|
Post by Aufan on Aug 22, 2020 17:40:24 GMT
You’re close, Bevo. But realize that the 3.7% in the group is not the chance someone has to spread the virus to someone else during their contagious period. If that was the case, we’d be over this because it would diminish to zero quickly. Look at the numbers, it is 3.7% per contact.
So let’s do that number, using 0.3% for the asymptomatic as if it is real. And let’s assume the asymptomatic person is contagious for ten days to make the math easy.
For that person to infect on other person, statistically he/she has to come in contact with 333 people over those 10 days. That’s 33 people per day, for the asymptomatic person to spread the virus 1:1. Anything over that? Exponential growth.
In some places 33 contacts a day will never happen. In some, it may happen every day. In some places, like densely packed cities and public transportation, you might hit that 333 in one day.
And if the average person contacts more than that 33 per day, you have exponential growth on your hand. May not happen in rural places, but a large city? When protests are happening? 0.3% is enough for a huge increase.
Now of course if that 0.3% was actually zero, then there would be no worry. But the difference between 0.3% and zero in this case is huge, even potentially resulting in exponential growth, i.e. a pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 22, 2020 18:23:37 GMT
I’m imagining a conversation between a project manager and his boss.
What is the injury rate for the employees on projects similar to this? Well it was 0.3%, so the engineer says ‘basically zero’.
The project starts, and people are getting injured. His boss asks why is the injury rate so high, because the risk was basically zero, and looks at the data the engineer used to say the risk was ‘basically zero’.
Turns out the the injury rate was 0.3% per task involved with the project. Workers do 3 tasks per day and over 4 months, on average every worker would get hurt in that timeline.
That project manager gets fired for saying the risk was basically zero.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 23, 2020 3:48:08 GMT
You’re close, Bevo. But realize that the 3.7% in the group is not the chance someone has to spread the virus to someone else during their contagious period. If that was the case, we’d be over this because it would diminish to zero quickly. Look at the numbers, it is 3.7% per contact. So let’s do that number, using 0.3% for the asymptomatic as if it is real. And let’s assume the asymptomatic person is contagious for ten days to make the math easy. For that person to infect on other person, statistically he/she has to come in contact with 333 people over those 10 days. That’s 33 people per day, for the asymptomatic person to spread the virus 1:1. Anything over that? Exponential growth. In some places 33 contacts a day will never happen. In some, it may happen every day. In some places, like densely packed cities and public transportation, you might hit that 333 in one day. And if the average person contacts more than that 33 per day, you have exponential growth on your hand. May not happen in rural places, but a large city? When protests are happening? 0.3% is enough for a huge increase. Now of course if that 0.3% was actually zero, then there would be no worry. But the difference between 0.3% and zero in this case is huge, even potentially resulting in exponential growth, i.e. a pandemic. Might want to check that math again.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Aug 23, 2020 13:51:21 GMT
Their asymptomatic calculation was 305 contacts and 1 event. This gives 0.3% (rounded) that you cited. So statistically speaking, based on the study, an asymptomatic person would need to come in contact with 305 people to spread the sickness to one other person (or 333 people, based on the rounded 0.3%). A 1:1 spread.
305 contacts (or 333) in a 10 day period would be 30.5 (or 33.3) contacts per day for 1 person to spread it to another person.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 23, 2020 15:05:25 GMT
Their asymptomatic calculation was 305 contacts and 1 event. This gives 0.3% (rounded) that you cited. So statistically speaking, based on the study, an asymptomatic person would need to come in contact with 305 people to spread the sickness to one other person (or 333 people, based on the rounded 0.3%). A 1:1 spread. 305 contacts (or 333) in a 10 day period would be 30.5 (or 33.3) contacts per day for 1 person to spread it to another person. 33 discrete contacts every day is an extreme, absurd way to look at this data. There IS data presented on how many contacts most people had in the TWO days prior to being conformed positive. In the Household setting, 80% had contacted 5 or less.... in TWO days. 98% had contacted less that 20, again.. over TWO days. 98% were less than 10 contacts per day. Even in the Public Transportation setting, 97% had 'close contact' with less than 20 people, over TWO days. Or, 10 per day. And, a reminder... even if the spread is 1:1, that does NOT = "pandemic" Especially in a population where significant %'s of people already have, or have developed immunity. Far from it. The one case that resulted from the 305 contacts with an asymptomatic case is so low, it's within the margin of error for the testing, and the method of study. Hence, their reported statistical range of 0-1%. And, one final thing to consider: Overall, most of these cases were mild - moderate (90%). 0.35% of these contacts ended up being a "severe" case. And, there were zero fatalities.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 23, 2020 15:08:38 GMT
I’m imagining a conversation between a project manager and his boss. What is the injury rate for the employees on projects similar to this? Well it was 0.3%, so the engineer says ‘basically zero’. The project starts, and people are getting injured. His boss asks why is the injury rate so high, because the risk was basically zero, and looks at the data the engineer used to say the risk was ‘basically zero’. Turns out the the injury rate was 0.3% per task involved with the project. Workers do 3 tasks per day and over 4 months, on average every worker would get hurt in that timeline. That project manager gets fired for saying the risk was basically zero. If you manage a construction project with 1000 workers, working for a year... and 0.3% of your workers have an OSHA recordable injury during that year, your OSHA Recordable injury rater would be 0.3%. And, you would receive Safety Awards for being so far below the National Average.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 23, 2020 16:22:49 GMT
So how is my math wrong? The number you quoted was 0.3% per contact. To calculate how many contacts would result in one secondary attack, on average, you take 1/0.3% = 333.
