|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
United States42685 Posts
On May 14 2020 22:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 22:37 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 16:09 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 15:19 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 14:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 13:30 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 13:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:26 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 11:36 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 09:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What other arbitrary social customs are you superstitious about? I'm not superstitious about any arbitrary social customs. If we were to blindfold you and have you shake the hands of a variety of different individuals which traits do you think you could derive from the handshake? Could you tell, for example, when you’re shaking the hand of a Libra vs a Capricorn? One of the main points of the hand shake is the eye contact. On May 14 2020 12:27 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 09:41 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 09:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What other arbitrary social customs are you superstitious about? Is it that different than your take on ties? I was assuming he was claiming a greater degree of insight than my example of extrapolating from someone wearing a tie that they most likely deliberately chose to wear a tie and therefore are probably the kind of person who would choose to wear a tie, at least at times like the current one. Thereby again proving that when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. It might be better practice to instead of making a cutting and condescending retort. You instead ask a question like " What sort of information to you expect to gather from the Hand Shake". If he says their lucky numbers and chance at love your Horoscope comment would work, but if he says what you said about ties, I'm guessing that would make sense to you. Not to mention there is a whole host of other options that he could say, certainly many that I would not be able to come up with. Much like in the other thread we are back to you picking the worst possible option and then being a jerk. It would be bad enough if you were a regular poster like the rest of us shlubs, but you would think a Mod would have the sense to not be such a jerk to another mod based on a negative assumption. The assumption was reasonable because Seeker isn’t an idiot and my assumption was that he was claiming something other than the most idiotic interpretation. I don’t think it was much of a reach to rule out the possibility that the insight Seeker was referring to was along the lines of “this person has hands”. I presumed it was related to their broader character because, from context, that makes far more sense. But apparently you’re replying for him now and feel a strong compulsion to insist that my assumption of his intelligence was misplaced. Don’t get me wrong, I think that he’s wrong about personality traits being identifiable from a handshake, that sounds like pop sci nonsense to me. But that’s still giving him more credit than what you’re doing when you imply that maybe he was just talking about deducing from a handshake whether the person had opposable thumbs. I know Seeker is not an idiot and I clearly was not talking or insinuating that he knew people had hands. Unlike you I am giving the benefit of the doubt. I'm not responding only because you are being a jerk for no reason, but also because I agree with Seeker, you can get some information from shaking someone hand and looking them in the eyes. Certainly more than you can get from the length of their tie. Looking in their eyes isn’t something exclusive to a handshake. You can make eye contact with a Wakanda salute for example. So no, that’s not a part of this. If you’re making a case for the value of the information you get from gripping their hand that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to get if you didn’t grip their hand then the kind of information you’re after is touch based, not visual. You don’t shake hands with your eyes. Given you’ve taken it upon yourself to argue this for Seeker (something I doubt he’ll thank you for), what kind of information about an individual do you believe you could get from a handshake but not a wave, elbow bump, Vulcan salute, and so forth? Concrete examples, something that would form a testable hypothesis. Something you believe you would reliably be able to identify given a sample population to shake hands with. As I have said multiple times already the exact same type of information that you were talking about in your tie example. I also understand that making eye contact is available in other greetings, my point on bringing it up was you were talking about shaking peoples hands blindfolded. Which takes away some of the value of a handshake they are done in close quarters and generally last longer than fist or elbow bumps. It is also pretty well known that touch is important in conveying emotions and building relationships. Which is why some of those are not as good. If you go to shake someones hand and they refuse or someone comes to shake