08-01-2020, 02:33 PM
WHO update on transmission
08-01-2020, 03:27 PM
I wonder why no one here noticed & reported it over the last 3 weeks. I guess it didn't get much press. Not too much new in it. There are references to research not brought up here. (The studies that caught my eye was a lower incidence of true asymptomatic cases than I thought. More down around the 20% range. IMO, that has a big implication for stopping the disease, or estimating spread.)
If all it took to stop transmission is to require their recommendations, the California should be pretty much free of COVID-19. (That's my backwards way of saying what I think of their recommendations.) Of course, it requires more than simply requiring those practices, they must be followed (perhaps by active enforcement). But I don't have any great faith that the practices are sufficient to protect an individual, and may or may not be sufficient to drive R<1.
They continue the position that masks on the healthy are to protect others. They mention masks as protective of the wearer only for healthcare workers.
They didn't mention susceptibility to the disease (specifically, are their traits such as age or ethnic backgrounds that impact developing the disease). That would impact transmission. They barely mentioned superspreading (which I tend to think has been over emphasized here).
The authors' bias against aerosol as a transmission vector comes through. (Compare how they describe that versus spread by fomites.)
If all it took to stop transmission is to require their recommendations, the California should be pretty much free of COVID-19. (That's my backwards way of saying what I think of their recommendations.) Of course, it requires more than simply requiring those practices, they must be followed (perhaps by active enforcement). But I don't have any great faith that the practices are sufficient to protect an individual, and may or may not be sufficient to drive R<1.
They continue the position that masks on the healthy are to protect others. They mention masks as protective of the wearer only for healthcare workers.
They didn't mention susceptibility to the disease (specifically, are their traits such as age or ethnic backgrounds that impact developing the disease). That would impact transmission. They barely mentioned superspreading (which I tend to think has been over emphasized here).
The authors' bias against aerosol as a transmission vector comes through. (Compare how they describe that versus spread by fomites.)
08-01-2020, 03:45 PM
(08-01-2020, 03:27 PM)M T Wrote: I wonder why no one here noticed & reported it over the last 3 weeks. I guess it didn't get much press. Not too much new in it. There are references to research not brought up here. (The studies that caught my eye was a lower incidence of true asymptomatic cases than I thought. More down around the 20% range. IMO, that has a big implication for stopping the disease, or estimating spread.)
If all it took to stop transmission is to require their recommendations, the California should be pretty much free of COVID-19. (That's my backwards way of saying what I think of their recommendations.) Of course, it requires more than simply requiring those practices, they must be followed (perhaps by active enforcement). But I don't have any great faith that the practices are sufficient to protect an individual, and may or may not be sufficient to drive R<1.
They continue the position that masks on the healthy are to protect others. They mention masks as protective of the wearer only for healthcare workers.
They didn't mention susceptibility to the disease (specifically, are their traits such as age or ethnic backgrounds that impact developing the disease). That would impact transmission. They barely mentioned superspreading (which I tend to think has been over emphasized here).
The authors' bias against aerosol as a transmission vector comes through. (Compare how they describe that versus spread by fomites.)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »