International COVID-19 Updates & Discussion 2

[Verde]

Also, what kind of a scientist goes to the papers with their suspicions instead of the results of their study? This is very troubling behavior...

This is not serious science. They are just having fun like the rest of us.
A lot of serious science is happening though, but it will follow the tried and tested path.

 

[Geoff.D]

Oh so now their Science is not "Serious Science"? That is certainly a novel way to describe an alternative model to be sure.

Sounds like the " This matter is viewed in a serious light" standard management "uitkak" memorandum.

 

[Verde]

From what I can see the above is using the highest infection rate of 12% for Paris, when other regions are as low as 1.4% (all these numbers still fall withing the 20% as per prof. Friston.

Also what's suspicious is that the listed and applied estimated infection rate is highest in regions with lowest population density. Ie Paris with population density of 20000 per sq/km has applied infection rate of 12%,yet Bergamo with density of 400 has applied infection rate of 62%.

Is that even possible?

The highest infection rate in France was in Paris (12%), which obviously also had the highest death toll.
I therefore assume that the regions in Italy where the death toll (adjusted for age) was 5 times higher than in Paris (on a % basis) had a 5 times higher infection rate. 12%x5 = 60%
This is far higher than the max 20% per the Prof.
I therefore want to see his model applied to these regions.

The fact that the areas with low pop density still seemed to experience high IR is exactly why I included it.
All things being equal IR should have been higher in Milan and Paris than in the other areas were it not for the miraculous thing that stopped the virus.
What stopped it?

 

[Verde]

Oh so now their Science is not "Serious Science"? That is certainly a novel way to describe an alternative model to be sure.

Sounds like the " This matter is viewed in a serious light" standard management "uitkak" memorandum.

Neither of these two very distinguished academics specialise in epidemiology.
Until they publish peer reviewed papers in the field their twitter opinions remain a bit of fun, and I am sure they will agree with this view.

It reminds me how my heroes in economics fell during the financial crisis.
I hold a number of economists specialising in finance in high regard. Eugene Fama is one of them, and I clearly remember how he made a fool of himself when he ventured out of his field to comment on macro.

 

[Paulsie]

The highest infection rate in France was in Paris (12%), which obviously also had the highest death toll.
I therefore assume that the regions in Italy where the death toll (adjusted for age) was 5 times higher than in Paris (on a % basis) had a 5 times higher infection rate. 12%x5 = 60%
This is far higher than the max 20% per the Prof.
I therefore want to see his model applied to these regions.

The fact that the areas with low pop density still seemed to experience high IR is exactly why I included it.
All things being equal IR should have been higher in Milan and Paris than in the other areas were it not for the miraculous thing that stopped the virus.
What stopped it?

Due to the predicted immunity based on previous exposure to coronavirus (common cold), it actually makes sense that people in high density areas might have better immunity due to their higher previous exposure. Higher immunity in high density area might equal to lower infection rates

 

[Verde]

Due to the predicted immunity based on previous exposure to coronavirus (common cold), it actually makes sense that people in high density areas might have better immunity due to their higher previous exposure. Higher immunity in high density area might equal to lower infection rates

There might be something to that, and I do think cross immunity is worth investigating. I just don't think it is plausible that it protects anywhere near 80% of us.

Bergamo is semi-urban at 400/Km^2. It compares to Gauteng with 375/Km^2.
It's less than 50 Km from Milan, so I assume many commute into the city for work.

 

[tetrasect]

Have you even bothered to read the articles and the paper?

I was responding to the above quote that Verde attached, not his paper. And no I didn't read the paper. Many flaws already pointed out and his conclusions just don't fit reality so seems like a waste of time to me...

 

[tetrasect]

Due to the predicted immunity based on previous exposure to coronavirus (common cold), it actually makes sense that people in high density areas might have better immunity due to their higher previous exposure. Higher immunity in high density area might equal to lower infection rates

Only +/-15% of common colds are caused by coronaviruses.

Does that hypothesis make more sense to you than the one that says a lockdown which drastically reduces person-to-person contact was the reason the number of exposures diminished?

I don't understand this obsession some people have of trying to find an alternate explanation of why cases came down after lockdowns were implemented...