hands with you and you refuse do you not think that in both situations people are gathering information? Can you prove and provide something that would form a testable hypothesis on why any of the greetings you suggest are better than a hand shake? Can you provide any evidence that proper hand washing after a hand shake is more dangerous than a fist bump? Then perhaps you could do a risk reward analysis on the benefit's and risk. Or perhaps a SWAT analyses. I was not arguing that handshaking has incredible information gathering potential, I was arguing your claim that the hand shake provides no value, and more than that, it was wrong of you to assume the worst and be a dick about it. Which comes off horribly bad when in the same post where you were mocking that someone thinks hand shakes provide some information, you describe the information you would gather from a tie not being to societal agreed upon length, style so on. I really don't understand how you can think a tie can give information but a handshake cannot. I note that you have not provided an example of an attribute you believe could be identified by gripping someone’s hand. If you cannot adequately explain your hypothesis then you should probably abandon it. You can measure their ability to conform to societal expectations, this is at least the fourth time I've said this. And it is your words, so I really can't understand why you can't seem to understand them. Here are also some helpful links on the value of touch, also provided in the thread. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hands_on_researchhttps://www.nordiccuddle.com/post/7-signs-you-might-be-suffering-from-touch-deprivationhttps://www.gracepointwellness.org/1434-positive-psychology/article/54518-the-importance-of-touchhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.khca.org/files/2015/10/8-Reasons-Why-We-Need-Human-Touch-More-Than-Ever.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj5zrTK4rLpAhW_BWMBHaPlD9IQFjAPegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw12kPPIsf1CwpTFraN2G1rq&cshid=1589439291202https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/03/lets-touch-why-physical-connection-between-human-beings-mattershttps://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/04/on-touch/586588/All and all, if you are going to assume the worst of people then continue to double and triple down on that assumption rather than read and attempt understanding, you probably just stop instead of continuing to be a jerk. All it accomplishes is making you look petty.
You’re continuing to use the example of something I threw out there as a counterpoint to show the stupidity of the example. I don’t know why though. I literally provided “a good handshake shows they’re the kind of person who would do a good handshake, possibly on purpose, and therefore they may be the kind of person who does many things on purpose” as an idiotic point that was so arbitrary that it should be dismissed. For some reason you have seized upon it, even though it was a stripped down parody of the argument you’re supporting. It fails because a good Vulcan salute provides evidence that they are the kind of person who can do a good Vulcan salute.
|
On May 14 2020 07:48 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 04:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 14 2020 04:13 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 03:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 14 2020 03:38 Seeker wrote:
Don’t abolish handshakes. They’re too damn important to society. Instead, we need to evolve to the point where at least one party brings out a travel-sized hand sanitizer and allows all involved parties to use it before the handshake(s) can take place. There, problem solved. I suppose the question I am asking is: SHOULD handshakes be important to society? Or should archaic bullshit be consciously removed from our day-to-day routines as we learn more about the world we live in? Some people in Italy, Spain and Iran are probably asking themselves if it makes sense to kiss each other constantly now that we see so clearly what a difference that can make with infection. I'm not asking if the current convention is to handshake. I am asking if that is a worthwhile custom that we should try to hold on to. I say toss it in the trash. For me, personally, I like physical forms of contact when I meet and get to know a new person. And a handshake is often indicative of what kind of person you’re dealing with, so I think it definitely has a role in society that cannot just be ignored. Are you serious? Yes, I'm serious. And I thank you for contributing to this thread with a pointless one-liner.
Confirming that you are not making some kind of joke is not a pointless one-liner, it is to confirm you are not make a joke. As you confirm that you are not making some kind of a joke, I can say that what you have written is mind boggling bizarre. The only thing you can tell from a handshake is how that person shakes their hand.
You form business contracts based on past and current records, not on form of greeting. You choose your boiler repairer/plumber on past recommendations, not on how they shake your hand. Would you say the same about hugging and kissing and bowing, other forms of greetings, or other cultures where the handshake is prefered to be weak?
