Looking at the Bright Side

Anything and everything about Thailand
Post Reply
User avatar
Jun
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Jun »

Yes I was requesting a proper plausible explanation that could be verified, not unverifiable extracts from a CV.

User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 17630
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 900 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Gaybutton »

gera wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:00 pm
there is already certain data coming from China regarding reinfection levels.
Why do I find it difficult to trust information coming from China . . . ?

User avatar
Jun
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Jun »


User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 17630
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 900 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Gaybutton »

Jun wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:02 am
Ref China
You have to take out a paid subscription in order to read the article, which I, for one, am not going to do.

Can you tell us the gist of the article?

Dodger
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:58 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Dodger »

gera wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:00 pm
GB, technically speaking , you are correct. But in reality there is already certain data coming from China regarding reinfection levels. There is an anecdotal evidence that the reinfections occur but it is rare. You hopefully do not want me to discuss here mathematical models? ( I can , I am a professor of Applied Mathematics). And yes, the models are of probabilistic nature they do not guarantee anything 100 percent. But practically 60 percent of immunity for two months would be enough. In one of my posts I mentioned Regeneron pharm which is working on medications of this type
and their approach is not based just on natural antibodies. That is where I see the best hope.
Have you considered sharing the mathematical models you developed with the World Health Organization?

User avatar
Jun
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Jun »

Gaybutton wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:22 am
You have to take out a paid subscription in order to read the article, which I, for one, am not going to do.
Can you tell us the gist of the article?
Sorry.
I don't have an FT subscription, but access via google searches allows you to read certain articles & I forgot when posting the original link.

Hopefully this works:
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... er+control

User avatar
Jun
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Jun »

Dodger wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:10 am
Have you considered sharing the mathematical models you developed with the World Health Organization?
I have asked as well. Not holding my breath waiting. :lol:

User avatar
ceejay
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:01 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by ceejay »

In fairness, the UK Government, whose policy was originally to allow the disease to run through the population so as to achieve herd immunity quickly, were looking to 60% infection to achieve it. That is not the point at which it stops, it is the tipping point at which new infections start to decline (assuming an R0 of around 2.5). That should also be exponential - a slow decline at first, but accelerating.
The figure is highly dependent on R0. For some very infectious diseases, like measles, the tipping point is somewhere like 90%.
The UK government dropped this policy, very quickly, when Imperial College modeled it's consequences - which turned out to be around a quarter of a million deaths. There seems a certain justice that two of the principal authors of this flawed policy, Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock (Secretary of State for Health) are among those who have been infected.
It seems that the large majority of the "anecdotal" cases of re-infection occurred early in the epidemic before PCR and antibody tests were available, which suggests that many of them may have been misdiagnoses in the first instance.
Anybody who recovers will have immunity, at least temporarily, because without developing antibodies they would die. How long that lasts has to be subject to research. Answering that question is key to evaluation of a vaccine.
Key to the usefulness of a vaccine is the mutation rate of the virus and even, in fact, the mutation rate for the particular part of the RNA sequence that is being targeted. We can assume that data are being collected throughout the world.

Dodger
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:58 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Dodger »

ceejay wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:00 pm
It seems that the large majority of the "anecdotal" cases of re-infection occurred early in the epidemic before PCR and antibody tests were available, which suggests that many of them may have been misdiagnoses in the first instance.
Thank you, because everything you said made sense to me, and what you said about "misdiagnoses" really caught my attention.

With all the variables the medical experts are dealing with, coupled with the fact that not enough information about the virus is known yet, I had to assume that misdiagnoses were being made. And those misdiagnoses would include people being told they don't have the virus, when in fact they do, as well as, some being told they do have the virus, when in fact they don't.

User avatar
Jun
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Looking at the Bright Side

Post by Jun »

ceejay wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:00 pm
In fairness, the UK Government, whose policy was originally to allow the disease to run through the population so as to achieve herd immunity quickly, were looking to 60% infection to achieve it. That is not the point at which it stops, it is the tipping point at which new infections start to decline (assuming an R0 of around 2.5).
Yes, the 60% is exactly as I said, based on R0. However, both the British government and myself were assuming long lasting immunity.

On the other hand, one member has claimed 60% infections would stop the disease even if the immunity only lasts 2 months. That seems very doubtful.
I look forward to seeing the model that the board member has used to get to this. Claiming to be a maths professor is not a justification or proof, but is something of a Walter Mitty response.

Post Reply