Secondarily, the report does not SAY "R0 is at least 2.6". Quoting directly from the PDF:
We estimate that, on average, each case infected 2.6 (uncertainty range: 1.5-3.5) other people up to 18th January 2020, based on an analysis combining our past estimates of the size of the outbreak in Wuhan with computational modelling of potential epidemic trajectories.
Thus, this is a mathematical ESTIMATE based on PRIOR ESTIMATES and COMPUTATIONAL MODELING. Now, there is always a place for math and statistics. But the methods they're employing here are in-line with what's brandished by "climate change scientists." Color me skeptical.
But EVEN IF we agree with their methods and math, the data in their table show that their estimated R0 actually ranges from 0.9 to 3.5 depending upon there being 1000 or 4000 cases by Jan 18. That is a LOT of variation.
You contended all night the likelihood of contracting it was very law, and low.
Third, and this is a technical but important detail, PC isn't R0. R0 is downstream from PC but there is a feedback loop. What they're saying is that for every person contracting coronavirus, they will infect 2.8 newbies (on avg). Btw, seasonal influenza has a R0 of 1.28. The implication is this will spread like wildfire...based on the settled science of climate change. Uh huh.
Fourth, PC IS low in this case AT THIS TME: empirically, at this stage of this saga, if we have between 1,000-4,000 confirmed cases out of 50 million or so quarantined people, then PC is 8 per 100,000 people.
What? They will release information pending publication to WHO. The normal publication process would continue. As if the folks on the webs asking if they can still eat Chinese food are going to be damaged by not seeing a NEJM article before normal publication.
It’s not YOUR research. You do not have a RIGHT to see it any earlier than anyone else.
That happens almost every day in any major hospital.
Jan, you are not reading the adjoining posts.
If you are, I have very little faith in any moron that doesn’t vaccinate their kids. I pray for sick kids, but God gave Jonas Salk some brains too. And whoever came up with the measles vaccine.
China coronavirus spread is accelerating, Xi Jinping warns
26 January 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51249208
How worried should we be?
Based on early information, it is believed that only a quarter of infected cases are “severe”, and the dead are mostly - though not exclusively - older people, some of whom have pre-existing conditions.
The Chinese authorities suspect a seafood market that “conducted illegal transactions of wild animals” was the source of the outbreak.
Why is there concern about containing the virus?
Scientists at the respected MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis in the UK have warned that it may not be possible to contain the virus to China.
They say self-sustaining human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus is the “only plausible explanation” for the scale of the epidemic.
Their calculations estimate each infected person is passing it onto, on average, 2.5 other people.
The centre praised the efforts of the Chinese authorities, but said transmission of the virus needed to be cut by 60% in order to get on top of the outbreak.
I heard Xi got on national media and called the situation ‘grave’.
That is the single most serious thing I’ve heard, and does not sound good.
Is this confirmed that he did that?
What concerns me is people flooding to the hospital. They should station army troops outside the hospital with a triage nurse determining who gets in. I bet a lot of those people waiting in the ER don’t have the virus, and shouldn’t even be there. It burns out the medical staff, and provides a nice environment for the virus to spread.
You are confused. They don’t want major journals releasing their studies to the public without their approval. We’ve cited several of these over the past few days. That won’t be possible going forward, as WHO will hold up publication, at the very least delaying them. The normal publication process does not continue. There is a new gatekeeper and super editor.
“Not your research . . .” I don’t know what that means. No, I’m not a researcher for a major medical journal.
If your area has an outbreak, the last thing you want to do is have to go to the hospital for something else.
I read it that they would get papers before they were published. I’ll go back and re-Read the story.
Time is critical now. It’s so serious that human science is opening its doors. Very rare event. Usually all science we see has to go through approved censors first. Called ‘reviewers’ by the state. Its how they got the false global warming theory so far.
Mask, goggles and gloves. Was thinking recently it might be wise to fake that you are sick. Then everyone will stay clear of you. Lol. Wearing a mask now in the states causes the same impression.
Obviously their concern is that these forthcoming studies will be too optimistic. They do not want healthcare workers and researchers to become complacent. They may have even had a specific soon to be released study in mind when they issued the demand.
This guy has got interesting/informative stuff on his feed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/neil_ferguson/with_replies
https://mobile.twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1221076998170271745
“I think the evidence now suggests it is now rational to start planning for the scenario that containment efforts may not succeed. Accelerating health system preparedness and rapid approval of experimental therapeutics trial protocols. Whole of course enhancing control efforts.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.