On the topic of changing norms, after SARS, several south east asian countries had a culture change in their method of their communal eating habits. As it is in UK, people don't shake hands but instead the acceptable greeting custom is to awkwardly wave their hands/make humour about it/waggle eyebrows. It's certainly less awkward than shaking hands then washing hands afterwards. Such a change from normal customs is unlikely to pass after social distancing measures are removed, but the idea of changing norms have been seen in the aftereffects of SARS.
|
On May 14 2020 22:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2020 16:09 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 15:19 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 14:38 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 13:30 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 13:13 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 12:26 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 11:36 Seeker wrote:On May 14 2020 09:16 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 07:48 Seeker wrote:
[quote]
Yes, I'm serious. And I thank you for contributing to this thread with a pointless one-liner. What other arbitrary social customs are you superstitious about? I'm not superstitious about any arbitrary social customs. If we were to blindfold you and have you shake the hands of a variety of different individuals which traits do you think you could derive from the handshake? Could you tell, for example, when you’re shaking the hand of a Libra vs a Capricorn? One of the main points of the hand shake is the eye contact. On May 14 2020 12:27 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 09:41 JimmiC wrote:On May 14 2020 09:16 KwarK wrote:On May 14 2020 07:48 Seeker wrote:
[quote]
Yes, I'm serious. And I thank you for contributing to this thread with a pointless one-liner. What other arbitrary social customs are you superstitious about? Is it that different than your take on ties? I was assuming he was claiming a greater degree of insight than my example of extrapolating from someone wearing a tie that they most likely deliberately chose to wear a tie and therefore are probably the kind of person who would choose to wear a tie, at least at times like the current one. Thereby again proving that when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. It might be better practice to instead of making a cutting and condescending retort. You instead ask a question like " What sort of information to you expect to gather from the Hand Shake". If he says their lucky numbers and chance at love your Horoscope comment would work, but if he says what you said about ties, I'm guessing that would make sense to you. Not to mention there is a whole host of other options that he could say, certainly many that I would not be able to come up with. Much like in the other thread we are back to you picking the worst possible option and then being a jerk. It would be bad enough if you were a regular poster like the rest of us shlubs, but you would think a Mod would have the sense to not be such a jerk to another mod based on a negative assumption. The assumption was reasonable because Seeker isn’t an idiot and my assumption was that he was claiming something other than the most idiotic interpretation. I don’t think it was much of a reach to rule out the possibility that the insight Seeker was referring to was along the lines of “this person has hands”. I presumed it was related to their broader character because, from context, that makes far more sense. But apparently you’re replying for him now and feel a strong compulsion to insist that my assumption of his intelligence was misplaced. Don’t get me wrong, I think that he’s wrong about personality traits being identifiable from a handshake, that sounds like pop sci nonsense to me. But that’s still giving him more credit than what you’re doing when you imply that maybe he was just talking about deducing from a handshake whether the person had opposable thumbs. I know Seeker is not an idiot and I clearly was not talking or insinuating that he knew people had hands. Unlike you I am giving the benefit of the doubt. I'm not responding only because you are being a jerk for no reason, but also because I agree with Seeker, you can get some information from shaking someone hand and looking them in the eyes. Certainly more than you can get from the length of their tie. Looking in their eyes isn’t something exclusive to a handshake. You can make eye contact with a Wakanda salute for example. So no, that’s not a part of this. If you’re making a case for the value of the information you get from gripping their hand that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to get if you didn’t grip their hand then the kind of information you’re after is touch based, not visual. You don’t shake hands with your eyes. Given you’ve taken it upon yourself to argue this for Seeker (something I doubt he’ll thank you for), what kind of information about an individual do you believe you could get from a handshake but not a wave, elbow bump, Vulcan salute, and so forth? Concrete examples, something that would form a testable hypothesis. Something you believe you would reliably be able to identify given a sample population to shake hands with. As I have said multiple times already the exact same type of information that you were talking about in your tie example. I also understand that making eye contact is available in other greetings, my point on bringing it up was you were talking about shaking