Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


Thanks for this, I was not aware of the Bedford lab's work.

Wondering if you (or any other LW reader) has any thoughts on on the emotional aspect of this.

Seems folks are very attached to the idea that they had Covid-19 earlier than it was identified. It's starting to get into that 'can't be reasoned out of something they haven't reasoned into' area.

I'm curious why people are so adamant that an extremely unlikely scenario is actually the most likely explanation. But i guess this cuts across all kinds of mental models and not just covid-19.

I'm trying to formulate a response to, what at least in my circle of friends and acquaintances, is an increasing insistence that people had Covid-19 in November 2019.

If we assume someone did have Covid-19 in upstate NY for instance what else would have to be true?

I think mainly, that a novel virus made its way around the world without detection would be pretty major. And then it mutated in Wuhan, China unleashing this second, more virulent strain, meaning that the pattern of outbreak that we all witnessed beginning in Wuhan was some kind of 'second phase' and not the initial outbreak. It would also mean that current genetic tracing is probably wrong or not accounting for this alleged mutation.

All of this seems very unlikely to me. I don't think I can prove with 100% certainty it is impossible. Even if I could I struggle to understand the emotional attachment people have to the claim that the illness they had was covid-19.

Unknown respiratory disease = Covid-19 strikes me as about as accurate as UFO = Aliens. But people seem to take it very personally when you tell them they could not possibly have had this illness 2months before the outbreak in Wuhan.

is something like pedialyte a reasonable OTC solution for electrolytes or would you suggest mixing out own concoctions?

1) are we going to create some super-bacteria by using a ton of hand sanitizer and wipes?

2) Is this report of 40-70% infection rate world-wide reputable, realistic, useful?

In my view we don't know what percentage of infections result in a) symptoms, b) serious symptoms. It's pretty easy to take those estimates coupled with current death rates and get a result of 100million deaths due to COVID-19. That seems super extreme and unlikely to me.

I'm not sure the usefulness of stating a 40-70% infection rate if the rate of critical symptoms within that group is only ~10%

honestly have no idea what that all means. thanks for trying though.

Is it anticipated that COVID-19 will have more estimated cases than the seasonal flu? Would appreciate a link to supporting info.

Is R0 the best way of measuring contagiousness?