So after 333 contacts on average you would expect there to be one secondary attack. It doesn’t matter if that is one person making 333 contacts, or 333 making 1.
For illustrative purposes, I was calculating how many contacts one person would have to make to spread the disease to one person. That number is important, because once that ratio goes over one (one person is infecting more than one on average), growth is by definition exponential. Exponential growth is one factor for how we get these world wide pandemics.
I was plugging in numbers to show that even 0.3% chance per contact could result in exponential growth, especially in crowded cities with lots of public transportation use. Or during those protests. On some days I come within 1 meter of 33 people. 0.3% certainly cannot be assumed to be zero, or regarded as equivalent to zero. I’m not suggesting that everyone makes 33 contacts per day. I’m showing you how there is a scenario where 0.3% is not basically zero, it in fact leads to exponential growth.
Based on your comment on my analogy with a project management, it doesn’t seem you aren’t understanding. I was just using the number from our example. A percentage being low doesn’t mean it is zero. You have to look at what that percentage represents. If you said my chance to win a million dollars is 0.3%, that means nothing. Is it 0.3% per lifetime, yeah that’s basically zero. Is it 0.3% per spin of the roulette wheel? I like my chance of walking out of the casino a millionaire. Percent is literally per 100. Per hundred what? That makes a huge difference on whether it is basically zero or something significant. 0.3% per project? Basically zero. 0.3% per task, that’s a lot more dangerous and not zero.
By the way you were talking about the numbers, it seemed you thought it was 0.3% chance that an asymptomatic person spread it at all. I was pointing out that it was 0.3% per contact, significantly different! Not basically zero.
And I get that the study is limited and I’m not assuming those are the actual chances of spread. We’ll never know the actual number. I was just using the number you said was basically zero to point out how it should not be treated like zero, especially as the n increases.
I also didn’t see the part where they said the number of contacts for the groups, I guess I missed it or it was in the supplemental information somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 23, 2020 16:45:40 GMT
The number of contacts for each index person is listed in the Cluster tables.
I understand that 0.3% can be significant. Especially when dealing with exponential growth. But, in this setting, with this data, it truly is not significantly different from zero.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 23, 2020 17:20:34 GMT
Oh you once again are misrepresenting the study. That’s number of contacts per index case that they could follow up on. Not total number of contacts in general.
They had difficulty identifying the close contacts on public transportation:
Their take is surprisingly different than yours, where you said
But I’m the one spreading misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 24, 2020 1:38:18 GMT
Oh you once again are misrepresenting the study. That’s number of contacts per index case that they could follow up on. Not total number of contacts in general. They had difficulty identifying the close contacts on public transportation: Their take is surprisingly different than yours, where you said But I’m the one spreading misinformation. I have not misrepresented the study at all. I presented the data, just as it is in the report. You somehow omitted this line from the report: "In addition, we found that the risk for transmission via public transportation or healthcare settings was low." Sure, there might be others on the trains that didn't have cell phones and thus couldn't be traced. But, the writers apparently felt good enough about their process to draw a conclusion. "Of the 119 symptomatic cases, 20 (16.8%) were defined as mild, 87 (73.1%) as moderate, and 12 (10.1%) as severe or critical. Compared with the household setting (10.3%), the secondary attack rate was lower for exposures in healthcare settings (1.0%) and on public transportation (0.1%).
Bottom line is, 491 confirmed cases turned into 127 secondary cases.... of which only 12 were serious and NO ONE died. This is not the Black Plague.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 24, 2020 2:04:35 GMT
Read my post, I quoted that part you said I omitted. You're having trouble reading it seems, so maybe your multiple misrepresentations are an honest reading mistake?
The people writing the study understands basic math. The percent is low, but the number n can be high. They couldn't trace them all, but understand as n increases, so does the likely-hood of infection.
They acknowledge that there could be a "great number infected in this setting" (public transportation) because of simple math (many contacts with public transportation). You took it upon yourself to state that this study says people "don't catch COVID on public transportation". It in fact did say people caught it on public transportation, and warned that a low percentage can turn into a "great number" when n increases. Basic math. Saying people "don't catch COVID on public transportation" is absolutely a misrepresentation.
Your biases are showing.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 24, 2020 2:42:21 GMT
Odd. I didn’t see that line?
Oh well. Sorry about that.
I reported their conclusion. They said a low number of infection MAY cause a large number of cases in a public transport setting. They just couldn’t show that it did.
This study was very interesting, but not perfect. And, it’s China. So, not necessarily applicable to the US. But, it is fascinating.
Look, as I said before... I am no expert in infectious disease. I’m just trying to search through the mountains of reports and studies and claims, and learn as much as I can. Most of these Governors deciding to shut everything down are not experts either. And, most of the medical experts they’re listening to are not experts in economics or sociology.
I think we’re doing a lot of thing that don’t make sense. Or, might seem to in one way, but ignore unexpected or under appreciated consequences.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Aug 24, 2020 3:14:45 GMT
I reported their conclusion. They said a low number of infection MAY cause a large number of cases in a public transport setting. They just couldn’t show that it did. No you did not report their conclusion. You said that the study showed people don't catch COVID on public transportation. The study does not say that. In fact they warn against making the conclusion you did! Despite the low percent, the risk is not zero, because the number of contacts in public transportation is quite large.
For someone who claims to not know and just be studying and learning, you are making very bold and absolute claims, ones the study you posted contradicts. Your summaries of this study are that of an ideologue, not of one who is just trying to learn and understand. And you keep doubling down...
|
|