 

[Geoff.D]

Neither of these two very distinguished academics specialise in epidemiology.
Until they publish peer reviewed papers in the field their twitter opinions remain a bit of fun, and I am sure they will agree with this view.

It reminds me how my heroes in economics fell during the financial crisis.
I hold a number of economists specialising in finance in high regard. Eugene Fama is one of them, and I clearly remember how he made a fool of himself when he ventured out of his field to comment on macro.

Read the paper produced on the DCM, Forget the interpretations of journalists and the BS on twitter. THEN come back and criticise the model and its methods.

There is no incentive for the prof and his team (which btw is quite impressive based on the list of references in the model paper), to go and analyse another country or city just because someone on a random forum wants it.
Instead, simply take the predictions and outcomes for the UK and London to gauge how well the model has worked for what was covered by the initial analysis.

 

[Verde]

Read the paper produced on the DCM, Forget the interpretations of journalists and the BS on twitter. THEN come back and criticise the model and its methods.

There is no incentive for the prof and his team (which btw is quite impressive based on the list of references in the model paper), to go and analyse another country or city just because someone on a random forum wants it.
Instead, simply take the predictions and outcomes for the UK and London to gauge how well the model has worked for what was covered by the initial analysis.

Did not realise there was a paper. Link?

 

[Gordon_R]

Watch out for getting confused about what he is doing and what he thinks the Prof has said about his alternative model. Hence why I simply asked him to clarify what he wants explaining.
There is a better source of what the Prof is talking about, as well as a link to a paper written about the model the prof uses (DCM).

Here is the link to the original interview with a The Guardian and the link to the paper detailing the DCM model.

And an extract out of the Guardian interview to whet your appetite, or as a minimum to get the number crunchers to blow a fuse.

Covid-19 expert Karl Friston: 'Germany may have more immunological “dark matter”'

The neuroscientist who advises Independent Sage on Covid-19 discusses the predictive power of his mathematical modelling

www.theguardian.com

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2004/2004.04463.pdf

Please stop posting this rubbish as if it is science. I already posted a link explaining why:

Coronavirus: techniques from physics promise better COVID-19 models – can they deliver?

Neuroscientist Karl Friston claims generative modelling techniques produce more valid predictions than conventional models, but the evidence so far is limited.

theconversation.com

So how well does Friston’s generative model really forecast the pandemic? The headline result of correctly predicting the peak of new cases in London as April 5 sounds impressive, but it is a little misleading. When you carefully read Friston and his colleagues’ paper, you can see that they made this prediction on April 4, just one day in advance.

And unfortunately, the model mispredicts all later data points. It forecasts 14,000-22,000 deaths in the UK by early June (we have actually recorded around 40,000) and that we should have had fewer than 200 cases per day in the last two weeks, while the reality checks in at over 1,500 per day.

Lastly, the model predicts that one in every four to five confirmed cases results in a death, which would either make COVID-19 nearly as fatal as Ebola, or means that only one in about 20 people who catch the disease are actually confirmed, which at this point seems highly unlikely. To summarise, it’s a pretty appalling forecast.

 

[Paulsie]

Only +/-15% of common colds are caused by coronaviruses.

Does that hypothesis make more sense to you than the one that says a lockdown which drastically reduces person-to-person contact was the reason the number of exposures diminished?

I don't understand this obsession some people have of trying to find an alternate explanation of why cases came down after lockdowns were implemented...

Because there is something nobody understands yet. I also have a few friends in Italy and known first hand that the lockdown had big gaping holes in it - lots of people were just not taking part. Also there was a mass migration from the north of Italy down south prior to the lockdown. Lots of people were escaping north and going south, yet the virus never took hold there.

Also - lockdown was or has been in place for 2 months or longer in most places. How does lockdown prevent infections when cases continue rising for so long? Surely if lockdown is so effective, the cases should start decreasing sharply 2-3 weeks after the start of lockdown??

 

[tetrasect]

Because there is something nobody understands yet. I also have a few friends in Italy and known first hand that the lockdown had big gaping holes in it - lots of people were just not taking part. Also there was a mass migration from the north of Italy down south prior to the lockdown. Lots of people were escaping north and going south, yet the virus never took hold there.

