5 ms·

I don't think that that inferred CV from the quote says anything about the "herd immunity" in the sense which most of people would like it to be. If you have an

by acqq 6y ago

I don't think that that inferred CV from the quote says anything about the "herd immunity" in the sense which most of people would like it to be. If you have an outbreak where people start to suffer, people react, they stop behaving in a way they would do without he outbreak running. The "curve fitting" you quote, the way I see it, therefore doesn't say anything about the inherent resistance of human body or something like that, but about when different communities resort to locking themselves down or taking some other drastic action as the response to the "rising wave", even without any official ban of some activity. Just reading, in one meat processing plant in Germany, from 3000 workers tested they have 1000 PCR positives (Rheda-Wiedenbrück meat processing plant, 1,029 cases so far (1)). It's already 30% of the tested and almost sure an "infection in one wave" (after some weeks a lot of people are PCR negative again). If it stays at 1000 (they will maybe test more: "On Friday morning, addresses of around 30% of the workers were still missing") it wouldn't mean it would have stayed at 1000 hadn't they closed the whole plant. 1) https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-german-slaughterhouse-outbreak-crosses-1000/a-53883372 https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-german-slaughterhouse-outb...

mlyle 6y ago
The whole point of the paper is that coefficient of variation affects the herd immunity threshold. And it obviously does, if you read the paper. The problem is, we don't know for sure what the CV is-- we can only guess based on history and observations. > Just reading, in one meat processing plant in Germany, from 3000 workers tested they have 1000 PCR positives This makes me think you don't understand any of the argument. A) CV includes things like contact network structure. OK, meat plants are an unfavorable contact network structure: this proves the point! If we have an observed R0 of 2.5 or 3.0, it includes (disproportionately) people who spend time in places with unfavorable conditions and contact others with unfavorable network structure. If there's a CV, what that means is that in some subgroups of contact structure and individual susceptibility (e.g. meat plants) we have an R0 much higher than 3, and in the bulk of the population we have an R0 much lower than 3. B) Even ignoring this, there's nothing to say you won't overshoot a herd immunity threshold. The herd immunity threshold is just the threshold where each infection results in less than 1 new infection, on average: it isn't a place where infection magically stops, but instead where the number infected can be expected to naturally decrease. Obviously it's advantageous to have the infected count as low as possible when this happens, because it's only a slow decay from that point.
- WildParser 6y ago
  Have you noticed that the curves are following Gompertz-Model? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157283645163015 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157283645163015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o There is no constant CV>1 - it all depends on the situation.
  - acqq 6y ago
    I simply can't imagine that anybody who even basically understands the related topics could believe the facebook post you posted (I'm referring to the graph). If I'm wrong and they do exist I'm very, very sad, and even scared imagining having to deal with such people. Also update from yesterday: in Germany's plant today's score is "more than 1500" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8450221/1-500-workers-test-positive-coronavirus-German-meat-factory.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8450221/1-500-worke...
    - WildParser 6y ago
      Feel free to take a look at the official data yourself. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-tod... You need nothing but Excel/LibreOffice and a few simple formulas to get this picture. Germany has a heavy 7 day rhythm, because they're doing their reporting in a very strange way. Using 7 day averages helps a lot to get rid of the reporting-noise. You need: Daily death (averages over 7 days) Total death (Sum) (averages over 7 days) daily/total Just use SUM() and /
      - acqq 6y ago
        I don't doubt that one can produce the picture. The problem is that these drawn lines over the real data don't mean anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
        6y ago

by acqq 6y ago

mlyle 6y ago

The whole point of the paper is that coefficient of variation affects the herd immunity threshold. And it obviously does, if you read the paper. The problem is, we don't know for sure what the CV is-- we can only guess based on history and observations. > Just reading, in one meat processing plant in Germany, from 3000 workers tested they have 1000 PCR positives This makes me think you don't understand any of the argument. A) CV includes things like contact network structure. OK, meat plants are an unfavorable contact network structure: this proves the point! If we have an observed R0 of 2.5 or 3.0, it includes (disproportionately) people who spend time in places with unfavorable conditions and contact others with unfavorable network structure. If there's a CV, what that means is that in some subgroups of contact structure and individual susceptibility (e.g. meat plants) we have an R0 much higher than 3, and in the bulk of the population we have an R0 much lower than 3. B) Even ignoring this, there's nothing to say you won't overshoot a herd immunity threshold. The herd immunity threshold is just the threshold where each infection results in less than 1 new infection, on average: it isn't a place where infection magically stops, but instead where the number infected can be expected to naturally decrease. Obviously it's advantageous to have the infected count as low as possible when this happens, because it's only a slow decay from that point.

WildParser 6y ago
Have you noticed that the curves are following Gompertz-Model? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157283645163015 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157283645163015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHrx68IT7o There is no constant CV>1 - it all depends on the situation.
- acqq 6y ago
  I simply can't imagine that anybody who even basically understands the related topics could believe the facebook post you posted (I'm referring to the graph). If I'm wrong and they do exist I'm very, very sad, and even scared imagining having to deal with such people. Also update from yesterday: in Germany's plant today's score is "more than 1500" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8450221/1-500-workers-test-positive-coronavirus-German-meat-factory.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8450221/1-500-worke...
  - WildParser 6y ago
    Feel free to take a look at the official data yourself. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-tod... You need nothing but Excel/LibreOffice and a few simple formulas to get this picture. Germany has a heavy 7 day rhythm, because they're doing their reporting in a very strange way. Using 7 day averages helps a lot to get rid of the reporting-noise. You need: Daily death (averages over 7 days) Total death (Sum) (averages over 7 days) daily/total Just use SUM() and /
    - acqq 6y ago
      I don't doubt that one can produce the picture. The problem is that these drawn lines over the real data don't mean anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
      - 6y ago