peoples hands blindfolded. Which takes away some of the value of a handshake they are done in close quarters and generally last longer than fist or elbow bumps. It is also pretty well known that touch is important in conveying emotions and building relationships. Which is why some of those are not as good. If you go to shake someones hand and they refuse or someone comes to shake hands with you and you refuse do you not think that in both situations people are gathering information? Can you prove and provide something that would form a testable hypothesis on why any of the greetings you suggest are better than a hand shake? Can you provide any evidence that proper hand washing after a hand shake is more dangerous than a fist bump? Then perhaps you could do a risk reward analysis on the benefit's and risk. Or perhaps a SWAT analyses. I was not arguing that handshaking has incredible information gathering potential, I was arguing your claim that the hand shake provides no value, and more than that, it was wrong of you to assume the worst and be a dick about it. Which comes off horribly bad when in the same post where you were mocking that someone thinks hand shakes provide some information, you describe the information you would gather from a tie not being to societal agreed upon length, style so on. I really don't understand how you can think a tie can give information but a handshake cannot. I note that you have not provided an example of an attribute you believe could be identified by gripping someone’s hand. If you cannot adequately explain your hypothesis then you should probably abandon it.. For anyone else feeling like the touch of handshakes gives information about the character of people that could not be gotten from a Vulcan salute, consider the test for this. Let’s say you get 200 strangers. 50 of them will shake hands with 100 subjects and describe those subjects as best they can based on the handshake. The other 50 will exchange Vulcan salutes with the same 100 people and record their observations. The observations are then evaluated for accuracy. Which attributes would be more reliably observed (reliably being a key word here, attributing a trait to someone is only useful if they actually possess it) by the handshake than the Vulcan salute. I doubt there are many. This is also where my point about the utter arbitrariness of ties comes in. I suggested that the only information you could get from a handshake was along the lines of “good firm handshake, this person is clearly either a person who naturally has a firm handshake or knows that society favours these and is doing it on purpose”. I, intending to show how meaningless that would be, compared it to the observation that wearing a tie correctly shows that you’re the kind of person who would wear a tie at an appropriate time. The reason that information about conformity to arbitrary customs is meaningless is because it uniformly applies to any arbitrary custom, the people who went to the trouble of learning to do a “correct” handshake can be reliably expected to do a Vulcan salute correctly when told they will be evaluated on it. The information is being misattributed to a handshake when what is being measured has nothing to do with it.
As someone who won't be shaking any strangers hands after reading that blog from "nordic cuddle" on "skin hunger", the only one I'm familiar with is whether someone does manual labor with their hands. I learned it as "a limp shake from a soft hand is for women" more or less but deduced the reasoning was "men work with their hands, if you have soft hands (or a loose grip) then you don't work. You aren't a man and should be treated as such" and occasionally notice myself revert back to it in strange/reminiscent environments.
It's not a certainty because lotion and manicures exist, but It'd be one I'd think I could do with a handshake that I couldn't with a Vulcan salute at a statistically significant rate (but not by much).
That said, even if I could do it with 100% certainty it's not worth me keeping the custom with this novel virus still raging imo
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
This hand shaking discussion is pulling this thread on a complete tangent and is no longer related to covid.
If someone really wants to feel free to create a hand shaking thread elsewhere..........
|
|
|
Lalalaland34491 Posts
--- No more hand shaking posts ---
|
- edited as to not derail the thread any further -
|
Haven't shaken any hands in 2 months.
I'm glad to see that Europe seems to do better over time. I worry for the rest of the world though
|
On May 15 2020 00:32 frontliner2 wrote:
Haven't shaken any hands in 2 months.
I'm glad to see that Europe seems to do better over time. I worry for the rest of the world though
Lol the new "handhaking thread." That was not what I expected writing a post that was quoted in that poll...
Sorry for stalking you, frontliner2, but is there an easy explaination why the Netherlands is doing so much better then Belgium with the virus measured by both deaths and cases per capita?
|
Belgium is counting deaths and cases completely different from everyone else in Europe. (they count on suspicion, everyone else only counts confirmed by tests)
Their numbers are not comparable to anyone around. This is not saying that their numbers might not be higher than e.g. the Dutch. But certainly not by the margins suggested by the usual data overviews.
|
On May 15 2020 00:52 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 00:32 frontliner2 wrote:
Haven't shaken any hands in 2 months.
