5 ms·

This is misinformation. This is not a major revision in any sense. Read the Imperial College paper. The estimates were different between the 'mitigation' and

This is misinformation. This is not a major revision in any sense. Read the Imperial College paper. The estimates were different between the 'mitigation' and 'supression' strategy. The UK have now changed strategy to 'supression'. Hence the different prediction.

sgt101 7y ago
This is my reading. I believe that this is correct.
tyingq 7y ago
Now at the bottom of the article... "Correction: The original title of this article incorrectly suggested that Neil Ferguson stated his initial model was wrong. The article has been revised to make clear that he provided a downgraded projection given the new data and current mitigation steps."
jtbayly 7y ago
I've read the Imperial College Paper. Transmissibility is a major change [0]. The original paper says we are only just at the beginning of the time we will have to spend quarantined over the next 12-18 months, off and on. With the new transmissibility estimate, it would mean that we are a few weeks away from the peak and then done with this. If you can show me I'm wrong, please do. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-i...
- triceratops 7y ago
  > Transmissibility is a major change [0] I'm not sure you read your own link correctly. "New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5. “That adds more evidence to support the more intensive social distancing measures,” he said."
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    I'm sorry. You are correct. Although Ferguson attributes most of the benefit to the lockdown, he does acknowledge a change of R0 further revising the numbers down. Where I got confused was attributing some of the things said by Gupta (behind the Oxford model) to Ferguson (behind the Imperial College model).
    - sgt101 7y ago
      This is really, really, really irresponsible. Please do not post on this again, anywhere, ever.
      - jtbayly 7y ago
        What? Saying I'm sorry I was wrong? Ok, I'll stop saying that. Edited to add: This article was shared with me. I read it. I read the other one on newscientist.com. I thought it was huge news. I began to question my assumptions about Covid-19. I wanted discussion of it on HN so I could get help thinking about it because there are many good comments from careful people here. I got the help I was looking for, and my thinking is clarified. If you think I should have just kept it to myself and gone on my merry way with my new assumptions, spreading them around without trying to get a discussion going here about it, well then... ok.
        triceratops 7y ago
        Don't sweat it. sgt101 is being terribly uncivil.
yters 7y ago
I don't know if you've played with the model, but going from 2.6 R0 to 3 is a significant difference, doubling the death rate in some cases. I am very curious how this affects the modeling. If the real world death rate is not corresponding to the model, then this could indicate a lower lethality and wider spread than previously anticipated.

sgt101 7y ago

This is my reading. I believe that this is correct.

tyingq 7y ago

Now at the bottom of the article... "Correction: The original title of this article incorrectly suggested that Neil Ferguson stated his initial model was wrong. The article has been revised to make clear that he provided a downgraded projection given the new data and current mitigation steps."

jtbayly 7y ago

I've read the Imperial College Paper. Transmissibility is a major change [0]. The original paper says we are only just at the beginning of the time we will have to spend quarantined over the next 12-18 months, off and on. With the new transmissibility estimate, it would mean that we are a few weeks away from the peak and then done with this. If you can show me I'm wrong, please do. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-intensive-care-units-for-coronavirus-expert-predicts/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2238578-uk-has-enough-i...

triceratops 7y ago
> Transmissibility is a major change [0] I'm not sure you read your own link correctly. "New data from the rest of Europe suggests that the outbreak is running faster than expected, said Ferguson. As a result, epidemiologists have revised their estimate of the reproduction number (R0) of the virus. This measure of how many other people a carrier usually infects is now believed to be just over three, he said, up from 2.5. “That adds more evidence to support the more intensive social distancing measures,” he said."
- jtbayly 7y ago
  I'm sorry. You are correct. Although Ferguson attributes most of the benefit to the lockdown, he does acknowledge a change of R0 further revising the numbers down. Where I got confused was attributing some of the things said by Gupta (behind the Oxford model) to Ferguson (behind the Imperial College model).
  - sgt101 7y ago
    This is really, really, really irresponsible. Please do not post on this again, anywhere, ever.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      What? Saying I'm sorry I was wrong? Ok, I'll stop saying that. Edited to add: This article was shared with me. I read it. I read the other one on newscientist.com. I thought it was huge news. I began to question my assumptions about Covid-19. I wanted discussion of it on HN so I could get help thinking about it because there are many good comments from careful people here. I got the help I was looking for, and my thinking is clarified. If you think I should have just kept it to myself and gone on my merry way with my new assumptions, spreading them around without trying to get a discussion going here about it, well then... ok.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        Don't sweat it. sgt101 is being terribly uncivil.

yters 7y ago

I don't know if you've played with the model, but going from 2.6 R0 to 3 is a significant difference, doubling the death rate in some cases. I am very curious how this affects the modeling. If the real world death rate is not corresponding to the model, then this could indicate a lower lethality and wider spread than previously anticipated.