Also - lockdown was or has been in place for 2 months or longer in most places. How does lockdown prevent infections when cases continue rising for so long? Surely if lockdown is so effective, the cases should start decreasing sharply 2-3 weeks after the start of lockdown??

Succesful lockdowns reduce the R0 to below 1 (it's normally around 3) which causes a reduction in new cases but it still takes time for infections to diminish completely, depending on the number of active cases and the R0 that has been achieved.

For example if the lockdown has brought the R0 down to 0.7 and there are 10,000 active cases, those 10,000 people would still infect another 7000 people, and those would infect 4900 and those would infect 3430, then 2401, then 1680 and so on.
It would still take 20 transmission cycles for new transmissions to fall below 10. If the average person becomes contagious after 4 days (CDC estimate) then that would take at least 80 days.

So basically in countries with few active cases and successful lockdowns where the R0 is low it will take a relatively short time. In countries with many active cases where lockdowns are not so successful (say the R0 is at 0.9) it will take much much longer.

Say for arguments sake the US has an R0 of 0.9 (it's likely higher than that). They currently have over 1 million active cases. If the R0 remains at 0.9 we can calculate that it would take the US 110 transmission cycles (of 4 days each), so at least 440 days to get new cases to below 10.

 

[tetrasect]

Covid-19 R rate rises to 1.95 in Berlin: Officials reveal increase in infections days after thousands gathered for huge 'protest party' in the city

Covid-19 R rate rises to 1.95 in Berlin: Officials show red warning

Berlin's Health Senator Dilek Kalayci warned there had been a 'turnaround' in the city, just days after he expressed his 'horror' after thousands went out to enjoy the weekend's sunny weather.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Always a good sign.

Brazil stops releasing Covid-19 death toll and wipes data from official site

Government accused of totalitarianism and censorship after Bolsonaro orders end to publication of numbers

www.theguardian.com

The Brazilian government has been accused of totalitarianism and censorship after it stopped releasing its total numbers of Covid-19 cases and deaths and wiped an official site clean of swaths of data.

Health ministry insiders told local media the move was ordered by far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, himself – and was met with widespread outrage in Brazil, one of the world’s worst-hit Covid-19 hotspots, with more deaths than Italy and more cases than Russia and the UK.

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Covid-19 R rate rises to 1.95 in Berlin: Officials reveal increase in infections days after thousands gathered for huge 'protest party' in the city

Covid-19 R rate rises to 1.95 in Berlin: Officials show red warning

Berlin's Health Senator Dilek Kalayci warned there had been a 'turnaround' in the city, just days after he expressed his 'horror' after thousands went out to enjoy the weekend's sunny weather.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It's going to rise everywhere there are protests ...... people knew the risk, they deserve the stupid reward.

 

[Polymathic]

The US is now prime territory for the mutation of a deadlier strain.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

 

[Kelerei]

NZ is now free of COVID-19: no new cases in the past 17 days, and last active case has recovered.

Coronavirus: New Zealand is Covid-19-free, last remaining active case has recovered

The last remaining active Covid-19 case is recovered and New Zealand is marking 17 days in a row without a new case.

www.stuff.co.nz

Also, we go to Level 1 at midnight. Life returns to something approximating what it was prior to COVID-19: social distancing and gathering limits fall away. What will remain, due to the risk of COVID-19 being re-imported into the country remaining high, are contact tracing requirements by both individuals and businesses, and the border remains closed to all but NZ citizens and residents.

Coronavirus: Jacinda Ardern announces level 1 move

"We are ready", PM Jacinda Ardern says as NZ moves to the most relaxed alert level.

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[MiW]

Covid-19 R rate rises to 1.95 in Berlin: Officials reveal increase in infections days after thousands gathered for huge 'protest party' in the city

Covid-19 R rate rises to 1.95 in Berlin: Officials show red warning

Berlin's Health Senator Dilek Kalayci warned there had been a 'turnaround' in the city, just days after he expressed his 'horror' after thousands went out to enjoy the weekend's sunny weather.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Would've worked better if you actually read the numbers, before posting it. That is just typical daily mail click bite head line.