Danijel Gorupec

Ah, you talk about mutation events, not about new virus strains. Clear.

Why less contagious? This seems counterintuitive to me. (Less lethal makes sense.)

I also agree with Theresa. (I am especially disappointed how EU countries handled the situation - every country for itself). And I am afraid that for some time afterwards the world wont be a better place. (I don't understand why criticizing China response is so much popular these days - It might be that the journalist emphasized this, not Theresa. I read the BBC version.).

Yes sure. Any management of the disease heavily relies on prompt and correct measurements. More so if we manage smaller groups. But the measurement part I don't understand exactly. For example, if you measure antibodies, can you at all conclude anything about spreading rate or direction? I guess one should measure presence of viral particles instead?

They are not. But it seems to me that the second always includes the first. (I am just thinking... to be able to micromanage the spread, the country should probably have one field team of professionals for every case per day. A guestimation.)

What then makes the right time to start lifting restrictions - did CharonY suggest that this should be determined by random testing instead of the targeted testing? It seems to me that number of new cases per day is never an important criteria. It is more important how quickly and effectively a state can micromanage the spread. What do you think?

So, some countries and provinces are reopening already... Will this make a pressure on others to reopen too? I mean, capitalism still works: those who can produce their products will find new customers, those who cannot produce will lose their regular ones. So no, I wouldn't claim success only because my country still has roughly 97-98% of population intact by the virus(*). (* I just multiplied confirmed cases by 50 - this gives 2.5% of population).

This part interests me: If it turns out that immunization is very inefficient (very short-term), what options do we have? What strategy would work best?

I think, iNow and Strange, that you are talking about morality. Morality is great, but I don't think it has a power to resolve conflicts of rights. There are over 7.5 billion morality schemas in this world, which one to apply? Morality is great because it effectively decreases the probability that we will have conflicts of rights in the first place. However when conflicts of rights arise, you should not resolve it by looking into your own morality schema. You should look at the law. (You should suppose, just to be safe, that your own morality schema is wrong.) However my post was not even aiming that far. I was just commenting that MigL statement might not be that useful to make decisions. I know he will not accept it, but I would suggest a more practical motto: "your right stops, once it is breaking the law". No man would accept such a dull motto.

I noticed that you often say this, but it does not tell that much to me. What are 'rights' and how do your rank them when there is a conflict? Do you really think that your statement makes decisions easier? StringJunky is being a bit more specific - he mentions the 'existential threat'. But still, I don't find this that much helpful. Is it the imminent existential threat or just any existential threat (like polluting the air)? In my opinion, we are only left with the law (and even law is not clear all the time). Something either is or is not in accordance with the law. Mentioning additional 'rights' beside the law just adds to confusion... I mean, this is what the law is -> our recipe to resolve rights priority. When we feel that we should clarify rights priority it should be done through the law.

I share your concerns and thinking. We discussed some of it even in this thread and it seems that the plan is "slow down the spread of the disease and hope for a cure/vaccine". I am not sure if this can be called a 'plan' at all as it includes the 'hope for' component. As I see it, there are two general strategies governments are going for: a) keep the spread as low as possible; wait for cure/vaccine... This is a bet that cure/vaccine will be found quickly. If cure/vaccine is indeed found quickly, this will save most lives. However it imposes heavy toll on economy and might only be possible for a short time. Some countries that started this way are already reconsidering. b) keep the spread within tolerable levels; increase capacity of hospital system; wait for cure/vaccine... This is a bet that cure/vaccine will only be found after some time. Disruption of economy is lower and can be tolerated longer. I think that this is a more complex strategy and would be difficult in some societies (it depends a lot on citizen discipline; police enforcing is not that effective). We cannot eradicate the virus any more by quarantining people or by social distancing. As far as I know, no country is implementing a 'plan' that does not include finding the cure/vaccine eventually. The 'heard immunity' plan may take too long to realize (countries may not be capable to increase its hospital capacity ten fold and speed up the process). Even if the number of cases is 50 times more than is reported, the 'heard immunity' is not close yet (Italy has 200 thousands confirmed; say, 10 million infected. But it needs about 40 million for 'heard immunity'. So, one more year of current heavy measures). And this only if we bet that the 'heard immunity' is possible. If the cure/vaccine is not available in 1-2 years, I think we will simply learn to live with the disease. The average life-span might shorten a bit. If the vaccine is found sooner, it should be administered by priority (it might also depend how rich is your country). Medical staff is probably first to be vaccinated. Seniors too... But even knowing that there is a cure/vaccine, will cause a relaxation of measures before the cure is available to general population.

Sure. I didn't mean it that way. What I meant is that member states pay fee to WHO because, among else, they want to be guided into certain harmonization (at least I hope so). However WHO failed to provide workable and attractive plans and/or initiative that would help states to establish this.

To move away a little from the current discussion... I don't think the WHO's greatest sin was inadequate reporting from China. I can understand this (China keeps strong control over information flows). But it seems that between epidemics WHO failed to establish standards on how to collect and report disease statistics. Now we have non-comparable data all around the world. How can epidemiologists (and economists and politicians) make informed decisions using this data? This is the source of my disappointment with WHO.

Imo, this is only a way to blame someone else for being unprepared for covid-19. But I don't live in USA, so I might have a wrong perspective - Trump might be more cunning than it seems to me. (And not that I am very impressed with the way WHO handles the covid-19 situation either.).

I understand that even 12V battery must be recharged. I understand that in Tesla Model 3, it is recharged from the main battery. So there is recharging equipment in the car - it routes electricity from Li-ion to the lead-acid battery... The 12V battery can help to supply peak amps, but I am surprised that it is still more cost effective to have the battery than to simply increase the rating of DC-DC converter that charges it.

Hmm... which of the mentioned reasons explain why Li-Ion powered electric vehicles also often have 12V lead-acid accessories battery?

What is your personal option.... would it be worth investigating whether flu+covid co-infection affects the outcome? And more importantly, what hinders such investigations? Are novice scientists discouraged to interfere / without ideas / need more time / have more interesting thing to do / or just afraid? I ask because it seems like an ideal job for young recruits.

We might have cases even today where hospitals spread the thing (being overcrowded and lacking protection gear). I was suspecting this might be happening in Italy because the virus seemed to spread strongly even after applying rigorous public measures. Now finally the spread rate started to respond to the measures, so maybe it was not hospitals after all. What do you think? By the way, did we finally stop the Spanish flu by developing a vaccine or by 'heard immunity"?

Very good, jimmydasaint. I was trying to obtain total death figures for various countries (because covid death reports seems to be heavily affected by different methodologies used in different countries), but I was unsuccessful. As I understood, in your estimated calculation you assumed that covid deaths will be just added to the 'usual' number of deaths. Am I right? This does not have to be. Some of the people who die, might die within months even without covid - in this case covid only shifts the death statistics some months earlier. On the other hand, if hospitals become overloaded, mortality form non-covid causes might also increase. So, the total death figure might be either less or more than the 'usual'+covid. (Off topic: I am puzzled now, what happens in UK in January?)

Sorry for misunderstanding, Phy. I only care about human lives. That is why I suggest putting production resources back online... Do you hear the world 'economy' only as 'money making'? If I understand you correctly, you suggest me to go to my neighbor and ask him if I can help him work on his land. Then he will be willing to share potatoes with me. Well, yes, at the moment I have no better choice. This is what I will do. My neighbor is a honest man.

I don't think the world changes for the better. Yes, I fear hunger more than the virus. You maybe noticed that I post more often than before. This is because my skills are regarded useless now; society wants me to stay indoors and do not use things learned in past decades... If I start farming now, in my forties, I would be an unskilled farmer without equipment and without land. *** At the moment, most of troubles mentioned by Sensei and MigL are caused by government responses, not by the disease directly. And I think it was a good choice to make a strong initial response and 'take the helm'. In future, however, governments will have to release the pressure on economy and allow more people to die. In my opinion, a wise government will find a balance. More problematic are those many countries where human lives are regarded sanctity, where trading lives for general well-being is a taboo. In case we don't receive a vaccine within a year, such societies might hurt themselves much more than needed.

If it turns out that the viral load at exposure significantly determines the outcome of the illness, then I think it would be fair to recommend to all people who are at risk to wear masks even for their own protection (not only for protection of others). Of course, this comes with educational lines how to do it properly. As you can see, even on this forum, we talk a lot about mask. In my opinion, this is a because unclear messages were received from professionals. I hope for clearer recommendations eventually. And I hope epidemiological profession will note this small issue into their textbooks.

Thanks StringJunky and CharonY... But I was not able to understand what do you exactly mean by 'initial viral load' - would this be exposure load or a measured load at (or near) onset of symptoms?

I can only guess dimreeper is not a member?

If I remember correctly, there were some concerns about the name. The WHO tried to avoid people calling it 'Chinese virus', so they gave it a name. But nobody calls it that way because... well, because nobody calls a pig 'sus scrofa' too.