新冠病毒：为什么你现在必须行动

[joe_xj]

因为是去的外科，护士说我戴口罩会让其他病人不舒服，紧张，害怕。

心平气和地告诉他为什么你要戴口罩，再给他讲讲每天看到疫情加重让你不舒服，紧张，害怕。最好带上手机给他看看标准防疫装束的照片，瞎瞎他

 

[GuardianAngel]

还是政府的问题，如果官方发布让大家尽可能带口罩，带的人就多了，就不会让其他病人不舒服，紧张，害怕了。
现在是带的人越少，想带的人越不好带上，不方便带上。

同意

 

[GuardianAngel]

傻加拿大人，在医院带个口罩都不让，问来问去不说，还说你要是健康的，不要戴口罩！脑袋进水了，早晚后悔莫及！

的确是莫名其妙和蠢蛋。

 

[耶书仑]

写信它们听吗？WHO的专家给出的建议，已经一个月了，有一个人执行了吗？傻逼，还在作死！昨天一天，意大利就死了250人。等死吧！

你写信是你的权利，他们听取多少当然是他们的权利。否则，你就该替代他们的位子了。

一个月前，加拿大没有几列，也没有人囤集食物。

 

[Hard Worker]

你写信是你的权利，他们听取多少当然是他们的权利。否则，你就该替代他们的位子了。

一个月前，加拿大没有几列，也没有人囤集食物。

一个月前WHO已经通知各个国家了，傻逼！我们政府做了什么？

 

[耶书仑]

一个月前WHO已经通知各个国家了，傻逼！我们政府做了什么？

下次不选他呗！！

 

[lindamy]

大致看完这篇长文，要点很多，最主要强调的是必须尽早做好准备，政府的作用至关紧要，设置social distance,说白话大约就是封城，隔离，限行等等措施。

首先下图大家都很熟悉，这是新冠病毒轻80.9%，重13.8%，危症4.7% 的分布图。

这是最重要的一张图，作者的很多观点都来源于它。简单说灰色柱代表实际病例，黄色代表能够看到的，并非任何人的隐瞒，出于各种原因，人们了解到的真相，会滞后几天。

文中提到很多一旦爆发，必将造成医疗系统的严重超载，以至崩溃。不得不实行选择性救治。如果你的城市或国家没有提前做任何事，必将会使死亡率从0.5%提升到4%。

All of this is what drives a system to have a fatality rate of ~4% instead of ~0.5%. If you want your city or your country to be part of the 4%, don’t do anything today.

以下是部分结论：
有准备的国家，南韩 死亡率是大约 0.5%，中国死亡率是大约 0.9%.

不堪重负的国家，死亡率在 3 - 5%。

换句话说：行动迅速的国家可以将使死亡人数减少十倍。这只是计算死亡率。快速采取行动更可以大量减少病例的发生。


This is what you can conclude:

Excluding these, countries that are prepared will see a fatality rate of ~0.5% (South Korea) to 0.9% (rest of China).

Countries that are overwhelmed will have a fatality rate between ~3%-5%

Put in another way: Countries that act fast can reduce the number of deaths by a factor of ten. And that’s just counting the fatality rate. Acting fast also drastically reduces the cases, making this even more of a no-brainer.

Countries that act fast reduce the number of deaths at least by 10x.

现在做得最好的地区是台湾。

大多数其他国家在玩另外的游戏：缓解游戏。他们需要减缓这种病毒的攻击。

如果我们尽可能减少感染，我们的医疗保健系统将能够更好地处理病例，从而降低死亡率。而且，如果病毒逐步传播，我们将达到可以为整个社会接种疫苗的地步，从而完全消除了风险。因此，我们的目标不是消除冠状病毒感染。是要推迟他们。

我们推迟的病例越多，医疗体系发挥更好的发挥作用，死亡率越低，在被感染之前要进行疫苗接种的人群所占的比例就越高。

Now, they’re playing a different game: mitigation. They need to make this virus as inoffensive as possible.

If we reduce the infections as much as possible, our healthcare system will be able to handle cases much better, driving the fatality rate down. And, if we spread this over time, we will reach a point where the rest of society can be vaccinated, eliminating the risk altogether. So our goal is not to eliminate coronavirus contagions. It’s to postpone them.

