Coronavirus (No Politics)

More encouraging results from Israel.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20…-after-21-days

If you look at the corona situation in (western) Europe, you will find that 3 countries now have far less infected than the rest. Norway, Finlandand and Iceland. There's also Greece, but for this discussion I'll not include that country.

Now, what's common for these three countries? Well, all countries have very good social security systems, which helps. Also - at least in Norway we trust our government, and therefore tends to follow the rules. Now, there are things to be said about both these issues (which for all I know are already discussed in the P&R forum which I don't visit), but for this particular setting it helps.

However, the same can be said about several other European countries.

There is another comon factor for these countries, which I think is very important: We're all thinly populated. In Norway we're around 14 people per square km. Compare that to for instance the Netherlands with more than 300. This means that in the current situation where now - at least in Norway - most outbreaks are local, they tend to remain local. For instance, few people from my home town, Bergen see any good reason to travel 430 km in order to go to our third biggest city, Trondheim (and fortunately few from Trondheim come to Bergen). We've had local outbreaks in Bergen, which didn't affect Trondheim, and the recent outbreak in Trondheim didn't come here.

I think this is a very important factor, which sadly cannot be ethically implemented in the rest of Europe.

But I wonder: I assume that there are thinly populated states in the US. Are there similar differences over there?

an incarnation of pibbur who observes that down under is even more thinly populated than Norway.

PS. Faroe Islands (to some degree part of Denmark) is also thinly populated and has a low number of infections. DS.

I imagine the time it takes for your dog sleds to travel 430 km is the primary reason no-one in Norway does too much travelling!! We have used short local lockdowns here to isolate known cases and it has worked well, even though we hate it.

I think the data in terms of population density is pretty mixed in the US. For instance, Arkansas has a rather low population density (22/km^2), with a rather high number of cases per capita. Hawaii, with 4 times the density is doing much better. Alaska (<1/km^2) is doing better than Arkansas, but still has considerably higher number of cases (relative to population size) than, e.g., Norway.

I assume this is because Alaska has faster sled dogs?

Of course, there's also a problem with using population density that way, because it's not an accurate measure (aside from the obvious other variables that are ignored, such as climate). Alaska is a pretty good example. Large areas of uninhabited land skew the data. You'd probably have to take into account some average distance between cities/communities?

Originally Posted by Cacheperl
Of course, there's also a problem with using population density that way, because it's not an accurate measure (aside from the obvious other variables that are ignored, such as climate). Alaska is a pretty good example. Large areas of uninhabited land skew the data. You'd probably have to take into account some average distance between cities/communities?

Median population density would probably work better, but I'm not sure anyone has actually calculated that for states or nations.

Originally Posted by Steven Peeler
Median population density would probably work better, but I'm not sure anyone has actually calculated that for states or nations.

Even that may turn out to be a poor predictor, as it doesn't account for regional variations. Frequency of close encounters, and thus infection rates, probably scales as population density squared, so spread should be faster in a highly clustered population (for example, a few settlements on the coast, and vast stretches populated mostly by cangaroos and/or bears in between) than in a homogeneously settled region, even if the average population density is the same.

In other news, after two weeks of trying via the web portal, I finally managed to get the appointment for the BioNTech/Pfizer shot for my stepfather - and just a week from today.

Originally Posted by Atrachasis
In other news, after two weeks of trying via the web portal, I finally managed to get the appointment for the BioNTech/Pfizer shot for my stepfather - and just a week from today.

I've been trying to get a vaccine appointment for my father here in Florida without success. At first it kept saying there were no appointments available, and now it's saying current shipments are delayed due to inclement weather.

Originally Posted by Atrachasis
Even that may turn out to be a poor predictor, as it doesn't account for regional variations. Frequency of close encounters, and thus infection rates, probably scales as population density squared, so spread should be faster in a highly clustered population (for example, a few settlements on the coast, and vast stretches populated mostly by cangaroos and/or bears in between) than in a homogeneously settled region, even if the average population density is the same.

Yeah, I guess if you really want a good predictor you just run straight to cell phone companies and co.

(if you are allowed to, that is)

Never underestimate the potential for poor planning and sheer incompetence. The honest truth may be that they just don't know.

More data from Israel suggesting the Pfizer jab is very effective after one dose.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20…otection-study

If you take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines:

an incarnation of pibbur who has questions about other things

Originally Posted by a pibbur


an incarnation of pibbur who has questions about other things

Is this what happened?

a pibbur

PS. This is Bob Ross.


I think he looks disgustingly nice and happy. DS.

I was finally able to get my father scheduled for a shot this friday. He's getting the one by Moderna which I'm told is one of the better covid vaccines?

I got the Moderna vaccine yesterday. I get the second shot on April 13. In Ohio, they just opened the vaccine up to everyone 50 and older. I'm 51 and was able to get scheduled on the 2nd day of trying.

No side effects but I do have a strange desire to buy Microsoft products. Damn you, Bill Gates

Good. I think the Moderna is a perfectly good option - I'd certainly take it if that's what was offered.

I think we're beginning to see the impact of the most vulnerable groups being vaccinated. I suspect we'll see cases high for a while yet, as there's plenty of unvaccinated people running around without due care. But the impact on death rates should be drastic.

The worry of course, is how many people decline the vaccine. My hope is that there won't be too many people in the highest risk groups who would be that daft.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I was finally able to get my father scheduled for a shot this friday. He's getting the one by Moderna which I'm told is one of the better covid vaccines?

As far as I know the vaccines have similar efficiency rates after both shots.

Originally Posted by Hastar
I got the Moderna vaccine yesterday. I get the second shot on April 13. In Ohio, they just opened the vaccine up to everyone 50 and older. I'm 51 and was able to get scheduled on the 2nd day of trying.

No side effects but I do have a strange desire to buy Microsoft products. Damn you, Bill Gates

Already controlling your mind….

Originally Posted by Pladio
As far as I know the vaccines have similar efficiency rates after both shots.

Yeah, the Pfizer and Moderna shots are very close apparently. 95% and 94% respectively or something like that. The Johnson & Johnson shot is 85%, but that's a single dose.