wwww

jesi poredila brojke na sajtu Johns Hopkins s tim koje dobijas od lokalaca? Ja primecujem razliku u dnevnim objavama RKI i onih nekih novina. Ali to je verovatno do toga sto RKI ceka zvanicne prijave pokrajinskih zavoda za zdravlje, dok novine valjda direktno objavljuju ovo sto saznaju od lokalaca. Npr. gledala sam brojke za zariste u Getingenu, trebalo je par dana da se to vidi na krivoj RKI, a novine su vec ranije objavljivale koliko su pozitivnih nasli u doticnoj zgradi. Ili u par fabrika mesa - takodje je kasnilo pribrojavanje novoinficiranih krivoj RKI za datu oblast u odnosu na vesti na tv. No RKI potom ponov datira rezultate (ne stavlja ih u rubriku za dan kad su im stigli rezultati u ofis), u skladu s stvarnim datumom uzimanja uzorka (a za dobar broj sucajeva imaju i dodatno datum kada su ljudi osetili prve simptome, pa imaju i tu krivu, mada nepotpunu). U Nemackoj ne testiraju one koji su na kucnom lecenju (laksi slucajevi) da utvrde da li su se izlecili, nema 2 uzastopna negativna testa, tako da je brojka "izlecenih" samo procena (pretpostavljam da ih posle 14-28 dana svrstaju u izlecene ako ne zavrse u bolnici). Takodje, u pocetku je bilo i dosta ljudi s slabim simptomima koji nikada nisu testirani, pa oni uopste nisu ni u kakvim statistikama. A da ne pricam o asimptomaticnima. Neka testiranja na antitela vecih razmera se ne planiraju pre jeseni jer se smatra da bi samo bez veze trosili testove posto bi broj pozitivnih u odnosu na ukupan broj testiranih bio vrlo mali. Sto se tice CDC, oni su bas dobro zabrljali na pocetku s testom. I dalje mi nije jasno sto nisu jednostavno preuzeli proceduru koju je Prof. Drosten dao jos u januaru (to su naravno u Nemackoj i Austriji koristili, valjda su i ostali) vec su razvijali svoj test, pa ga jos kontaminirali... Gledajuci ovako s strane deluje mi da se ljudi u CDC nisu bas pokazali u najbojem svetlu tokom ove pandemije, ne znam zasto jer se cini da su ranije, tokom SARS/MERS itd. pandemija bili sasvim uspesni.

Stavljaju li njih u izlecene ili u aktivne slucajeve (sto je nelogicno)? Problem s testom na anitela je sto moze da da lazni pozitivni rezultat ako je neko prelezao neki corona grip, a ne Sars-CoV-2. Sto moze da bude opasno jer covek moze da pomisli da je prelezao i imun je, pa da se neoprezno izlozi riziku.

Mozda samo vise testiraju i hvataju i one asimptomaticne koje nisu u pocetku. A mozdaa se i ovi rizicni malo bolje cuvaju nego na pocetku. Virus definitivno nije oslabio.

Najveci problem je 14 dana karantina po dolasku, gde ne moze da se trenira (to je valjda jos uvek pravilo). Ako bi se to izbeglo onda bi i mogao da ode (i odigra taj njujorski Sinsinati kao pripremu). Drugi problem je sta se desava kada je neko testiran pozitivno ( americki brzi testovi, one koje koristi Tramp, i nisu bas pouzdani, daju i lazne pozitivne i lazne negativne rezultate), pa ga onda stave u karantin i cekaju 2 negativna testa u ne znam kom vremenskom razmaku (a znamo da je test pozitivan i kad se nadje mrtav virus iako covek ise nije infektivan). U tom slucaju mogu nekog da zadrze tamo i nekoliko sedmica, pa je onda i evropska sljaka pod znakom pitanja. I naravno - veca verovatnoca da se tamo zarazi nego li u Srbiji (Nestorovica i Vucica).

na njihovom sajtu nema nikakvog termina. mislim da sam negde procitala da ce sutra/prekosutra ATP izbaciti novi raspored turnira. Pretpostavljam da se sve kombinuje s Madridom i Rimom. Originalno je RG bio preuzeo termin LC, koji se poklapao s Metzom i St. Petersburgom. A to je bilo jedna sedmica posle USO (od 21.9.-27.9, odnosno 25.-27.9.). Odmah posle USO je bio termin za DC (ima na sajtu ATP originalni kalendar za 2020).

https://www.tennismagazin.de/news/neuer-termin-french-open-um-eine-woche-verschoben/ Neuer Termin: French Open um eine Woche verschoben Franziska Brülls am 24. April 2020 um 11:26 Die French Open in Paris wurden erneut um eine Woche nach hinten verschoben. Sie sollen nun vom 27. September bis 11. Oktober 2020 ausgetragen werden. Novi termin: French Open pomeren za jednu sedmicu French Open u Parizu je ponovo pomeren - jednu sedmicu kasnije. Igrace se od 27.9. do 11.10.2020.

kad stvarne izjave postanu savrsene za ovu temu...

Summarizing: Between 0.5% and 1.5% of infected die from the coronavirus Many more become very sick All of that might turn out to be worse if those with antibodies are not safe from the virus, or if it mutates This virus is nasty. Letting it run loose exposes people not just to possible death, but to all the complications that might emerge from infection. We could be creating a wounded generation. The first measure Sweden took to protect care homes was to forbid visits. That type of measure limits contagion. Under a Herd Immunity strategy, these limits would need to last for years until there’s a treatment or vaccine — instead of a few weeks during a Hammer. That’s because even when many people have already overcome their infections, the virus is still present. During all this time, as soon as one single person is infected in a care home, the virus spreads like wildfire inside. So no visits for years. The elderly still need workers to take care of them. What will happen with these workers, called shielders? Will they also be quarantined? For years? What about their partners, will they also be quarantined? Will they have to lose their jobs? What about their kids, should they also be quarantined? Stop going to school? If not, what about other kids and their parents? Should they be quarantined instead? All of that’s impossible, so we must assume many care home workers will get infected. How to protect the elderly from them? Sweden is a healthy country. People have fewer pre-existing conditions that worsen their outcomes. In the UK, adding people with pre-existing conditions, old people, and their shielders, we get to 40% of the population that needs to be protected. In the US, it’s even worse. 45% of the population has pre-existing conditions that increase their risk of death. That doesn’t even include old people. More than half the population is at serious risk. It’s not sufficient to protect these people. All their contacts would need to be extremely careful not to catch the virus and pass it to their vulnerable loved ones. As a result, substantially more than half of the US population would need to be extremely careful for years. How are we going to keep more than half of the population safe from the rest? Some people are already extra careful. Cancer patients undergoing treatment, for example, are immunosuppressed. Their immune system is weak, so they must be extremely careful to not catch anything. However, it’s one thing to have a few people be very careful, but half the population is a much bigger task. In summary A lot of old people are dying from the virus No country has been able to shield them so far People with pre-existing conditions also have a high risk of death If we decide to protect old people, people with pre-existing conditions, and their shielders, we would need to seclude a huge chunk of the population from the rest.

With ~10 million Swedes, 7% means around 700k had been infected at some point, and ~9 times more would need to be infected before Herd Immunity. Since deaths take around 3 weeks to happen, this should be comparable to the number of deaths around the end of May, so around 4,000. With ~700k infected and ~4,000 deaths, the infection fatality rate (IFR) would be 0.57%. The Swedish government thought it would be 0.1%, nearly six times lower than it already is. ”I think [the fatality rate] will be like a severe influenza season, which might be on the order of… 0.1% maybe.” Prof. Johan Giesecke, advisor to the Swedish government and former head of the dept now headed by Tegnell, via Unherd. Letting the virus run through the entire population would multiply deaths by an order of magnitude, bringing the death toll to ~30,000–40,000 people. This, by the way, is not unique to Sweden. Even in areas with massive outbreaks, a low percentage of the population has been infected. Not only that, but this makes another huge assumption: that people with antibodies against the coronavirus are actually immune. We don’t know that. It could be, for example, that some people appear to have immunity but in fact they have antibodies for another type of coronavirus. They might also have developed a few antibodies from a small exposure to the virus, but a bigger exposure might overwhelm their system. If situations like these were true, in a country like Sweden, the percentage of the population that is currently immune could be even lower than 6.7%, and reaching Herd Immunity could be even farther off. itd. itd. Procitajte ceo tekst, odlican je. Dobar je deo gde diskutuje case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR) i poredi s gripom. Za USA za grip CFR je 0,13%, verovatno je IFR 0,013% Za USA kaze da je sada CFR za covid oko 6%, za South Korea, Taiwan, and the Diamond Princess cruise ship oko 2-2,5% Na osnovu velikog broja studija dosao je do zakljucka da je srednja vrednost IFR negde oko 0,64% (u intervalu od 0,5% do 1,5%)

New York was narrowly trailing Spain in cases. But it took seven more days (March 22nd) for the NY government to order the Hammer than the Spanish government (March15th). As a result, the New York curve blew past Spain’s, and Spain ended up with 235k cases by May 20th vs 360k for New York. This is despite the fact that citizens had already started limiting their movement in both places: This chart is telling us two things: Citizens and businesses follow the news and take some actions independently from government requests. These actions can affect the transmission rate of the virus. That is not enough. Spain and NY lowered their mobility around the same time, but that was only partially reflected in the curve. The application of Hammers from governments came later, and the reduction in cases came two weeks after the Hammer like clockwork. The US is a near-perfect place to study the impact of lockdowns, because there was no decision to lock the country down at a federal level, and both states and counties had to make that decision. That leaves thousands of counties to compare lockdowns vs. no lockdowns. What can we learn from that? The orange line shows how the cases evolved in counties that ordered a lockdown vs. those that didn’t compared to counties with no lockdown. At day zero, they’re made equal. Before that, it’s a bit all over the place. But after the lockdown, the counties with lockdowns start having fewer and fewer cases compared to counties that did not lock down. By the 1st week, the number of cases is down by 30%. After two weeks, it’s 40%. After three weeks, it’s 49%. Does the Dance Work? Both the Hammer and the Dance can work. Yet some people have claimed that the peak and drop of coronavirus cases were not due to the Hammer. They say it doesn’t have any effect. Instead, they argue that outbreaks happen in all countries sooner or later and that, like clockwork, the epidemic dies down after a few weeks, whether there were lockdowns or not. In science, if you want to prove a theory, you make predictions based on it and you see if they turn out to be true. Here are some predictions from this theory: Since all countries have a similar case curve going up and down independent from any Hammer, there should be an outbreak in all countries. Countries without a heavy outbreak are impossible. Conversely, since all countries have a similar case curve going up and down independent from any Hammer, all countries should be seeing their caseload go down. Countries with similar initial conditions should see similar outbreaks, regardless of whether they applied Hammers. Conversely, countries with different initial situations should see different outbreaks, regardless of whether they applied Hammers. The first prediction is false. Not all countries have had an outbreak. Under that reasoning, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Vietnam are not possible: They didn’t suffer any outbreak. The countries that were prepared — the ones that knew how to dance right away — did not have outbreaks. Not only that, but this was known back in March, since only one Chinese region really suffered an outbreak: If lockdowns don’t matter, how come all the Chinese provinces that locked down early, alerted by the Hubei situation, were able to dodge an outbreak? How come the only region that had an outbreak is the one that couldn’t lock down on time? The second prediction—“All countries that have had outbreaks should have been back to normal by now”—is false. We saw that hasn’t happened in Sweden. We can easily find other countries in all continents: We previously saw many countries that have successfully applied the Hammer. Within 2–3 weeks they start flattening the curve, and with a few more weeks, they get it close to 0. But we can also find dozens of countries across continents where that is not the case: The number of daily coronavirus infections continues at a high and stable level for weeks (like in Sweden or the US), keeps growing (like in Moldova, Algeria, Argentina or Russia), or goes down before going back up (like in Azerbaijan, Jordan, Iran or Malta). If the curve was independent from the measures, you’d see all countries going down. That doesn’t happen. The third prediction—“Countries with similar initial conditions should have similar case curves, independent from the Hammers they applied”—is false. We saw that Norway, Denmark, Austria, Finland an Czechia started similar to Sweden, and yet went through different paths. We also saw how New York and Spain were very close in initial cases, so their curves should have gone down at the same time. But that’s not what we saw. New York’s case curve took longer and went higher. Same thing for US counties. The fourth prediction — “Countries with different initial conditions should have different case curves, independent from the Hammers they applied” — is false. There should be some variability across countries in the bending of the curve, but daily cases nearly always go down two weeks after the Hammer is applied, as we saw for places like China, France, Italy, Spain or New York. The coronavirus is not unstoppable. There’s a clear way to stop it for many countries: the Hammer and the Dance.

Sweden is testing 10 times less than its neighbors, because it doesn’t really care about total cases, since it’s not trying to eliminate the epidemic. As a result, they’re undercounting cases. Even then, cases are only as good as the official records. A more reliable data point is deaths. And yet… There was evidence, based on everything that had happened in Wuhan, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy… Since then, plenty of countries have acted on that evidence, and their performance is accumulating. So what did the available evidence indicate? ima i Srbija!

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b Coronavirus: Should We Aim for Herd Immunity Like Sweden?

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376 A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with ‘lock-down’ in managing the COVID-19 pandemic Figure 1. Distribution of asymptomatic and symptomatic infectiousness of COVID-19-infected individuals, used in the branching process [39]. Horizontal lines show the average infectiousness per time unit for the asymptomatic stage (orange) and the symptomatic stage (red).

A study on masks by Cambridge University shows that if masks stop 75% of the viruses and 75% wear masks, the R value falls below 1. In autumn masks will play a major role. Higher quality masks are still needed. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0376

gledam sad neku sportsku emisiju na nekoj austrijskoj tv. I oni sad imaju problem (kao Nemacka) sto su bili vrlo efikasni u sprecavanju sirenja virusa, pa su izbegli italijanski/spanski scenario, pa se sad virus vise ne shvata ozbiljno (cuveno poredjenje s gripom). Ne valja kad drzava zakaze, ne valja ni kad drzava uspe da spreci sirenje zaraze.

od danas Nemci mogu da putuju u druge zemlje EU osim: Svedske (zbog stanja zaraze), Spanije, Finske, Norveske (jer ove zemlje jos nisu otvorile svoje granice. Plus Island, Svajcarska, Lihterstajn i UK (gde se mora u 14 dana karantin). Za Spaniju vazi izuzetak za Baleare, gde je dozvoljeno da udje 10900 turista (ne znam tacno u kom periodu). Za ostale zemlje (ukljucujuci Srbiju, BiH itd) vazi upozorenje - do 31.8.