6 ms·

Yesterday I submitted this but it didn't get many upvotes.. https://towardsdatascience.com/modelling-the-coronavirus-epidemic-spreading-in-a-city-with-python-b

Yesterday I submitted this but it didn't get many upvotes.. https://towardsdatascience.com/modelling-the-coronavirus-epidemic-spreading-in-a-city-with-python-babd14d82fa2 https://towardsdatascience.com/modelling-the-coronavirus-epi... I think that reached this point is obvious that in our hyperconnected cities a containment is going to be very difficult if the R0 is 3+ and we don't shutdown commuting PS: for those interested in real-time info from experts I recommended following: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing https://twitter.com/MackayIM https://twitter.com/trvrb

Fomite 7y ago
Please don't follow Eric Ding. He's not particularly qualified, and his statements to date have betrayed that he's not actually all that good at infectious disease epidemiology. I'd suggest, in place, Maia Majumder (@maiamajumder) and Tara Smith (@aetiology).
- jdhendrickson 7y ago
  Could you please flesh out your comment on Ding's skill in regard to infectious disease epidemiology ? I don't doubt you, I just like to know why people say things.
  - Fomite 7y ago
    Sure thing. First, note that Eric Feigl-Ding is a nutritional epidemiologist, not an infectious disease epidemiologist. Infectious diseases are weird for a lot of reasons, and require something of a different skillset. For example, in a Tweet of his he has now deleted: "never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career." about the estimate for R0 for this novel coronavirus. Similar R0 estimates existed for SARS, and MERS. Measles, Rubella and a number of other diseases have vastly higher R0s. He also messed up some things like conflating R0 with secondary attack rates, and was generally very sensationalistic. Basically, the things that boosted him to prominence in this epidemic built on fairly sloppy reasoning from someone outside the field. He's calmed down now, but one might as well go to sources for people who are both good at science communication and actual outbreak scientists.
    - ixtli 7y ago
      Thank you for making the effort required to put all this together.
      - Fomite 7y ago
        My pleasure.
        ortusdux 7y ago
        Any sources that you do recommend?
        RandomBacon 7y ago
        Maybe the person you asked edited their comment after you asked, but he/she listed their recommendations here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22304794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22304794
    - illinformed 7y ago
      I wouldnt put infectious disease epidemiologists on a pedestal either, whilst they can use plain old Police-like detection methods to identify so called Super Spreaders, the egit's can not identify what makes someone a Super Spreader. Considering the medical profession are so limited in their ability to measure the content of every cell and condition of every cell, cell sensing, signalling, enzymatic activity and radical activity in-vivo, eg localised hydroxyl radical activity in the presence of pathogens, infectious disease epidemiologists are no better than social commentators if society is considered an organism, or economists who swear to an economic school of thought on a par with a religion of your choice. All experts have a common trait, they espouse their virtues when they are right and slink into the shadows when they are wrong, sometimes, if they have the audacity they wait for the next opportunity before popping up like a jack in a box.
    - richajak 7y ago
      Thanks for the info, I have just followed all those twitter accounts. Should we be objective about the facts presented? Do not shoot the messenger. We may be doing injustice to him if we dismiss every thing that he said. I do not know him but it seems that he may a bit over "enthuastic" in this topic. However, it is not good idea to belittle someone. For those not aware of the drama, he suggested that the virus was mixed with HIV and invented by ... ;-) He removed the tweets after that. We all know it' a touchy topic.
- reustle 7y ago
  Replying with clickable links for each of these twitter accounts: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing https://twitter.com/DrEricDing https://twitter.com/MackayIM https://twitter.com/MackayIM https://twitter.com/trvrb https://twitter.com/trvrb - https://twitter.com/maiamajumder https://twitter.com/maiamajumder https://twitter.com/aetiology https://twitter.com/aetiology
- foldingmoney 7y ago
  Also https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell
Anon84 7y ago
For a more serious (and large scale approach) to epidemic modeling, and 2019 nCov applications, check out: https://www.mobs-lab.org/2019ncov.html https://www.mobs-lab.org/2019ncov.html
joeguilmette 7y ago
here’s a twitter list of solid epidemiologists: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1223539522706661376 https://twitter.com/i/lists/1223539522706661376

Fomite 7y ago

Please don't follow Eric Ding. He's not particularly qualified, and his statements to date have betrayed that he's not actually all that good at infectious disease epidemiology. I'd suggest, in place, Maia Majumder (@maiamajumder) and Tara Smith (@aetiology).

jdhendrickson 7y ago
Could you please flesh out your comment on Ding's skill in regard to infectious disease epidemiology ? I don't doubt you, I just like to know why people say things.
- Fomite 7y ago
  Sure thing. First, note that Eric Feigl-Ding is a nutritional epidemiologist, not an infectious disease epidemiologist. Infectious diseases are weird for a lot of reasons, and require something of a different skillset. For example, in a Tweet of his he has now deleted: "never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career." about the estimate for R0 for this novel coronavirus. Similar R0 estimates existed for SARS, and MERS. Measles, Rubella and a number of other diseases have vastly higher R0s. He also messed up some things like conflating R0 with secondary attack rates, and was generally very sensationalistic. Basically, the things that boosted him to prominence in this epidemic built on fairly sloppy reasoning from someone outside the field. He's calmed down now, but one might as well go to sources for people who are both good at science communication and actual outbreak scientists.
  - ixtli 7y ago
    Thank you for making the effort required to put all this together.
    - Fomite 7y ago
      My pleasure.
      - ortusdux 7y ago
        Any sources that you do recommend?
        RandomBacon 7y ago
        Maybe the person you asked edited their comment after you asked, but he/she listed their recommendations here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22304794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22304794
  - illinformed 7y ago
    I wouldnt put infectious disease epidemiologists on a pedestal either, whilst they can use plain old Police-like detection methods to identify so called Super Spreaders, the egit's can not identify what makes someone a Super Spreader. Considering the medical profession are so limited in their ability to measure the content of every cell and condition of every cell, cell sensing, signalling, enzymatic activity and radical activity in-vivo, eg localised hydroxyl radical activity in the presence of pathogens, infectious disease epidemiologists are no better than social commentators if society is considered an organism, or economists who swear to an economic school of thought on a par with a religion of your choice. All experts have a common trait, they espouse their virtues when they are right and slink into the shadows when they are wrong, sometimes, if they have the audacity they wait for the next opportunity before popping up like a jack in a box.
  - richajak 7y ago
    Thanks for the info, I have just followed all those twitter accounts. Should we be objective about the facts presented? Do not shoot the messenger. We may be doing injustice to him if we dismiss every thing that he said. I do not know him but it seems that he may a bit over "enthuastic" in this topic. However, it is not good idea to belittle someone. For those not aware of the drama, he suggested that the virus was mixed with HIV and invented by ... ;-) He removed the tweets after that. We all know it' a touchy topic.
reustle 7y ago
Replying with clickable links for each of these twitter accounts: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing https://twitter.com/DrEricDing https://twitter.com/MackayIM https://twitter.com/MackayIM https://twitter.com/trvrb https://twitter.com/trvrb - https://twitter.com/maiamajumder https://twitter.com/maiamajumder https://twitter.com/aetiology https://twitter.com/aetiology
foldingmoney 7y ago
Also https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell

Anon84 7y ago

For a more serious (and large scale approach) to epidemic modeling, and 2019 nCov applications, check out: https://www.mobs-lab.org/2019ncov.html https://www.mobs-lab.org/2019ncov.html

joeguilmette 7y ago

here’s a twitter list of solid epidemiologists: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1223539522706661376 https://twitter.com/i/lists/1223539522706661376