I'm glad to see that Europe seems to do better over time. I worry for the rest of the world though Lol the new "handhaking thread." That was not what I expected writing a post that was quoted in that poll... Sorry for stalking you, frontliner2, but is there an easy explaination why the Netherlands is doing so much better then Belgium with the virus measured by both deaths and cases per capita? The Netherlands until very recently (like 2 weeks ago?) was very stringent on tests so our cases per capita is, imo, largely meaningless.
|
On May 14 2020 16:50 Slydie wrote:Sorry for not continuing within the subject, but this should be interresting. The first wave of a major immunity study in Spain just concluded. Here is a map with persentages of the population with immunty. Over all, 5% of the Spanish population has immuity, but there are huge differences between the provinces, ranging from 1,4 to 14,2%. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/e5gs3bu.png) I have to say I find it disturbing that even the large country with both most cases and deaths per capita is still nowhere close to herd immunity. How do we beat this? Is it even possible without a vaccine? Source in Spanish https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2020/05/13/solo-5-poblacion-espanola-inmunizada-contra-coronavirus/00031589390951045212905.htm
This virus is just weird in general.
OK, we have new data. Way fewer people than expected have antibodies. Should mean the virus is much less contagious. That also means it's more dangerous than expected (more deaths per infected).
WHO now says people with the disease have symptoms. Makes sense if there are much fewer infected that there were never really any asymptomatic infections then.
But why did some places just explode in the beginning? Clearly the virus spread with just a few people traveling and infecting a new region. If the rate of transmission was low you would expect a much slower (still exponential but much slower) spread. That alone should have made it much easier for healthcare and the government to deal with it.
But many places in the world basically got overrun.
And why is Sweden doing "OK" at the moment with noticeable (but slow) improvement on all indicators. Our strategy haven't really changed at all since we implemented it, if anything people are more relaxed now. If social distancing alone can cut down the transmission rate to below 1 how on earth did this shit just blow up other regions?
There is at least one piece of the puzzle still missing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 15 2020 02:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:This virus is just weird in general. OK, we have new data. Way fewer people than expected have antibodies. Should mean the virus is much less contagious. That also means it's more dangerous than expected (more deaths per infected). WHO now says people with the disease have symptoms. Makes sense if there are much fewer infected that there were never really any asymptomatic infections then. But why did some places just explode in the beginning? Clearly the virus spread with just a few people traveling and infecting a new region. If the rate of transmission was low you would expect a much slower (still exponential but much slower) spread. That alone should have made it much easier for healthcare and the government to deal with it. But many places in the world basically got overrun. And why is Sweden doing "OK" at the moment with noticeable (but slow) improvement on all indicators. Our strategy haven't really changed at all since we implemented it, if anything people are more relaxed now. If social distancing alone can cut down the transmission rate to below 1 how on earth did this shit just blow up other regions? There is at least one piece of the puzzle still missing.
The virus seems to be extremely infectious. Until the social distancing measures took root, the confirmed case rates grew faster than even the other famous fast-growth pandemics like swine flu. The spread just isn't 100x faster than that, as some of those lowest-quality initial studies started to suggest.
The death rate is almost certainly at least in the 1% range. Look at the hardest hit cities, look at closed systems like the Diamond Princess; you will have a hard time landing on a number lower than that. Only wishful thinking can put you at flu-level death rates.
I'm not sure Sweden is doing all that well per se. It doesn't look like it's exponentially running out of control, but from the graphs I see it certainly doesn't seem to be leveling out. My guess is just that Sweden was better equipped to handle this, and as such has done merely relatively poorly at reducing the disease by virtue of the strategy. I'm sure some level of self-imposed social distancing has done a lot to help reduce the spread as well.
If, by the end of this (1.5-2 years out), there are 100k or so dead Swedes, and a fraction of that in Finns/Norwegians, we will know that the strategy backfired pretty hard. If it's more like 10k, it probably worked out better than the critics would suggest. Probably not a strategy that could be effectively replicated elsewhere, though.
|
On May 15 2020 01:02 mahrgell wrote:
Belgium is counting deaths and cases completely different from everyone else in Europe. (they count on suspicion, everyone else only counts confirmed by tests)
Their numbers are not comparable to anyone around. This is not saying that their numbers might not be higher than e.g. the Dutch. But certainly not by the margins suggested by the usual data overviews.