The more we postpone cases, the better the healthcare system can function, the lower the mortality rate, and the higher the share of the population that will be vaccinated before it gets infected.

我已经赞扬了台湾的做法。而中国做得也很好。他们抑制病毒的时间令人难以置信。例如，他们有多达1,800个5人小组，每个小组追踪一个感染者，与他们每个人进行互动，并隔离一群人。这样，他们就能在十亿人口的国家中遏制该病毒。

西方国家没有这样做，现在为时已晚。美国最近宣布禁止大部分欧洲人出行是对一种遏制措施。。。。


I’ve already touted Taiwan’s approach. But China’s is good too. The lengths at which it went to contain the virus are mind-boggling. For example, they had up to 1,800 teams of 5 people each tracking every infected person, everybody they got interacted with, then everybody those people interacted with, and isolating the bunch. That’s how they were able to contain the virus across a billion-people country.

This is not what Western countries have done. And now it’s too late. The recent US announcement that most travel from Europe was banned is a containment measure for a country that has, as of today, 3 times the cases that Hubei had when it shut down, growing exponentially. How can we know if it’s enough? It turns out, we can know by looking at the Wuhan travel ban.

如果湖北当局宣布将封城日期提前一天，在1/22而不是1/23，那么中国的案件数量可能会减少2万。

请记住，这些只是案例。死亡率会更高，因为不仅死亡人数将直接增加40％。医疗保健系统的崩溃也将大大增加，导致死亡率比我们以前看到的高10倍。因此，封城的日期，一日的差异，可以通过增加更多的病例和更高的病死率来增加死亡人数。

新增病例将成指数增长，每一天都很重要，如果决定推迟一天时，你会看到不止是增加几个病例，很可能有成千上万病例的增加。如果没有采取隔离，封锁等措施，新增病例必将呈指数增长。

In this theoretical model that resembles loosely Hubei, waiting one more day creates 40% more cases! So, maybe, if the Hubei authorities had declared the lockdown on 1/22 instead of 1/23, they might have reduced the number of cases by a staggering 20k.

And remember, these are just cases. Mortality would be much higher, because not only would there be directly 40% more deaths. There would also be a much higher collapse of the healthcare system, leading to a mortality rate up to 10x higher as we saw before. So a one-day difference in social distancing measures can end exploding the number of deaths in your community by multiplying more cases and higher fatality rate.

This is an exponential threat. Every day counts. When you’re delaying by a single day a decision, you’re not contributing to a few cases maybe. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases in your community already. Every day that there isn’t social distancing, these cases grow exponentially.

 

[Hard Worker]

下次不选他呗！！

选另一个傻X？死的更快！

 

[Hard Worker]

大致看完这篇长文，要点很多，最主要强调的是必须尽早做好准备，政府的作用至关紧要，设置social distance,说白话大约就是封城，隔离，限行等等措施。

首先下图大家都很熟悉，这是新冠病毒轻80.9%，重13.8%，危症4.7% 的分布图。

浏览附件887890

浏览附件887917

这是最重要的一张图，作者的很多观点都来源于它。简单说灰色柱代表实际病例，黄色代表能够看到的，并非任何人的隐瞒，出于各种原因，人们了解到的真相，会滞后几天。

文中提到很多一旦爆发，必将造成医疗系统的严重超载，以至崩溃。不得不实行选择性救治。如果你的城市或国家没有提前做任何事，必将会使死亡率从0.5%提升到4%。

All of this is what drives a system to have a fatality rate of ~4% instead of ~0.5%. If you want your city or your country to be part of the 4%, don’t do anything today.

以下是部分结论：
有准备的国家，南韩 死亡率是大约 0.5%，中国死亡率是大约 0.9%.

不堪重负的国家，死亡率在 3 - 5%。

换句话说：行动迅速的国家可以将使死亡人数减少十倍。这只是计算死亡率。快速采取行动更可以大量减少病例的发生。


This is what you can conclude:

Excluding these, countries that are prepared will see a fatality rate of ~0.5% (South Korea) to 0.9% (rest of China).

