Citat:
Nej, inte om man har testat sig och är ren. Annars så ska man stanna, för att inte sprida skiten vidare. Det är mer absurt att folk ska riskera att dö bara för att du vill sitta ett par timmar på ett plan bland folk för att sedan ta hem det och sprida skiten bland ditt folk i ditt land. Viruset sprids genom luften och man behöver tydligen inte andas in det så risken att dom andra som sitter på planet får det är hög. Så sedan när skiten börjar spridas i andra samhällen bara för att du var självisk, och äldre och andra i riskgruppen börjar dö, var det värkligen rätt beslut då? Ungar ska ju tydligen vara extra känsliga för viruset, är det värkligen rimligt att riskera att utsätta som för att du inte ville stanna?
Jag har aldrig varit i Kina så det är inte som att jag sitter och vill hem
Ungar verkar inte vara extra känsliga för detta virus, var har du läst det? Jag har bara läst om vuxna (mest äldre) dödsoffer.
Jag tycker det låter oerhört överdrivet att börja prata om att stoppa flyg från Kina och liknande. Det var samma panik med sars och svininfluensan och det gick ju bra då för de allra flesta.
Citat:
Fy H-vete! 
Viruset är värre än vad de värsta konspiratörerna i tråden trott: 
Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding
@DrEricDing
Viruset är värre än vad de värsta konspiratörerna i tråden trott: Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding
@DrEricDing
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD - the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!! How bad is that reproductive R0 value? It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad - never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating... #WuhanCoronovirus #CoronavirusOutbreakhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1220919589623803905.html
2/ “We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) to be 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing...
3/ ... We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8-5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, and by 21 January a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the start of the year. Should the epidemic continue unabated in Wuhan....
4/ we predict the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially larger by 4 February (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), infection will be established in other Chinese cities, and importations to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that..
5/ travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February. Our findings are...
6/ ...critically dependent on the assumptions underpinning our model, and the timing and reporting of confirmed cases, and there is considerable uncertainty associated with the outbreak at this early stage. With these caveats in mind, our work suggests that...
7/ a basic reproductive number for this 2019-nCoV outbreak is higher compared to other emergent coronaviruses, suggesting that containment or control of this pathogen may be substantially more difficult.”!!!! #wuhanvirus #CoronavirusOutbreak #ChinaCoronaVirus ...
8/ ... SUMMARY: so what does this mean for the world??? We are now faced with the most virulent virus 🦠 epidemic the world has ever seen. An R0=3.8 means that it exceeds SARS’s modest 0.49 viral attack rate by 7.75x — almost 8 fold! A virus that spreads 8 faster than SARS...
9/ ...cannot be stopped by containment alone. A 99% quarantine lockdown containment of Wuhan will not even reduce the epidemic’s spread by even 1/3rd in the next 2 weeks. Thus, I really hate to be the epidemiologist who has to admit this, but we are potentially faced with...
10\ ... possibly an unchecked pandemic that the world has not seen since the 1918 Spanish Influenza. Let’s hope it doesn’t reach that level but we now live in the modern world 🌎 with faster ✈️+ 🚞 than 1918. @WHO and @CDCgov needs to declare public health emergency ASAP!
11/ REFERENCE for the R0 attack rate (reproductive coefficient) of 3.8 and the 99% containment models come from this paper: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
12/ What is the typical R0 attack rate for the seasonal flu in most years? It’s around an R0=1.28. The 2009 flu pandemic? R0=1.48. The 1918 Spanish Flu? 1.80. This new #WuhanCoronavirus reproductive value again? R0=3.8. (Flu reference:
Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature
The potential impact of an influenza pandemic can be assessed by calculating a set of transmissibility parameters, the most important being the reproduction number (R), which is defined as the averag…
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480
)
13/ ...and it gets even worse, the Lancet now reports that the coronavirus is contagious even when *no symptoms*: specifically: “crucial to isolate patients... quarantine contacts as early as possible because asymptomatic infection appears possible”!
