106
"Public deserves to know”: Harvard Professor says official messaging contradicts hantavirus science (www.youtube.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/videos@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago* (5 children)

It's 2.1....

Epidemiological analysis estimated an initial median reproductive number of approximately 2.1 before control measures were implemented, decreasing after isolation, quarantine and active contact tracing.

https://zenodo.org/records/20112944

2-3x COVID in the UK

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523

Are you saying COVID wasn't a pandemic?

Logically you are if you're saying R value determines that and 2.1 means it can't be a pandemic when COVID was 0.7-0.9...

But I don't think there's a lot of logic at play here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Initial estimates of the basic reproduction number (R0) for COVID-19 in January 2020 were between 1.4 and 2.5,[60] but a subsequent analysis claimed that it may be about 5.7 (with a 95 per cent confidence interval of 3.8 to 8.9).[61]

    The link to the actual study

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7323562/

    Let me know if you find a problem with their methodology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago* (3 children)

    The abstract, in full:

    Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period (4.2 days). We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). We further show that active surveillance, contact tracing, quarantine, and early strong social distancing efforts are needed to stop transmission of the virus.

    So...

    That's saying the initial R value was 2.2-2.7...

    And in the last studied out real of Andes, they said it was 2.1...

    Since you're offering to answer questions:

    Why shouldn't we compare the initial R values since we know both?

    If we have a median R value of something with a best case 40% mortality...

    By that point we're already fucked.

    Like, I'm starting to doubt facts and/or logic are gonna help you here buddy.

    But that was a nice source you didn't understand, so thanks for linking that.

    Edit:

    Like, it almost feels like you think "r value" is a set number and not a descriptor of how it's actually spreading...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

    You just don't understand what the words and phrases you keep using mean...

    Like, if contact is minimized, it will be lower...

    If someone goes the World Cup, it makes the number skyrocket, despite the virus not mutating...

    You just fundamentally don't understand any of this buddy, and instead of asking questions to learn, you want a slap fight.

    I'm probably going to give up on helping you soon

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    You want to compare apples to apples now after claiming

    when COVID was 0.7-0.9

    Is that right?

    In the video you linked the expert said this wasn’t a covid situation. You need to calm down.

    You know what, instead of pointlessly having an internet argument now how about we both set a reminder for 1 year from now.

    Let’s revisit this and examine who was right. Should be fun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    instead of pointlessly having an internet argument now how about we both set a reminder for 1 year from now.

    Welp, that's pretty much the proof that neither facts nor logic will work...

    It's like if I said "if we don't hit the breaks the bus is driving off the cliff"

    And you said that's only true if the bus goes off the cliff, even if we hit the breaks

    You think that if there isn't a global pandemic, it means one couldn't have happened.

    I'm sorry buddy, I honestly gave you a lot of chances, but you don't want facts and logic to try and figure out reality, you have a belief of what will happen, and will say anything that defends that belief.

    Literally no one will ever be able to change your opinion about any thing.

    And the fucked up thing is you're likely proud of that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I really like how you misrepresented stats, created strawman arguments and just invented stuff that was never said and claim you’re the only one with facts.

    The actual experts are saying this won’t be a pandemic.

    Enjoy having whatever meltdown you’re experiencing. The rest of us will be chilling out in reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent