[Petrochemicals]

For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long. The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,

Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days  after exposure, this is the incubation period.

People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious  quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.

So 6 days after exposure seems a good average,  any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.

[Bored chemist]

Hence those number are rediculas.

Yes, those numbers are ridiculous.
I don't know why you bothered to calculate them.
Were you trying to undermine the fact (based on the data) that the R0 value early on in the outbreak is bigger, but falls as people recognise that there is a problem?
That seems pointless. Common sense would tell you that people will change their behaviour if they think there's an epidemic.
Are you really so stupid as to not recognise that?

Or were you just trolling?
Pretending that the R0 value at the very start is somehow impossible?
Which is it?
Did you not understand that nobody ever said that R0 would stay that high, or were you lying about it?
Are you foolish, or dishonest?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.

You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse,  because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive,  which is limited to available tests.

The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,

Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days  after exposure, this is the incubation period.

People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious  quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.

So 6 days after exposure seems a good average,  any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.

Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

∑

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-r0-is-problematic-for-predicting-covid-19-spread-67690

“all models are wrong, but some are useful,” he notes, citing a popular aphorism. “You just hope you’re in the useful category.”

They are citing between 1.4 and 4 as the R0.

I was modelling of 3, 2 and 1.4.

Trouble is superspreders are an issue, but it's also an issue about when and where people meet.

The R0 can only give an overall average when looking at all infected people and how many they will infect.

A superspreerder could infect 100s. Some infected people wont infect anyone.

Setting the R0 between 2 and 3 is probably the best bet.

Looking at world wide totals we have about 560 million cases 2.4 million deaths so that's a mortality rate.  Of 0.5%

[Kryptid]

Setting the R0 between 2 and 3 is probably the best bet.

Not according to the link I posted earlier, which stated 5.7.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Setting the R0 between 2 and 3 is probably the best bet.

Not according to the link I posted earlier, which stated 5.7.

They cite

 "five other research groups had produced their own R0 estimates, which all fell somewhere between 1.4 and 4" they cite between 1.4 and 4 twice.

I dont see a suggestion of 5 in there you'll have to quote it.

[Petrochemicals]

For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.

You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse,  because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive,  which is limited to available tests.

No I addressed this in the post, I am addressing the problematic cases. Asymptomatic cases are not infectious for a long period, plus the fact that the asymptomatic cases and normal cases are responsible for latter serious infections, they have already been accounted for.

The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,

Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days  after exposure, this is the incubation period.

People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious  quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.

So 6 days after exposure seems a good average,  any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.

Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.

The R rate in problematic cases  is what I was suggesting YOU calculate!

[Kryptid]

I dont see a suggestion of 5 in there you'll have to quote it.

The R₀ for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R₀ estimate of 2.2 to 2.7

This is the link I'm referring to, by the way: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#meaning

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I dont see a suggestion of 5 in there you'll have to quote it.

The R₀ for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R₀ estimate of 2.2 to 2.7

This is the link I'm referring to, by the way: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#meaning

It's one study,  compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.

Thanks for the link.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.

You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse,  because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive,  which is limited to available tests.

No I addressed this in the post, I am addressing the problematic cases. Asymptomatic cases are not infectious for a long period, plus the fact that the asymptomatic cases and normal cases are responsible for latter serious infections, they have already been accounted for.

The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,

Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days  after exposure, this is the incubation period.

People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious  quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.

So 6 days after exposure seems a good average,  any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.

Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.

The R rate in problematic cases  is what I was suggesting YOU calculate!

It's a game of averages. If the R0 for asymptomatic people is lower, and 80% are generally Asymptomatic, then the overall R0 is gonna be a lot lower.

I suppose you could run them in tandem.

A composite. 

A serious infection data set
With a higher R0 and faster incubation period

And then an asymptomatic data set with both lower and then.

Somehow combine them.

For every 10 people infected 8 generally wont notice.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.

You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse,  because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive,  which is limited to available tests.

No I addressed this in the post, I am addressing the problematic cases. Asymptomatic cases are not infectious for a long period, plus the fact that the asymptomatic cases and normal cases are responsible for latter serious infections, they have already been accounted for.

The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,

Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days  after exposure, this is the incubation period.

People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious  quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.

So 6 days after exposure seems a good average,  any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.

Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.

The R rate in problematic cases  is what I was suggesting YOU calculate!

It's a game of averages. If the R0 for asymptomatic people is lower, and 80% are generally Asymptomatic, then the overall R0 is gonna be a lot lower.

I suppose you could run them in tandem.

A composite. 

A serious infection data set
With a higher R0 and faster incubation period

And then an asymptomatic data set with both lower and then.

Somehow combine them.

For every 10 people infected 8 generally wont notice.

You could just start with 10.

2 serious and more infectious will cause ? Amount of new infections
And 8 mild or asymptomatic will cause ? Infections and just build them up together.

The morality rate globally looks to me to be arround 0.5%

Which ever numbers you choose effects the data. Let's look for a good asymptomatic R0.

We see 20,000 deaths world wide at the beginning of March you need 4 million cases to hit that mortality figure.

So we know atleast 4 million infections in March.

Build the data sets and work back the time line from when you hit 4 million might tell us when patient 0 was.

Still its interesting 80% of data set one move into data set 2 and 20% of data set 2 move into data set one with each doubling.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Data set one R0 3 weekly doubling, as a trail run.

Data set two R0 1 weekly doubling.

Week one

2 becomes 6 and 4 move to set2

8 infect 8 and 3 move to set1

Set 1= 2 + 3 = 5 for week one.

Set 2 = 5 + 4 = 9 for week one.

