amandstu wrote: » Are we getting confused between a "natural"R(0)number and a mitigated one?
Roselyn Nutritious Dwarf wrote: » Would it be safe to assume the R number might increase for Dublin next week, after 1,000+ covidiots today spent more than 15mins together, in close proximity, on a walkabout with a majority not even wearing facemasks properly?
bb1234567 wrote: » It just increases the likelihood. Given how few cases there are nationwide it is actually very likely that there were anyone with COVID at the march. But cases will increase as social distancing is not being adhered to nationwide and there are young people have parties and meet ups in groups of dozens , big groups at beaches and parks, etc. That will have more of an impact than the march
DevilsHaircut wrote: » Exactly, R(0) = unmitigated spread (no measures) in naive (never infected) population. It is very high in Ireland - between 4 and 5 according to Tony Holohan/Philip Nolan.
amandstu wrote: » Is there much difference in this R(0) rate across different countries then? From the way you put it ,the R(0) in, say Italy or Iran might be fairly different from that in Ireland. As it is presumably the same virus it seems that there may be different types of populations in different regions of the globe.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The R(0) should be similar for most populations if we behave in the same manner. In reality, different societies have different norms in terms of social contact and etiquette therefore real rates will vary. The R(0) of 4-5 for Ireland in early March is likely an overestimate however. We do not know how many cases arrived into the country late feb and into March, therefore do not know the seed rate. Big difference in R(0) if it spread from 100 or 200 seed cases
downcow wrote: » I am sorry to keep harping on about this, but there is continuing use of the R number here and on media as if someone somewhere has a rational understanding on how it is calculated. I have yet to hear a clear explanation or calculation. Why is it a secret or mystery?
linearity of log(deaths) is clear in the range 16 – 31 March. A linear fit has Adjusted R2 = 0.992, and the coefficient of growth r = 0.224 with s.e. = 0.005. Adaptive M-H sampling passed the Raftery, Geweke, and Heidelberger tests for convergence. Posterior estimates of the transmission parameters, scaled by population N = 66 million, are b1*N = 0.735 with 90% credible interval (0.576, 0.826) whilst b2*N = 1.112 (0.055 , 3.335) and b3*N = 1.015 (0.052 , 3.071). R0 is estimated as 5.81 with 90%CI (5.08 , 6.98).
quokula wrote: » Here's a document on calculating R0https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-12-147 And here's a critique of the UK government's calculation early in the pandemic, with some of the maths behind their calculation of R0https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20052340v1.full.pdf It's not a secret or mystery, nor is it pure guesswork. It's just the result of a lot of painstaking mathematical modelling that can't be turned into an easy quote for someone to put in a news report. Good luck turning this into a headline: You've got a lot of data points, such as how many people test positive each day, how many people enter and leave hospital, the level of testing coverage, the number of contacts found per case in contact tracing. You've got also got a lot of data missing, like how many people have it that haven't been tested, or haven't shown symptoms yet but will. You may also have different characteristics in different settings like spread in hospitals vs in the community. From this, data scientists can make a best estimate of the R value. Because the data is incomplete they usually have a range that they have a high confidence in, that's why you often hear figures like "0.7 - 0.9" which is as precise as they can get.
downcow wrote: » Thanks for all the info, but I am afraid I still think it is a total nonsense. Without even getting into all the crazy stats outlined in those articles, not to mention the very important stats not available, to suggest an R number for the community, and not break it down for different settings makes zero sense. I don't know about ROI but in Northern Ireland it was revealed the other day that over 50% of the covid deaths took place within the care home population. The care home population in Northern Ireland makes up 1.2% of the general population. So we have a situation where 50% of the deaths will occur within 1.2% of the population and the authorities want to ignore that and roll this figure over everyone. I don't have the stats for the percentage of deaths which took place within the hospital environment but I think it will also be fairly stark. I know a few people who have had Covid and I do not know one single person for whom it did not emanate from a care home or hospital. I have even had it myself brought home by my wife who is a nurse. It is a farcical situation for governments to quote general community R number in these circumstances. We have a situation where the real R number (whatever that is) amongst school age children, is to all intent and purpose, zero, and yet their return to contact is being governed by what is happening in care homes.
Deleted User wrote: » The real R(0) is the average number of people that those who currently have the virus go on to infect. As simple as that, no magic, voodoo, woo, or anything else. The trouble is, it is impossible to accurately get all the information required to feed into that simple calculation. That's why epidemiologists employ mathematical models to take the information we do know to give an estimate of the R(0), but this will only ever be as good as the data fed into the model.
millb wrote: » The reality is that by good contact tracing & testing you can estimate many R(0) or R(e) values for specific populations / cohorts. Especially at this stage, one of these model operators could give R values (samples or ranges) for say a "meat factory" or "nursing home" in April or May. But that would be too much information to share with the stupid public / media / non-experts etc etc
Arizona again told hospitals to activate the coronavirus emergency plans after cases spiked following reopening, turning it into a U.S. virus hotspot along with neighboring Southwest states. The state's stay-at-home order ended on May 15, and its cases have increased 115 percent since then, leading a former state health chief to warn Arizona may need new social distancing measures or field hospitals. State health director Cara Christ on Saturday told hospitals to "fully activate" emergency plans - a message she last sent on March 25 - after Arizona's largest medical network Banner Health warned it was reaching its capacity in intensive care unit beds. "Since May 15, ventilated COVID-19 patients have quadrupled," Banner Health tweeted on Monday, adding it had hit capacity for some patients needing cardiac and respiratory care. The alert came after Arizona, New Mexico and Utah each posted rises of 40% or higher in new cases for the week ended June 7 compared with the prior seven days, joining hotpots in the South like Florida and Arkansas, according to a Reuters analysis.
ShineOn7 wrote: » Numbers, and therefore the R0, seriously on the rise again in Arizona That's now Arizona, Singapore, Dubai and elsewhere where the numbers rose again sharply when things re-opened. And yet many Irish want the phases rushed up We should learn from the mistakes of other countries and American states. Not repeat themhttps://news.yahoo.com/arizona-calls-emergency-plan-covid-010249888.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYm9hcmRzLmllL3ZidWxsZXRpbi9zaG93dGhyZWFkLnBocD9wPTExMzY5MTU5Ng&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK3J2EZavb74LE5HFVoCX8k9W7f0xX7dkpdkcPrOF9SafrJMjhTjC5xMLmwddW4-Te9mHgjaxXGIBMLH6rVrJ-J5BToTDQCFJbMx0WDdEOGQDNcjW3PEMeRr2zk0k08kuuIgy5aMpPCgp2tSzBLADjefwZg12mWyzPne8hYGojyZ
JP Liz V1 wrote: » It is still low here yes?
ShineOn7 wrote: » It's estimated to be 0.4 to 0.8 Anything below 1 = good Anything above 1 - bad
micks_address wrote: » When do we stop having new cases?
ShineOn7 wrote: » That I don't know, but some researchers believe it's getting weaker. I mean, it's a virus, it has to weaken eventuallyThis thread may interest you
downcow wrote: » I continue to be a bit bamboozled by the approach to Covid. We had one covid death reported Thursday - first for four days I think. I know the situation intimately and I just do not get. This was a 91 year old woman who was admitted to hospital terminally ill and in the very final stages (days) of cancer. She had not had a bowel movement in almost 4 weeks. All tests for covid were negative, but after examination she was described as 'clinically Covid' - a term used when they think a person has symptoms but are continuing to test negative. This woman inevitably died and became the latest 'Covid death' in Northern Ireland. I just can't see the point in the statistics any more? And where do things like the cancer stats sit now? And this is certainly not an unusual story, from my experience this is the norm.
yosemitesam1 wrote: » The average age of covid deaths is also very similar to average life expectancy.
downcow wrote: » Very interesting stat, would you have a link?
FishOnABike wrote: » Why does it have to weaken? Has a virus like measles gotten any weaker in the last thousand years or so?
Hmmzis wrote: » Sure has:https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/morbillivirus In part by attenuating the hosts as well.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
