cbr said:

---

let me get this straight... a 6' man is "normal" at 136 lbs, and overweight at 183 lbs?

obese at 220?

morbidly obese at under 260?

seems a bit conservative to me....

---

Bobcat06 said:

---

cbr said:

---

let me get this straight... a 6' man is "normal" at 136 lbs, and overweight at 183 lbs?

obese at 220?

morbidly obese at under 260?

seems a bit conservative to me....

---

BMI is calculated on a linear scale, but mass and volume have cubic growth, so the scale loses credibility at taller heights.

I'm 6'6" and haven't had a "normal" BMI since I was in 9th grade and looked like a toothpick.

My brother works out like crazy and does marathons and triathlons, but since he's the same height as me, his BMI is "overweight"

---

Quote:

---

A note about antibody testing is in order, and it's the usual concern about diagnostic tests in general. The mathematics mean that the higher the prevalence of what you're testing for in your population of subjects, the better the accuracy of the results. So if your disease has a low prevalence, your test has to have very low false negative and false positive rates to be meaningful or even useful at all. Here are a couple of blog posts that run through the numbers as illustrations of this, and here is a good Twitter thread on one of the tests (Cellex) that the FDA has recently given Emergency Use Authorization for. That one has a 93.8% sensitivity and a 95.6% specificity, which means that if (for example) 4.5% of the US population has had the virus, that a positive result with that test only means a 50% chance that you actually are positive. If 30% of the population has actually been infected, the test is right 90% of the time, and so on (see the link for details). I don't know what tests the CDC and Stanford surveys are using and what their specificity/selectivity numbers are, although we can be sure that they know all about the statistics. But everyone else should, too.

---

Mr.Infectious said:

---

---

inoffensive username said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Guess this explains why cities are having such a tough time shutting this thing down. Without any measures at all, the R0 is 5.7.

I am not sure the lockdowns will do all that much at this point other than just barely slow it down. Looks like we're just going to be in a holding pattern until we get a vaccine.

---

But it's just the flu, math lessons, exponents, blah, blah, the virus terk er jeerrrrbbbbbssss

---

AgsMyDude said:

---

inoffensive username said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Guess this explains why cities are having such a tough time shutting this thing down. Without any measures at all, the R0 is 5.7.

I am not sure the lockdowns will do all that much at this point other than just barely slow it down. Looks like we're just going to be in a holding pattern until we get a vaccine.

---

But it's just the flu, math lessons, exponents, blah, blah, the virus terk er jeerrrrbbbbbssss

---

These are the posts that keep me subscribed to the thread.

Thanks for the contribution.

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

A 2nd wave is hitting Singapore hard.

---

inoffensive username said:

---

coastsrs said:

---

Back from basically a month long ban.

I see the village covidiots "you don't understand basic math" are now moving goal posts. And we barely hit 400k a week after they projected us to hit 500k. Pretty good math there guys. Never change. A week off and still 20% off the mark.

---

With an insane level of social distancing. No one is moving goal posts. Society is doing its part to slow down the spread.

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Guess this explains why cities are having such a tough time shutting this thing down. Without any measures at all, the R0 is 5.7.

I am not sure the lockdowns will do all that much at this point other than just barely slow it down. Looks like we're just going to be in a holding pattern until we get a vaccine.

---

coastsrs said:

---

inoffensive username said:

---

coastsrs said:

---

Back from basically a month long ban.

I see the village covidiots "you don't understand basic math" are now moving goal posts. And we barely hit 400k a week after they projected us to hit 500k. Pretty good math there guys. Never change. A week off and still 20% off the mark.

---

With an insane level of social distancing. No one is moving goal posts. Society is doing its part to slow down the spread.

---

Uh that was a projection from well into the social distancing. But you knew that

---

Quote:

---

Britain's hope of mass testing people to see who has already had COVID-19 have been dealt a major blow by research showing many have barely-detectable signs of past infection.

Antibody testing, which detects substances created and stored by the immune system when someone gets ill, reveals whether someone has been infected already.

But research from China has revealed around a third of past patients have very low levels of antibodies in their blood, which could make them hard to test for.

The study of nearly 200 patients found 30 per cent of recovered patients had surprisingly low levels of antibodies.

The disease-fighting proteins were not detected at all in 10 patients who had definitely tested positive in the past, with the researchers warning they could be at risk of catching the bug again.

It raises fears that antibody tests which tell if someone has had the infection and is likely to be immune may need to be far more sensitive than previously thought.

---

Keegan99 said:

---

If the R0 is 5.7 then in the 60 days from January 15th through March 15th, with a period of 4 days, the single Wuhan traveler would produce more infections than there are people on Earth.

If the period is 6 days you still get 36 million cases in that 60 days.

At a minimum, Seattle should have seen massive numbers of fatalities. The only way they wouldn't is if the fatality rate was much much lower than estimated.

---

cone said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Guess this explains why cities are having such a tough time shutting this thing down. Without any measures at all, the R0 is 5.7.

I am not sure the lockdowns will do all that much at this point other than just barely slow it down. Looks like we're just going to be in a holding pattern until we get a vaccine.

---

aren't those old findings based on China data?

same authors that came up with the same R0 in early Feb

if they didn't expand the dataset to Italy not sure if it's still useful

---

Quote:

---

There is no country on Earth that let it run rampant for more than a week or two at most before major changes.

---