Page 48 of 51

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 25 Jun 2020, 20:14
by Jennifer
JD wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 20:04
Jennifer wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 17:23
But it appears (just from casual observation/chats with Brits, esp. when I was writing for the British blog), at least a parliamentary system appears less likely to calcify into a de facto two-party system, the way America has?
As I have quipped before, the weaknesses of America's presidential system are shown by the fact that every single president has come from one of the same two parties since 1853. In Britain, they have a much more robust parliamentary system, as shown by the fact that you only have to go back to 1916 before you find a prime minister who wasn't from one of the same two parties...
But at least, aren't third party candidates more likely to get elected to the parliamentary equivalents of house or senate elections?

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 03:39
by Jennifer
Regarding covid-19: Worldometers lists such stats as # of current cases, number of deaths and number of recovered (for the US, those numbers currently stand at 2,504,676; 126,785 and 1,052,389, respectively) -- but something I'm not seeing anywhere is, for those who had the disease and have since recovered, how many are as well as before, versus how many have some type of (possibly permanent) damage? And among those with damage, what is the breakdown of type: liver problems, kidney problems, etc?

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 04:27
by Jadagul
For better or for worse, those numbers don't really exist. They're pretty hard numbers to generate, to be fair.

But I've seen a bunch of epidemiologists etc. mourning the fact that we don't have them.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 06:24
by Mo
JD wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 20:04
Jennifer wrote:
25 Jun 2020, 17:23
But it appears (just from casual observation/chats with Brits, esp. when I was writing for the British blog), at least a parliamentary system appears less likely to calcify into a de facto two-party system, the way America has?
As I have quipped before, the weaknesses of America's presidential system are shown by the fact that every single president has come from one of the same two parties since 1853. In Britain, they have a much more robust parliamentary system, as shown by the fact that you only have to go back to 1916 before you find a prime minister who wasn't from one of the same two parties...
1935 if you count National Labour as a different party. 2015 if you look at the Cameron-Clegg coalition.

Also, while requiring a higher threshold keeps fringe issues from arising if they’re relatively evenly distributed. It breaks down if there’s a high density of a single issue in a single region (e.g. DUP and SNP in the U.K.).

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 08:01
by Jennifer
Jadagul wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 04:27
For better or for worse, those numbers don't really exist. They're pretty hard numbers to generate, to be fair.

But I've seen a bunch of epidemiologists etc. mourning the fact that we don't have them.
Why would those numbers (at least ballpark) be any harder to get than the numbers of recovered cases?

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 08:54
by Highway
Jennifer wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 08:01
Jadagul wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 04:27
For better or for worse, those numbers don't really exist. They're pretty hard numbers to generate, to be fair.

But I've seen a bunch of epidemiologists etc. mourning the fact that we don't have them.
Why would those numbers (at least ballpark) be any harder to get than the numbers of recovered cases?
Because they're a much longer tail to track down. "Recovered" is a pretty easy number to get, since everyone who is positive and doesn't die is recovered. But the other stuff requires a lot of data gathering after the fact. Interviews, exams, collation. That's also a lot of people.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 09:16
by Mo
Highway wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 08:54
Jennifer wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 08:01
Jadagul wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 04:27
For better or for worse, those numbers don't really exist. They're pretty hard numbers to generate, to be fair.

But I've seen a bunch of epidemiologists etc. mourning the fact that we don't have them.
Why would those numbers (at least ballpark) be any harder to get than the numbers of recovered cases?
Because they're a much longer tail to track down. "Recovered" is a pretty easy number to get, since everyone who is positive and doesn't die is recovered. But the other stuff requires a lot of data gathering after the fact. Interviews, exams, collation. That's also a lot of people.
Also, you need some way of knowing that it’s causal. There could be preexisting, but undiagnosed shit that only got diagnosed because of the hospitalization.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 09:20
by thoreau
Beyond the problem of tracking people down and getting them to come in for tests, some of these problems aren't necessarily easy to spot without expensive tests, possibly including imaging. Granted, radiologists are currently not that busy, what with elective procedures being canceled, but pulmonologists are rather busy...

And, at this point, we don't actually know what types of lasting damage to look for. Nor do we know what sorts of damage are permanent versus signs of slow recovery. By way of comparison, consider mono: Mono has been around forever. We now know that for several months after getting mono you're at moderately elevated risk of liver problems. That took a while to learn. They had to study a lot of people. They had to monitor them for a while to verify that the elevated risk only lasted for months rather than years or decades. They learned this while research institutions and medical offices were operating normally.

Right now we have anecdotal accounts of people who recover from COVID-19 but have nasty changes in their kidneys or whatnot. But we don't have anything systematic. How do we actually know that these people had healthy kidneys or whatever beforehand? Maybe in some cases they were studied beforehand. But I am skeptical that all of the anecdotes coming out now had been fully worked up BEFORE infection. And without that baseline data, how does a scientist actually know that COVID-19 is the culprit? Maybe these people only got on the radar with severe COVID-19 symptoms because they already had various organ problems that had not yet been diagnosed. Likewise, we needed a few months to learn that children who seem to have recovered are nonetheless at risk of life-threatening complications months later.

And, really, this disease has only been presenting in large numbers for six months, and the initial worst cases were in China and then Iran, not exactly places renowned for transparent data reporting. OK, and Italy, but nobody has ever accused the Italian civil service of moving with haste.

Finally, testing is still a shit show. Without a good testing regime you don't actually know with anything approaching confidence what the baseline is to compare with. Without doing antibody tests on everyone who shows up with non-COVID problems (and knowing that current antibody tests really are reliable, a point that some experts remain unconvinced on), you don't know if that patient with weird symptoms had COVID a couple months ago or just a bad cold.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 09:25
by Pham Nuwen
The only issue I've heard about antibody tests is how much resources they tie up. Staff, ppe, regular supplies, lab equipment, etc. And it cant tell you if you have active infection. Only that you had/have it.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 09:30
by thoreau
I hope that the antibody tests really are reliable, and that the skeptics are wrong. But we'll need some more time before we really know that the skeptics are wrong.

tl;dr Six months into a pandemic that's shut down most normal activity is a terrible time to expect any reliable data on long-term effects.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 10:50
by Hugh Akston
Pham Nuwen wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 09:25
The only issue I've heard about antibody tests is how much resources they tie up. Staff, ppe, regular supplies, lab equipment, etc. And it cant tell you if you have active infection. Only that you had/have it.
There's also the issue that nobody is clear how accurate they are, how well they can detect antibodies in mild cases, or how long after recovery they are capable of detecting. None of which has prevented them from being approved and sold.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 16:39
by Shem
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 10:50
Pham Nuwen wrote:
26 Jun 2020, 09:25
The only issue I've heard about antibody tests is how much resources they tie up. Staff, ppe, regular supplies, lab equipment, etc. And it cant tell you if you have active infection. Only that you had/have it.
There's also the issue that nobody is clear how accurate they are, how well they can detect antibodies in mild cases, or how long after recovery they are capable of detecting. None of which has prevented them from being approved and sold.
Plus the question of how meaningful it is to have antibodies. Is this measles where you're good for life, is it the cold where a tiny mutation means you're screwed, somewhere in the middle? Nobody knows.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 19:39
by Mo
The cold thing isn’t the tiny mutation thing. It’s that the cold can be one of 200 viruses.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 26 Jun 2020, 19:53
by Jadagul
Based on what we know about coronaviruses, it would be surprising if recovery didn't generally grant immunity for at least a moderate amount of time.

And it looks like that length of time is at least six months, since we still have zero clear cases of reinfection.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 27 Jun 2020, 13:34
by Painboy
The bit at the beginning of this is probably the best summation of the coronavirus situation I've found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQS_bX3sX8s

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 27 Jun 2020, 14:20
by Warren
Painboy wrote:
27 Jun 2020, 13:34
The bit at the beginning of this is probably the best summation of the coronavirus situation I've found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQS_bX3sX8s
:lol:
Good stuff.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 29 Jun 2020, 16:22
by Eric the .5b
"Whoo! Third wave, here we come!"

https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=884638999

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 29 Jun 2020, 19:18
by dead_elvis
Eric the .5b wrote:
29 Jun 2020, 16:22
"Whoo! Third wave, here we come!"

https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=884638999
The guidance says "schools are fundamental to child and adolescent development and well-being."
Because without school how will kids learn how great it feels when torture stops.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 11:01
by Hugh Akston
Covid-19 as a superspreading virus
If Covid-19 was like the flu, you’d expect the outbreaks in different places to be mostly the same size. But Dr. Kucharski and his colleagues found a wide variation. The best way to explain this pattern, they found, was that 10 percent of infected people were responsible for 80 percent of new infections. Which meant that most people passed on the virus to few, if any, others.

Dr. Kucharski and his colleagues published their study in April as a preprint, a report that has not been reviewed by other scientists and published in a scientific journal. Other epidemiologists have calculated the dispersion parameter with other methods, ending up with similar estimates.
A lot of transmission seems to happen in a narrow window of time starting a couple days after infection, even before symptoms emerge. If people aren’t around a lot of people during that window, they can’t pass it along.

And certain places seem to lend themselves to superspreading. A busy bar, for example, is full of people talking loudly. Any one of them could spew out viruses without ever coughing. And without good ventilation, the viruses can linger in the air for hours.
On the other hand, knowing that Covid-19 is a superspreading pandemic could be a good thing. “It bodes well for control,” Dr. Nelson said.

Since most transmission happens only in a small number of similar situations, it may be possible to come up with smart strategies to stop them from happening. It may be possible to avoid crippling, across-the-board lockdowns by targeting the superspreading events.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 12:58
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
30 Jun 2020, 11:01
Covid-19 as a superspreading virus
...10 percent of infected people were responsible for 80 percent of new infections.
Fuck. It's gay men isn't it? This is their revenge for teh AIDS.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 14:55
by Ellie
Ahhh, they even planned ahead of time and stationed their people all throughout the salons, brunch spots, and choirs.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 17:48
by D.A. Ridgely
Image

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 18:14
by Eric the .5b
"Carnivorous WHAT? Carnivorous WHAT???"

:D

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 19:00
by dhex
buoyant carnivores, man. they're everywhere.

Re: Corona(virus)? ITS NOT EVEN BEER DAMMIT!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 2020, 19:30
by Number 6
Warren wrote:
30 Jun 2020, 12:58
Hugh Akston wrote:
30 Jun 2020, 11:01
Covid-19 as a superspreading virus
...10 percent of infected people were responsible for 80 percent of new infections.
Fuck. It's gay men isn't it? This is their revenge for teh AIDS.
I've got to quit missing meetings.