No, in Sweden we count all the cases where doctors have identified corona-like symptom's in the dead person as well, even without a definitive test. That's how the social services (Socialstyrelsen) count while Folkhälsomyndigheten (the governmental agency in charge of the corona strategy) only counts the dead who has been tested positive. That's why there is a 10% discrepancy in the numbers between the two agencies.
|
The disease is very infectious, but especially so when we didn't know about it and it was around us. I think that what Sweden shows - more certainly than whether it is or not the right strategy - is that once people are aware and informed of the virus, relatively straight-forward measures can reduce its infectivity very significantly. Everywhere that had big outbreaks, the virus was circulating before they had the testing capacity and understanding of the virus to get it under control.
I also think that it's way more infectious in urban centers than remote areas, so R0 might be >3 in big cities but way closer to 1 in rural areas where people don't use that much public transit or attend super-spreading events. I'd say maybe 90% of municipalities in Portugal have the virus pretty much under total control and nearly all the cases are coming from greater Lisbon and Porto.
One thing I don't get is how Portugal still got a medium-sized outbreak after following the perfect playbook - closing down way early, very obedient population, among the best testing capacity in the world, while other european countries with a lot more virulent neighbours got through relatively unscathed - Austria, Slovenia, Czech Republic, and basically all of eastern europe.
|
On May 15 2020 02:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 02:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 14 2020 16:50 Slydie wrote:Sorry for not continuing within the subject, but this should be interresting. The first wave of a major immunity study in Spain just concluded. Here is a map with persentages of the population with immunty. Over all, 5% of the Spanish population has immuity, but there are huge differences between the provinces, ranging from 1,4 to 14,2%. I have to say I find it disturbing that even the large country with both most cases and deaths per capita is still nowhere close to herd immunity. How do we beat this? Is it even possible without a vaccine? Source in Spanish https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2020/05/13/solo-5-poblacion-espanola-inmunizada-contra-coronavirus/00031589390951045212905.htm This virus is just weird in general. OK, we have new data. Way fewer people than expected have antibodies. Should mean the virus is much less contagious. That also means it's more dangerous than expected (more deaths per infected). WHO now says people with the disease have symptoms. Makes sense if there are much fewer infected that there were never really any asymptomatic infections then. But why did some places just explode in the beginning? Clearly the virus spread with just a few people traveling and infecting a new region. If the rate of transmission was low you would expect a much slower (still exponential but much slower) spread. That alone should have made it much easier for healthcare and the government to deal with it. But many places in the world basically got overrun. And why is Sweden doing "OK" at the moment with noticeable (but slow) improvement on all indicators. Our strategy haven't really changed at all since we implemented it, if anything people are more relaxed now. If social distancing alone can cut down the transmission rate to below 1 how on earth did this shit just blow up other regions? There is at least one piece of the puzzle still missing. The virus seems to be extremely infectious. Until the social distancing measures took root, the confirmed case rates grew faster than even the other famous fast-growth pandemics like swine flu. The spread just isn't 100x faster than that, as some of those lowest-quality initial studies started to suggest. The death rate is almost certainly at least in the 1% range. Look at the hardest hit cities, look at closed systems like the Diamond Princess; you will have a hard time landing on a number lower than that. Only wishful thinking can put you at flu-level death rates. I'm not sure Sweden is doing all that well per se. It doesn't look like it's exponentially running out of control, but from the graphs I see it certainly doesn't seem to be leveling out. My guess is just that Sweden was better equipped to handle this, and as such has done merely relatively poorly at reducing the disease by virtue of the strategy. I'm sure some level of self-imposed social distancing has done a lot to help reduce the spread as well. If, by the end of this (1.5-2 years out), there are 100k or so dead Swedes, and a fraction of that in Finns/Norwegians, we will know that the strategy backfired pretty hard. If it's more like 10k, it probably worked out better than the critics would suggest. Probably not a strategy that could be effectively replicated elsewhere, though.
That's my point. Initial numbers suggested an R level of about 2,5 which would put herd immunity levels at about 60-70 %.
