lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 12:34
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
That is just one (scientific) paper. And the title is "paper suggest that ... may increase risks".
I think SubJeff's point is that a lot of all the new-found information has not been checked yet. No real peer-reviews. No follow-up research yet. No other research that confirms the first research yet. In other words: these are all still just research-topics, nothing certain, no proof, just hunches, directions where to go next to find solutions.
I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else). And that taking these early clues as the full truth irritates him. I can understand that. So all we need to do is point at new clues and new research, and be aware it's not the truth yet. Just clues, hunches, directions, possibilities.
Do you want some other meat?
(
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00122?fbclid=IwAR2OgYPXEabQO3inxSLEWSIOlZPSU-6oAr-OAVPEkBy9_LTIKRtBlz3BpA8)
Gryzemuis on 25/3/2020 at 12:36
Today our parliament got briefed by our research institutions. One notable fact was: since we started doing "social distancing", and recently a more serious form of lockdown, the spreading slowed down significantly. 2-3 weeks ago, every infected person would infect 2 other persons. That number is now down to where each infected person infects on average only 1 other person. Good news. And as our lockdown/isolation keeps getting thighter every few days, this number should go down still.
lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 12:40
"I suspect SubJeff is a researcher (medical or something else)" -> Zombe is of course a researcher/medic.
SubJeff is the classic (GOOD) skeptic.
Gryzemuis on 25/3/2020 at 12:45
And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.
Compare it to Trump. This week he has suggested that covid-19 can be cured with Chloroquine. "The results look good, they look very good". Trump claims the drug has already been tested, all the side-effects are known (and harmless), etc. The fact is that doctors and researchers are still look at Chloroquine to see if it is effective, how effective it is, what the side-effects are, etc, etc. Again, research versus proven reality. It turns out he's way way too positive, and nobody for sure knows if Chloroquine is gonna be really helpful or not.
I don't wanna pick a fight with you. I really don't. But SubJeff has a point that some of the stuff you link to is still research, not proven science yet.
demagogue on 25/3/2020 at 12:57
If you've been around, you'll know SubJeff is an anesthesiologist because he's talked about it before. Needless to say, it's the kind of work where one needs to be dead sure what the science says because people's lives and health depend on it. So even if this specifically is out of his field, he'll probably have good instincts about the difference between "researchers are seeing some interesting findings and are still discussing it, but nobody professional is about to put it into practice until another three to five years of testing or whatever", and hard established science based on which doctors make life-affecting decisions.
In that respect, though, the stakes should be lower for this thread because nobody should be taking advice from anything said anywhere on here about an actual health decision they face to begin with. Go see a doctor.
Gryzemuis on 25/3/2020 at 13:03
Quote Posted by icemann
Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
As I wrote, it was reported this morning in NL that after the social distancing (and now partial lockdown), the R0 (R nought) in NL went down from 2 to 1. That means that before, every infected person would infect 2 others. And now every infected person infects only 1 other person.
Anarchic Fox on 25/3/2020 at 13:06
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.
As a physicist, I've learned that most pop physics is trash. Maybe one in ten peer-reviewed physics articles are junk, but they're often controversial and interesting junk, and they thus get boosted by science journalists more than other papers. If you come across an academic paper via a journalistic outlet, its likelihood of being junk is much higher than normal.
Unless you're a researcher in the field, you simply cannot evaluate the quality of a paper in another field. Thus, a good rule of thumb is to rely only on textbooks and review papers when citing results from unfamiliar scientific fields.
Starker on 25/3/2020 at 13:12
Quote Posted by demagogue
I mean the person goes to the hospital about 2 weeks after they've contracted the illness where it's actually counted. They could be in the hospital longer, but I'm talking about the number in the statistic of "new cases today". Put another way: the number you see in the statistic for "today" is actually the number of cases contracted about "two weeks ago". You won't see the actual number of cases contracted "today" until two weeks from now. It could be a little longer or shorter depending on the individual. But the point is, you should expect the number of "new cases" to jump significantly in the two weeks after a lockdown starts.
The duration "two weeks" comes from when they polled people testing positive the date their symptoms started, which (when you add the latency from contraction to symptoms) tended to be 2 weeks, or so the article I read on it claimed the data it was showing in the graph said.
New cases, sure (though that also depends on testing), but you would not necessarily expect the number of deaths to start going down after two weeks?
zombe on 25/3/2020 at 13:12
Quote Posted by icemann
Is there anywhere where that's actually worked? Not heard of any reductions in numbers in any of the countries where lockdowns have been put into affect. Italy's been on lockdown for a few weeks now, and the numbers of infected and deaths continues to go up.
I have been keeping an eye on this virus situation since we got our first cases. Brothers wife is a medical worker and he is also in a risk group due to some underlying health problems. And then inevitably i learned that i am too in high risk group. Since then various stuff has happened - like their child getting tested positive (seems that the worst has passed, recovering but not done yet). So, currently we serve as their legs and arms outside their home.
Anyway, i have been keeping track of various stats and stuff - some of which might be of interest here:
(
https://postimg.cc/f34TNRqH)
Inline Image:
https://i.postimg.cc/f34TNRqH/cov19.pngNumber before "exp" is calculated spread multiplier (red line). The two numbers before it determine the exact range used to calculate that multiplier. Blue line is new cases and yellow is deaths.
A spread multiplier below 1.0 means that the virus is dying out.
est = some tin-pot-little mythical country no-one can find on any map (too early to tell).
ita = Italy (has been bending down for quite some time already - hope it keeps that up)
ger = Germany (has started to bend down)
kor = South Korea (has been pointing down for quite some time already)
usa = the land of the oranges, i think (very worrying. a few days ago the rate was once even over 1.43)
spa = Spain (volatile, currently bending down)
fra = France (bent some and now is unchanging)
wor = The whole fluffy world (fuck)
X-axis ~= days ago (2 = yesterday)
On the subject of restrictions having an effect - it has a massive lag time.
1. restrictions getting adhered takes time ... then ...
2. virus has a incubation period of 2-14 days, with a mean of 5 days ... then ...
3. it takes time for people to decide to get tested and/or convincing someone to test them and arrange it etc ... then ...
4. it takes time to get the result of the test ... finally.
lowenz on 25/3/2020 at 13:14
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
And again, that paper describes what they have investigated, what they've seen, and offers potential explanations. Sure, everybody is looking at covid-19 now, and there will be lots of interesting stuff. But again, it's all just research yet. Nothing 100% certain, nothing proven. This is science.
Compare it to Trump. This week he has suggested that covid-19 can be cured with Chloroquine. "The results look good, they look very good". Trump claims the drug has already been tested, all the side-effects are known (and harmless), etc. The fact is that doctors and researchers are still look at Chloroquine to see if it is effective, how effective it is, what the side-effects are, etc, etc. Again, research versus proven reality. It turns out he's way way too positive, and nobody for sure knows if Chloroquine is gonna be really helpful or not.
I don't wanna pick a fight with you. I really don't. But SubJeff has a point that some of the stuff you link to is still research, not proven science yet.
Chloroquine is a good route because it acts as antiviral AND immunosuppressor. This is ALREADY known.
Of course its practical clinical use can't be a "magical elixir" like Trump suggests.
