mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Some options:

1) if the destination has lower prevalence than where you currently live, then you know you can go there and do the kind of things you're doing at home without increasing your risk
2) if not, you could compare the destination's prevalence with past prevalence where you live, doing the same
3) estimate the number of people with whom you would have close contact and use the prevalence stat to work out the probability of at least one of them being infected (https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx); I think the chance of catching the illness from a housemate (ie. a properly close contact, albeit not a partner) is 1/10, so multiply that by 1/10 eg. with 1/1000 prevalence, probability of there being at least one infected in a group of 50 is 5% x 0.1 = 0.5% chance you catch it if you spend a good amount of time around each person.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Damn. Didn't know he was ill.
In Portugal they have announced that clubs can re-open, just a couple of tiny catches... They have to shut at 8pm and no dancing allowed. Guess they have to reinvent themselves as bars or restaurants effectively but they can at least make some money and stay in business is the theory.
 

Leo

Well-known member
he was 74 and had reoccurring bouts with cancer, so in a high-risk group. but he went to trump's Tulsa rally and was diagnosed with COVID 10 days later, never recovered.

some people, not to name any names, will say he shouldn't be counted as a pandemic death, though.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
If your country's lockdown has interfered with the virus' natural progression, there may be unfinished business; if not, you might be out of the woods eg. Sweden, which has had fewer than 10 deaths in the last week and steadily decreasing case numbers.
I'm all up for interfering with the natural progression of pathogenic organisms, personally. I mean, that's why we have things like antiseptics, antibiotics, vaccines, food hygiene, clean water, sanitation, condoms...
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Interfering in that it delays interactions from happening that are inevitable - that's what we're seeing (the wave just carries on where it left off, but with collateral damage from lockdown and worse outcomes for those forced to stay indoors with infected others). The effects of those interactions can be attenuated through the things you mention, yes.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
Interfering in that it delays interactions from happening that are inevitable - that's what we're seeing (the wave just carries on where it left off, but with collateral damage from lockdown and worse outcomes for those forced to stay indoors with infected others). The effects of those interactions can be attenuated through the things you mention, yes.
Why, then, should we just accept that everyone is eventually going to catch covid-19, when we don't accept that everyone is eventually going to catch (say) HIV?

 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
OK, not the best example since HIV is much less contagious than respiratory viruses, but I don't recall anyone saying that it was inevitable that we were all going to get the SARS-COV-1 virus, or H1N1, or H5N1. Or Ebola or Zika or West Nile Fever.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The extent of the susceptible population depends on genetic factors so different places will have different herd immunity thresholds sez Karl Friston of Independent Sage; that threshold determines the extent of the curve of Farrs Law.
 
Top