If you have a high viral load you are more likely to infect others seriously when coughing etc
My suspicion is that Offwidth is jumping to conclusions because it gives a good opportunity to get cross at the government. As I say, he's probably right, but I wouldn't mind being shown the science behind it so that we can actually understand it fully.
Clearly this makes intuitive sense in that the immune system may find it easier to fight off a lower initial dose, and it accords with anecdotal experience of lots of doctors being seriously ill, but I've not seen any evidence for it.
Quote from: abarro81 on March 18, 2020, 11:44:46 amCan someone critique my maths?There' an infographic doing the rounds on FB, advocating social distancing and saying- If 1 person infects 2.5 others every 5 days, then after 30 days you have 406 infections- If 1 person infects 1.25 others every 5 days, then after 30 days you have 15 infections- If 1 person infects .625 others every 5 days, then after 30 days you have 2.5 infectionsBut my rough numbers, when assuming it takes 15 days to become "uninfected and uninfectious" come out as more like 1600, 65 and 0 (it's fudged because doing things in blocks of 5 days doesn't work nicely). Am I wrong or are they?Saw that and just posted on CD's page.Isn't it to the power of 6?If the period is every 5 days, and total is after 30 days, then:there are 6 of those 5-day periods in 30 days.So after 30 days,@ infection rate of 2.5 to power of 6 = 244 people infected@ infection rate 1.5 to power of 6 = 11 people@ infection .625 to power of 6 = .006 of a person (doylo, the only one remaining with residual infection)That's disregarding 'becoming uninfected' which is important in maths terms but unimportant in terms of the message being given.Caveat I'm a dumbass not a phd
Can someone critique my maths?There' an infographic doing the rounds on FB, advocating social distancing and saying- If 1 person infects 2.5 others every 5 days, then after 30 days you have 406 infections- If 1 person infects 1.25 others every 5 days, then after 30 days you have 15 infections- If 1 person infects .625 others every 5 days, then after 30 days you have 2.5 infectionsBut my rough numbers, when assuming it takes 15 days to become "uninfected and uninfectious" come out as more like 1600, 65 and 0 (it's fudged because doing things in blocks of 5 days doesn't work nicely). Am I wrong or are they?
You have to include the original infections i.e. total infections after 5 days = 1 (starting person) + 2.5 (new infections) = 3.5, not the 2.5 that you've assumed. Then 3.5*2.5+3.5 etc... This makes a huge difference after a few cycles.Interestingly - but obvious really if you think about exponential curves - deducting cases that have expired after 2 weeks makes less difference:With deductions:1705, 100, 10Without: 1838, 129,18
Will's point is correct. We know that those that are more seriously ill have a higher viral load (more of it in their body) and are therefore more likely to infect others (as more of it expelled into the air/onto surfaces).What seems to be conjecture is that the seriousness of the resulting illness in the person that catches it is dependant on the strength of the initial dose. Clearly this makes intuitive sense in that the immune system may find it easier to fight off a lower initial dose, and it accords with anecdotal experience of lots of doctors being seriously ill, but I've not seen any evidence for it.
I don't mind posters playing devils advocate on theoretical arguments but in the end when dealing with actions relating to current NHS staff risk not reaching crazy levels it's better to do what can be done on whats likely, given what they are about to face. Health staff need to be careful and good PPE gear is vital.
From working for decades around biomedical research staff I thought it was well establised that for most virus infections the initial infection dose mattered (either single size or cumulatively) in severity of subsequent symptoms.
The body's defences have less chance to adapt and defend. I've not seen a paper proving that yet for coronavirus but it's very likely to be the case and it certainly explains the unuusal severity level in young healthy medical staff treating the most seriously infected.
It's very much best to assume it's true if you want to protect NHS staff as well as you can.
Parents monumentally screwed by that self employed package as it doesn't cover small ltd companies who take dividends. This is a significant proportion of the self employed, surely there will have to be a row back over the next few days...
Someone paying a minimum salary from a limited company then the rest of what really should be salary as dividend saves them selves a fortune in tax and also the company saves on NI. The biggest tax loop hole in the country that is used by tens of thousands.