|
this is my first time discovering this guy, and i'm sure the jokes been made a thousand times before, but he sounds like he comes from page 99 of the 2nd edition monster manual
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
my man sounds like he's usually encountered leading a group of 2d4 swamp ogres
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
What does that mean for the non-sciencey among us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Can someone smart make someone not smart (like me) understand this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
CRUSTY MINGE posted:Colorado is going blue no matter what, so I'm still writing in Bigfoot for president. Now the VP, I'm still hammering out who to write in. Leaning towards Mothman as of late. the google doc in the OP may have some suggestions too: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3914989
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
Riot Carol Danvers posted:What does that mean for the non-sciencey among us? LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Can someone smart make someone not smart (like me) understand this? R0 is the expected number of cases that can result from a single case when everyone is vulnerable. This means that every sick person gets six other people sick according to this analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number 5.7 is a crazy high R0. EDIT: Note that the wikipedia article gives the R0 of COVID-19 as lower than 5.7.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Riot Carol Danvers posted:What does that mean for the non-sciencey among us? R0 refers to how many people an infected person subsequently infects. Models were built on an r0 of 2.5 or so, that is that someone infects on average 2 and a half people. Turns out that's less than half the actual observed r0, so this thing is actually infecting a lot more people than we expected. That means that for herd immunity, vaccination, etc. our models way undershot and it's going to be worse/take longer than previously expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Can someone smart make someone not smart (like me) understand this? Riot Carol Danvers posted:What does that mean for the non-sciencey among us? NOT a doctor. My understanding is that the rate of infection is now believed to be 5.7. As in ONE infected person will infect 5.7 people. Previously agencies have said that the number was more like 2. A number of 2 drove them to do social distancing, close "non-essential" places, etc. 5.7 means China lifting the lock down on Wuhan is VERY bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
So it's less of an exponential line, and outright vertical. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
It means a whole lot of people are gonna get the rona
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:my man sounds like he's usually encountered leading a group of 2d4 swamp ogres Ed O is worth turning (volume) up whenever he's got a mic in front of him. e: Also, am I understanding that the commonly accepted incubation period is now 21 days? (not from the stuff just posted, just wondering where we're at)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:R0 refers to how many people an infected person subsequently infects. Models were built on an r0 of 2.5 or so, that is that someone infects on average 2 and a half people. Turns out that's less than half the actual observed r0, so this thing is actually infecting a lot more people than we expected. That means that for herd immunity, vaccination, etc. our models way undershot and it's going to be worse/take longer than previously expected. Note this is extremely situationally dependent, and what the paper describes is most relevant for describing the early outbreak in China and not necessarily the behavior in other areas. For example, the authors state: "Among many factors, the lack of awareness of this new pathogen and the Lunar New Year travel and gathering in early and mid-January 2020 might or might not play a role in the high R0." If you looked at the number based solely on that woman in South Korea that infected multiple churches, the R0 would be 1,000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Note this is extremely situationally dependent, and what the paper describes is most relevant for describing the early outbreak in China and not necessarily the behavior in other areas. For example, the authors state: "Among many factors, the lack of awareness of this new pathogen and the Lunar New Year travel and gathering in early and mid-January 2020 might or might not play a role in the high R0." If you looked at the number based solely on that woman in South Korea that infected multiple churches, the R0 would be 1,000. Yeah that's definitely worth keeping in mind before you get too worried.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Note this is extremely situationally dependent, and what the paper describes is most relevant for describing the early outbreak in China and not necessarily the behavior in other areas. For example, the authors state: "Among many factors, the lack of awareness of this new pathogen and the Lunar New Year travel and gathering in early and mid-January 2020 might or might not play a role in the high R0." If you looked at the R0 based solely on that woman in South Korea that infected multiple churches, the R0 would be 1,000. Yeah this is the big question and why that study has such a wide R0 confidence interval. The Chinese data is bad because of their rampant lying (though the propaganda likely didn't start before this data came in) and nobody knowing what this thing was to start with. I'm really curious as to what ours will be, even though our data is bad due to poo poo testing (which is getting better!).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Midjack posted:R0 is the expected number of cases that can result from a single case when everyone is vulnerable. This means that every sick person gets six other people sick according to this analysis. Mr. Nice! posted:R0 refers to how many people an infected person subsequently infects. Models were built on an r0 of 2.5 or so, that is that someone infects on average 2 and a half people. Turns out that's less than half the actual observed r0, so this thing is actually infecting a lot more people than we expected. That means that for herd immunity, vaccination, etc. our models way undershot and it's going to be worse/take longer than previously expected. ASAPI posted:NOT a doctor. there is also the (worldwide) problem with quality of data sets. a lot of cases are under-reported, testing varies wildly, quality of testing, etc, so these studies are struggling for lack of reliable data. no matter what, the r0 value shows that lifting the lockdown is a pipedream for the foreseeable future. it also dramatically raises the requirements for herd immunity (up to 82% of total population, if accurate).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
brains posted:for the most part this is correct but there is a very important distinction to be made: this is the supposed r0 with no mitigation. what that means is that yes, with one person infected, in a business-as-normal environment, the odds are likely they will infect 5.7 other people. but this is not accurate, since social distancing, shelter-in-place, enforced curfews, contact tracing, and a host of other mitigation efforts are in place, and each one is designed to incrementally reduce the effective r0 value. don't worry, WaPo and the NYT aren't amplifying the white house's claim that this thing might be cresting right now   welp
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Anyone that payed even a small amount of attention to how quickly it spread and how well it spread should not be surprised. It's the morons that tried to act like it was nothing and everything is fine that got so many more people infected and killed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
ded posted:Anyone that payed even a small amount of attention to how quickly it spread and how well it spread should not be surprised. It's the morons that tried to act like it was nothing and everything is fine that got so many more people infected and killed. And they’ll do it again in just a couple of weeks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
ded posted:Anyone that payed even a small amount of attention to how quickly it spread and how well it spread should not be surprised. It's the morons that tried to act like it was nothing and everything is fine that got so many more people infected and killed. lol number went up on the day the US had the most deaths in 24h so far (that will go up every day for a bit). the number demands a blood sacrifice. politicians dont loving care
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
Despite the fact that NZ has had falling new cases for a few days, we are now enacting full quarantine for ALL returnees rather than just self isolation. I'm truly sorry for all the people who are gonna die.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
Small thing to add: R0 is pronounced "R-naught", in case you hear them talking about it on the radio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
R-so
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Estimated R0 is weird because it includes environmental data. So an estimated R0 for a disease outbreak in nowhere Nevada while everyone is locked in their homes is less than than the estimated R0 for the same disease in a highly dense industrial town before its understood. This just tells us the transmission in Wuhan, assuming the methods are sound, was more explosive than originally thought. Since our current action and is based on a lot more data than that, including observing its effects globally and in the US, it mostly means that the original obfuscation was even more detrimental, and provides explanatory value on how it originally spread so quickly. Because the environment that you're probably concerned about is different, it doesn't mean much. The appropriate response or an assessment of its threat in any particular case isnt really altered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/npratc/status/1247988083376549888
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Didn’t you hear? This was no big deal and we can all go back to work next week. Case closed!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Well that's one way to juke the stats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:I don't think so, outside some C-SPAM pollyannas. It would have been personally gratifying to see him use Biden as a punching bag right up to the nomination, though. this wouldn't have happened regardless, bernie has said that he likes biden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
Mission Accomplished!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
"no new covid-19 cases but these pneumonia deaths sure are high this year!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
PookBear posted:this wouldn't have happened regardless, bernie has said that he likes biden. Bernie's been in politics long enough that he knows that he has to support Biden because Trump is really that bad. He doesn't have the luxury of avoiding practicality because he's actually one of the elected people in charge of the system. We fearless internet posters have the luxury of being free to whittle the system into something less evil in the coming decade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
not caring here posted:"no new covid-19 cases but these pneumonia deaths sure are high this year!" Yup. Empire in decline poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Bernie's been in politics long enough that he knows that he has to support Biden because Trump is really that bad. He doesn't have the luxury of avoiding practicality because he's actually one of the elected people in charge of the system. We fearless internet posters have the luxury of being free to whittle the system into something less evil in the coming decade. he didn't ever call him out on basic policy positions he apologized to biden over an op ed pointing out the connection between his donors and the policies he pushed
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
ded posted:Anyone that payed even a small amount of attention to how quickly it spread and how well it spread should not be surprised. It's the morons that tried to act like it was nothing and everything is fine that got so many more people infected and killed. This is what bothers me down here in FL. For every person in a mask keeping distance, there are ten motherfuckers all up on each other braying loudly. My fuckin' idiot neighbors across the street are having people over to party more often and the mother is a flight attendant. We saw more traffic and people out and about today than anytime last week. Just thinking about asymptomatic spread has us at work scared to death. We could have already hosed the people we serve without knowing it, even taking every precaution. Scrub the van and stretcher between patients, change the sheet on the stretcher at the same time, wearing gloves and masks (which we have to beg from anyone we can 'cause, lol, there are none to be bought), going nowhere except to work and home, etc. Our business has gone to essential-to-life appointments only weeks ago. That last part might even make things worse, as it's all nursing homes to dialysis centers. We can't even get tested without symptoms because we are just transport, not actually medical workers. I can go on and on but why. Better us that take care than someone who won't. This is gonna be so bad but I hope it's not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
everything is extremely good right now
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
cdc posted:
They want more people infected. They know that people exposed and not symptomatic can pass it on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 04:26
|
|
|
The only silver lining with you know who at the helm is it could be worse. I don't see any chance their rhetoric would change at 20% instead of 2. A god drat death cult.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
ded posted:They want more people infected. They know that people exposed and not symptomatic can pass it on. It's killing people conservatives hate. This is intentional, btw. The feds are stealing states own medical supplies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
ded posted:They want more people infected. They know that people exposed and not symptomatic can pass it on. The hospitals here in Boston are full of COVID cases. Like they just converted the last trauma ICU over to a COVID floor so tough poo poo if you get injured. At one point last week close to 10% of the medical staff at one hospital was in isolation due to exposure and we're still a week or two out from the peak. This is a "we're about to get Italy style hosed and it's time to take some risks" sort of decision. EDIT: This is on top of spotty food supplies in grocery stores. All the critical life supporting systems & supply chains are under stress right now and the safety margin for taking critical workers out of circulation is something that we sadly can't currently afford in certain places. In other words, for hard hit areas, it's the right call. For less hard hit areas, it's the wrong call. But if I'm the CDC, I'd be focusing on making sure the hard hit areas don't tip over to catastrophe with the hope that the lag time before it hammers the rest of the country means that the much belated preparations in terms of supply chain resilience and extra hospital capacity start kicking in to compensate for the increased numbers of critical workers that will end up getting sick from this decision. wins32767 fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Apr 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
i hate it here
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 04:36
|
|
