South African Covid-19 News and Discussions 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,105
So looking at this, not anymore contagious as a common cold or the "flu"? So not as contagious as people said? Taking into account most people don't even know they have a cold and 80% of the people who get covid probably don't either. So if we take into account most people who get it, don't even know they have had it, then it's not as deadly either. You're buying into the whole media bias.
Keep yourself safe as much as possible and those around you, but stop thinking this is the end of the world, currently it is only so because of what the governments have done.

Actually, Influenza is not nearly as contagious. On average, 10 people with influenza will infect a further 13 people whereas 10 people with Covid-19 will infect a further 30 people.

You keep accusing me of "buying into" media hype and going on about the end of the world? I never said anything like that so stop projecting your crap onto me please.

All I'm doing is stating that this virus is exactly as contagious as we thought. Sure it's not the most contagious thing ever but we never thought that to begin with.

You keep making it bigger than it is. In your defence, that's a general problem around COVID-19.
You said 2%, I said 0.7% and you're accusing me of making it bigger? :ROFL:
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,505
Actually, Influenza is not nearly as contagious. On average, 10 people with influenza will infect a further 13 people whereas 10 people with Covid-19 will infect a further 30 people.

You keep accusing me of "buying into" media hype and going on about the end of the world? I never said anything like that so stop projecting your crap onto me please.

All I'm doing is stating that this virus is exactly as contagious as we thought. Sure it's not the most contagious thing ever but we never thought that to begin with.


You said 2%, I said 0.7% and you're accusing me of making it bigger? :ROFL:

You would be wrong, influenza has an R0 that is roughly inline with COVID-19
 

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
19,421
Fiance's hospital just ran out of high-care and ICU beds.

#justtheflubro

EDIT: and no it's not some shitty government hospital
The reality is that if a COVID-19 patient needs to be ventilated in ICU because they can't breathe by themselves with supplementary oxygen, the reaper man is close-by.
 

Crabby

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
11,017
Fiance's hospital just ran out of high-care and ICU beds.
As a matter of interest, how many of each bed type did they have?

Happened to family member working in a small hospital in a little dorp in the south of Spain. Within 2 weeks, they were back to normal, and from what I've heard, lockdown is pretty much done and dusted there.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,105
Exactly what we should have done, then lockdown would be done, and everyone could carry on zolling & drinking, but more importantly, putting food on the table and the kids getting an education.

Sadly the way the ANC has handled this lockdown it seems you might be right.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,505
Oh really? Where do you get that from? Seasonal flu has an R0 of 1.3, are you saying covid does as well?

No I'm saying Influenza can have an R0 in the 2 to 3 range (but then this is dependant on many many many factors) and Covid-19 is in the same sort of range.
 

MrGray

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,391
Oh really? Where do you get that from? Seasonal flu has an R0 of 1.3, are you saying covid does as well?
It's not a static figure. It's a function of how comprehensive the testing is, how well people are distancing, etc.

1595497603281.png
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,105
No I'm saying Influenza can have an R0 in the 2 to 3 range (but then this is dependant on many many many factors) and Covid-19 is in the same sort of range.

True, the 1918 strain had an R0 of about 2. However the difference between an R0 of 3 (covid) and an R0 of 1.3 (seasonal flu) is massive since it's exponential.

If you multiply 1 by 1.3, 10 times, you get 13.8.
Multiply 1 by 3, 10 times, you get 59,049.

I wouldn't call those numbers comparable...

It's not a static figure. It's a function of how comprehensive the testing is, how well people are distancing, etc.

View attachment 879735

Yeah obviously we are talking about it's R0 in "normal life" without any protective measures in place, which is on average 3. Your graph even confirms that number.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
10,388
The reality is that if a COVID-19 patient needs to be ventilated in ICU because they can't breathe by themselves with supplementary oxygen, the reaper man is close-by.

ICU /= ventilated

As a matter of interest, how many of each bed type did they have?

Happened to family member working in a small hospital in a little dorp in the south of Spain. Within 2 weeks, they were back to normal, and from what I've heard, lockdown is pretty much done and dusted there.

That I don't know, but it's a 350+ bed hospital so not exactly small.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
It's not a static figure. It's a function of how comprehensive the testing is, how well people are distancing, etc.

View attachment 879735
R0 IS a static figure calculated at the START of an infectious event!.
Rt however is not static and changes as the infection event progresses.

And your insert shows just how unpredictable the values are BECAUSE of the reliance in the input data available and coming out of the data as reported. Yesterday, the figures for WC were NOT as reflected above
 

MrGray

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,391
Yeah obviously we are talking about it's R0 in "normal life" without any protective measures in place, which is on average 3. Your graph even confirms that number.
Nope, you can't assume that the starting figure of 3 is only because there were no protective measures in place. It is quite possible that a large component of it is because when they first started testing the measured growth rate of the infections appeared much higher for a number of possible reasons - e.g. only the most likely cases being tested, the extent to which the virus was already endemic at some level, etc etc.
 

Lupus

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
50,976
True, the 1918 strain had an R0 of about 2. However the difference between an R0 of 3 and an R0 of 1.3 is massive since it's exponential.



Yeah obviously we are talking about it's R0 in "normal life" without any protective measures in place, which is on average 3. Your graph even confirms that number.
The 1918 strain of H1N1 has turned out to actually not be as deadly but you know the reason it spread like it did in 1918 was because of this thing called World War 1 was happening? Why it was so devastating is because people were just coming out of a massive war, they were also a lot dirtier than we are now. You cannot compare anything to 1918, it's like going back and comparing to the plague of the 1600s.
 

animal531

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
2,729

MrGray

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,391
R0 IS a static fibgure calculated at the START of an infectious event!.
Rt however is not static and changes as the infection event progresses.

Amd your insert shows just how unpredictable the values are BECAUSE of the reliance in the input data available and coming out of the data as reported. Yesterday, the figures for WC were NOT as reflected above
Nope. Rt is the real-time R0. R0 does not refer to the start of the event. The 0 in R denotes that it is the basic reproduction number, not time 0.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top