Given those numbers it was assumed there was no way to control it and we would flatten the curve instead to have it under control until eventually herd immunity is achieved.
Spain has more deaths and cases per million pop per Sweden and if 5 % average and 14 % infection rate is accurate logically we shouldn't be above that.
I understand stopping the virus by a complete lock-down even if it's extremely infectious.
I do not understand going from R 2,5 to R 0,85 on light measures and social distancing only if there is no herd immunity involved. That should be impossible.
Yet in 2 weeks number of ICU patients have dropped almost 20 %, deaths are going down slowly and the only reason cases are holding steady is because testing is now done on people with mild symptoms (basically half of the new positive cases are people who did not get tests before).
I just don't understand it at all.
|
On May 15 2020 02:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:This virus is just weird in general. OK, we have new data. Way fewer people than expected have antibodies. Should mean the virus is much less contagious. That also means it's more dangerous than expected (more deaths per infected). WHO now says people with the disease have symptoms. Makes sense if there are much fewer infected that there were never really any asymptomatic infections then. But why did some places just explode in the beginning? Clearly the virus spread with just a few people traveling and infecting a new region. If the rate of transmission was low you would expect a much slower (still exponential but much slower) spread. That alone should have made it much easier for healthcare and the government to deal with it. But many places in the world basically got overrun. And why is Sweden doing "OK" at the moment with noticeable (but slow) improvement on all indicators. Our strategy haven't really changed at all since we implemented it, if anything people are more relaxed now. If social distancing alone can cut down the transmission rate to below 1 how on earth did this shit just blow up other regions? There is at least one piece of the puzzle still missing.
I agree something just doesn't fit with all this. It doesn't pass the smell test. I feel like we're gonna end up in a situation where its like "Ok so if you have long eyelashes and type B blood type, you have a 100% chance of infection within 6 meters of an infected person" or some wild shit like that. Who knows.
|
On May 15 2020 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2020 02:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 14 2020 16:50 Slydie wrote:Sorry for not continuing within the subject, but this should be interresting. The first wave of a major immunity study in Spain just concluded. Here is a map with persentages of the population with immunty. Over all, 5% of the Spanish population has immuity, but there are huge differences between the provinces, ranging from 1,4 to 14,2%. I have to say I find it disturbing that even the large country with both most cases and deaths per capita is still nowhere close to herd immunity. How do we beat this? Is it even possible without a vaccine? Source in Spanish https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2020/05/13/solo-5-poblacion-espanola-inmunizada-contra-coronavirus/00031589390951045212905.htm This virus is just weird in general. OK, we have new data. Way fewer people than expected have antibodies. Should mean the virus is much less contagious. That also means it's more dangerous than expected (more deaths per infected). WHO now says people with the disease have symptoms. Makes sense if there are much fewer infected that there were never really any asymptomatic infections then. But why did some places just explode in the beginning? Clearly the virus spread with just a few people traveling and infecting a new region. If the rate of transmission was low you would expect a much slower (still exponential but much slower) spread. That alone should have made it much easier for healthcare and the government to deal with it. But many places in the world basically got overrun. And why is Sweden doing "OK" at the moment with noticeable (but slow) improvement on all indicators. Our strategy haven't really changed at all since we implemented it, if anything people are more relaxed now. If social distancing alone can cut down the transmission rate to below 1 how on earth did this shit just blow up other regions? There is at least one piece of the puzzle still missing. I agree something just doesn't fit with all this. It doesn't pass the smell test. I feel like we're gonna end up in a situation where its like "Ok so if you have long eyelashes and type B blood type, you have a 100% chance of infection within 6 meters of an infected person" or some wild shit like that. Who knows.
It is common knowledge that we do not understand exacly how this virus spreads, but it should also be clear that even very simple measures have great effects! I am starting to think that exterminating the virus might be the best strategy, and actully possible.
|
Bars and Restaurants have reopened here.
Haven't been yet, will go out in a few minutes probably. Looks like fun, no clue if there are any special rules, it doesn't really look like it from my window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