Doctors warn China coronavirus carriers may show no symptoms of illness
CAT scan revealed signs of pneumonia on 10-year-old Shenzhen boy’s lungs even though he had no outward signs of infection.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047636/doctors-warn-china-coronavirus-carriers-may-show-no-symptoms
14/ Let’s pretend the 3.8 estimate is too high (there’s unpublished estimates of 2.5). even if this virus’s R0=2.5, that’s still 2x higher than seasonal flu’s 1.28 (ref above), and higher than 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic of 1.80 that killed millions. So 2.8 is still super bad folks
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.
I den studien har de antagit numer och räknat... Det är bara en modell. Ungefär som när Sandviken tjänade 900 miljarder på invandringen.
Citat:
Fy H-vete! Viruset är värre än vad de värsta konspiratörerna i tråden trott:
Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding
@DrEricDing
Viruset är värre än vad de värsta konspiratörerna i tråden trott: Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding
@DrEricDing
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD - the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!! How bad is that reproductive R0 value? It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad - never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating... #WuhanCoronovirus #CoronavirusOutbreakhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1220919589623803905.html
2/ “We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) to be 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing...
3/ ... We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8-5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, and by 21 January a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the start of the year. Should the epidemic continue unabated in Wuhan....
4/ we predict the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially larger by 4 February (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), infection will be established in other Chinese cities, and importations to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that..
5/ travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February. Our findings are...
6/ ...critically dependent on the assumptions underpinning our model, and the timing and reporting of confirmed cases, and there is considerable uncertainty associated with the outbreak at this early stage. With these caveats in mind, our work suggests that...
7/ a basic reproductive number for this 2019-nCoV outbreak is higher compared to other emergent coronaviruses, suggesting that containment or control of this pathogen may be substantially more difficult.”!!!! #wuhanvirus #CoronavirusOutbreak #ChinaCoronaVirus ...
8/ ... SUMMARY: so what does this mean for the world??? We are now faced with the most virulent virus 🦠 epidemic the world has ever seen. An R0=3.8 means that it exceeds SARS’s modest 0.49 viral attack rate by 7.75x — almost 8 fold! A virus that spreads 8 faster than SARS...
9/ ...cannot be stopped by containment alone. A 99% quarantine lockdown containment of Wuhan will not even reduce the epidemic’s spread by even 1/3rd in the next 2 weeks. Thus, I really hate to be the epidemiologist who has to admit this, but we are potentially faced with...
10\ ... possibly an unchecked pandemic that the world has not seen since the 1918 Spanish Influenza. Let’s hope it doesn’t reach that level but we now live in the modern world 🌎 with faster ✈️+ 🚞 than 1918. @WHO and @CDCgov needs to declare public health emergency ASAP!
11/ REFERENCE for the R0 attack rate (reproductive coefficient) of 3.8 and the 99% containment models come from this paper: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
12/ What is the typical R0 attack rate for the seasonal flu in most years? It’s around an R0=1.28. The 2009 flu pandemic? R0=1.48. The 1918 Spanish Flu? 1.80. This new #WuhanCoronavirus reproductive value again? R0=3.8. (Flu reference:
Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature
The potential impact of an influenza pandemic can be assessed by calculating a set of transmissibility parameters, the most important being the reproduction number (R), which is defined as the averag…
https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480
)
13/ ...and it gets even worse, the Lancet now reports that the coronavirus is contagious even when *no symptoms*: specifically: “crucial to isolate patients... quarantine contacts as early as possible because asymptomatic infection appears possible”!
Doctors warn China coronavirus carriers may show no symptoms of illness
CAT scan revealed signs of pneumonia on 10-year-old Shenzhen boy’s lungs even though he had no outward signs of infection.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047636/doctors-warn-china-coronavirus-carriers-may-show-no-symptoms
14/ Let’s pretend the 3.8 estimate is too high (there’s unpublished estimates of 2.5). even if this virus’s R0=2.5, that’s still 2x higher than seasonal flu’s 1.28 (ref above), and higher than 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic of 1.80 that killed millions. So 2.8 is still super bad folks
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.
Herregud. Men vem är han? Hur vet han detta??
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera