😆 😆 😆 😆
The one liners hit right on the button mike A
Had me in stitches
😆 😆 😆
not deaths from covid.
It cannot be known how many were killed by covid19 alone.In many cases it is a contributory factor.In some cases, it is only tangentially involved.In some cases it is the primary factor.
It would be good to know more about these aspects. But for various reasons, it is hard to break it down accurately. We must learn to do this better for the next time something like this occurs. we need to have stronger ways to acquire this data and to break this information out. It's important to do this, so we all have a better handle on the scale of the problem.
Right now, there is a level of uncertainty. We have to deal with that. The medics tell us a large number of people did die of covid19. Obvsly it's fewer than stated, for all the reasons above. I hope there will be some recommendations to improve this in due course. I do not think it is incompetence or a political conspiracy, it's just a technically difficult thing to do. Although politicians gotta do the politician thing. It's just how it is.
There is also the number of people who will have died because of covid to recon with. That's because of lack of access to healthcare, due to the system being occupied treating covid, and running at reduced capacity. It will take some time (years) before this contribution becomes known.
It would mean they are much less likely to acquire and transfer the virus to someone else.
You peer reviewed data for that is where exactly?
Especially for AZ.
Reducing the R0 from 2.2 to about 1.2 in real terms doesnt do a lot for spread.
It would mean they are much less likely to acquire and transfer the virus to someone else.
You peer reviewed data for that is where exactly?
Especially for AZ.
Reducing the R0 from 2.2 to about 1.2 in real terms doesnt do a lot for spread.
Not sure where the R0 figures came from, but 2.2 as an exponent in is great deal worse than 1.2. Explosive growth, vs. really problematic.
You peer reviewed data for that is where exactly?
Especially for AZ. Reducing the R0 from 2.2 to about 1.2 in real terms doesn't do a lot for spread.
It's a very good vaccine result. It's a knockout blow from the humans right onto the virus' chin, esp. since it was conducted in Brazil, with its famous scary superstar variant. And it even vindicates Tony Blair. Sorry, you are having a bad day Splatt, but look on the bright side - it's good news.
Having r0 at 1.2 means a very slow virus to spread. Having r0 at 2.2 means it's quick to spread.
I understand that the critical immunity proportion , pc, is
pc=1-(1/r0)
The difference between r= 1.2 => 2.2 triples the amount of vaccination and/or infection required to make the community immune from 16% to nearly 50%..or am I missing something?
I think 2.2 seems rightish, but my gut tells me 3 stacks up with the observations better.