New infections  14
Total cases         24

Week 2

5 infect 15 and 12 move to set2

9 infect 9 and 2 move to set1

Set 1 - 3 + 2 = 5
Set 2 - 7 + 12 = 19

New infections 24
Total cases       48

Week 3

Set1- 5 infect 15 and 12 move to S2

Set2 - 19 infect 19 and 4 move S1

Set1 - 3 + 4 = 7  for week 3
Set2 - 15 + 12 = 27 for week 3

New infections  34
Total cases        82

Week 4

Set1 - 7 infect 21, and 16 move to S2

Set2, 27 infect 27 and 5 move to S1

Set 1 - 5 + 5 = 10 for week four
Set2 - 22 +16 = 38 for week four.

New infections  48
Total cases       130.

Week 5

Set1 - 10 infect 30 and 24 move to S2

Set2 38 infect 38 and 8 move to S1

S1 - 6 + 8 = 14 for week 5
S2 - 30 + 24 = 54 for week 5

New infections 68
Total cases 198

Week 6

S1 - 14 infect 42 and 33 move to S2

S2 - 54 infect 54 and 9 move to S1

S1 - 9 + 9 = 18
S2 - 43 + 33 = 76

New infections 94
Total cases      292

[Bored chemist]

It's one study,  compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.

You still refuse to answer this simple question.

Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It's one study,  compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.

You still refuse to answer this simple question.

Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?

I daren't answer. Ofcourse if you paid attention you would have noticed I have been citing R0 between 1.4 and 3 so I Daren'ted.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Try a higher R0

Data set one R0 7 weekly doubling,

Data set two R0 1 weekly doubling.

Week one

2 becomes 14 and 11 move to set2

8 infect 8 and 3 move to set1

Set 1= 3 + 3 = 6 for week one.

Set 2 = 5 + 11 = 16 for week one.

New infections   22
Total cases         32

Week 2

6 infect 42 and 34 move to set2 -8

16 infect 16 and 3 move to set1-13

Set 1 - 8 + 3 = 11
Set 2 - 13 + 34 = 47

New infections 58
Total cases       90

Week 3

Set1- 11 infect 77 and 62 move to S2- 14

Set2 - 47 infect 47 and 11 move S1-38

Set1 - 14 + 11 = 25 for week 3
Set2 - 38 + 62 = 100 for week 3

New infections  125
Total cases        215

Week 4

Set1 - 25 infect 175 and 140 move to S2- 35

Set2, 100 infect 100 and 20 move to S1-80

Set 1 - 35 + 80 = 115 for week four
Set2 - 80 + 140 = 220 for week four.

New infections  335
Total cases        550


So after a month and the initial week to get to 10 infections from patient 0. So after 5 weeks.

You have 115 more serious infections and potentially 1 death, depending on who is infected. If they are all healthy with no underlying conditions you won't see any deaths.

[Bored chemist]

It's one study,  compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.

You still refuse to answer this simple question.

Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?

I daren't answer. Ofcourse if you paid attention you would have noticed I have been citing R0 between 1.4 and 3 so I Daren'ted.

That still isn't an answer.
Do you think it has a single value which falls in that range or do you think it has a variable value?

Incidentally, pretending that you have answered a question when you haven't is probably trolling.

[charles1948]

In answer to the OP's question, Covid-19 originated from China.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

In answer to the OP's question, Covid-19 originated from China.

Ok where is the evidence?

There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.

So the intermediary what ever it was, was somewhere else. Either in a ferret Badger population, or some other critter somewhere else in China or somewhere in the world. Alternatively in a human population somewhere else in China or somewhere else in the world.

Or it's from a laboratory and either escaped from an accident or been released intentionally.

The population around fort Detrick could be an intermediary population. And the final evolved virus of covid19 arrived at wuhan in the wuhan military games in October 2019. Afterall Fort Detrick is a military base, so any leak would effect the military first,  American military personel could be the intermediary. one possible hypothesis. 

But having come straight out of wuhan, today seems highly unlikely, unless a biological weapons attack happened in wuhan or an international released by the people running the wuhan Lab.

The actions of the Laboratory in Wuhan are suspicious,  they destroyed data bases after the out break happened, have not shared their notes or opened the freezers for inspection. And the WHO team that looked at the lab were not equipped to do a full laboratory investigation.

The WHO team is now looking at ferret Badger steaks, that were sold at the local market. But they are not farmed in wuhan, ferret badgers amoung other critters are farmed all over Asia.

[evan_au]

There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.

How about a post on Chinese social media at the end of December 2019, mentioning a lot of patients with a mysterious respiratory disease?
- That is pretty clear evidence that it first reached epidemic contagiousness in the big city of Wuhan.
- The WHO team found evidence of 13 RNA variants circulating in Wuhan from early RNA sequences they were able to obtain. That points to a spillover that had been circulating for a couple of months (in humans and/or animals).

I agree that this evidence does not show in which geographical region the original spillover happened
- But then you try to claim that this same evidence shows that Fort Detrick was the source!

[charles1948]

There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.

How about a post on Chinese social media at the end of December 2019, mentioning a lot of patients with a mysterious respiratory disease?
- That is pretty clear evidence that it first reached epidemic contagiousness in the big city of Wuhan.
- The WHO team found evidence of 13 RNA variants circulating in Wuhan from early RNA sequences they were able to obtain. That points to a spillover that had been circulating for a couple of months (in humans and/or animals).

I agree that this evidence does not show in which geographical region the original spillover happened
- But then you try to claim that this same evidence shows that Fort Detrick was the source!

Evan, some people have been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is the source of all evil.
So they think that Covid-19 must have a US origin, such as Fort Detrick.

You can't argue with such people.  They won't accept anything you say.