Countries that are overwhelmed will have a fatality rate between ~3%-5%

Put in another way: Countries that act fast can reduce the number of deaths by a factor of ten. And that’s just counting the fatality rate. Acting fast also drastically reduces the cases, making this even more of a no-brainer.

Countries that act fast reduce the number of deaths at least by 10x.

现在做得最好的地区是台湾。

大多数其他国家在玩另外的游戏：缓解游戏。他们需要减缓这种病毒的攻击。

如果我们尽可能减少感染，我们的医疗保健系统将能够更好地处理病例，从而降低死亡率。而且，如果病毒逐步传播，我们将达到可以为整个社会接种疫苗的地步，从而完全消除了风险。因此，我们的目标不是消除冠状病毒感染。是要推迟他们。

我们推迟的病例越多，医疗体系发挥更好的发挥作用，死亡率越低，在被感染之前要进行疫苗接种的人群所占的比例就越高。

Now, they’re playing a different game: mitigation. They need to make this virus as inoffensive as possible.

If we reduce the infections as much as possible, our healthcare system will be able to handle cases much better, driving the fatality rate down. And, if we spread this over time, we will reach a point where the rest of society can be vaccinated, eliminating the risk altogether. So our goal is not to eliminate coronavirus contagions. It’s to postpone them.

The more we postpone cases, the better the healthcare system can function, the lower the mortality rate, and the higher the share of the population that will be vaccinated before it gets infected.

我已经赞扬了台湾的做法。而中国做得也很好。他们抑制病毒的时间令人难以置信。例如，他们有多达1,800个5人小组，每个小组追踪一个感染者，与他们每个人进行互动，并隔离一群人。这样，他们就能在十亿人口的国家中遏制该病毒。

西方国家没有这样做，现在为时已晚。美国最近宣布禁止大部分欧洲人出行是对一种遏制措施。。。。


I’ve already touted Taiwan’s approach. But China’s is good too. The lengths at which it went to contain the virus are mind-boggling. For example, they had up to 1,800 teams of 5 people each tracking every infected person, everybody they got interacted with, then everybody those people interacted with, and isolating the bunch. That’s how they were able to contain the virus across a billion-people country.

This is not what Western countries have done. And now it’s too late. The recent US announcement that most travel from Europe was banned is a containment measure for a country that has, as of today, 3 times the cases that Hubei had when it shut down, growing exponentially. How can we know if it’s enough? It turns out, we can know by looking at the Wuhan travel ban.

如果湖北当局宣布将封城日期提前一天，在1/22而不是1/23，那么中国的案件数量可能会减少2万。

请记住，这些只是案例。死亡率会更高，因为不仅死亡人数将直接增加40％。医疗保健系统的崩溃也将大大增加，导致死亡率比我们以前看到的高10倍。因此，封城的日期，一日的差异，可以通过增加更多的病例和更高的病死率来增加死亡人数。

新增病例将成指数增长，每一天都很重要，如果决定推迟一天时，你会看到不止是增加几个病例，很可能有成千上万病例的增加。如果没有采取隔离，封锁等措施，新增病例必将呈指数增长。

In this theoretical model that resembles loosely Hubei, waiting one more day creates 40% more cases! So, maybe, if the Hubei authorities had declared the lockdown on 1/22 instead of 1/23, they might have reduced the number of cases by a staggering 20k.

And remember, these are just cases. Mortality would be much higher, because not only would there be directly 40% more deaths. There would also be a much higher collapse of the healthcare system, leading to a mortality rate up to 10x higher as we saw before. So a one-day difference in social distancing measures can end exploding the number of deaths in your community by multiplying more cases and higher fatality rate.

This is an exponential threat. Every day counts. When you’re delaying by a single day a decision, you’re not contributing to a few cases maybe. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases in your community already. Every day that there isn’t social distancing, these cases grow exponentially.

台巴子是捂得好，疫情都到军队了，还在自吹自擂

 

[阿土仔]

看看，你又教条了吧

公卫砖家从来没有建议医护人员不需要戴口罩

擦！让他们多洗几遍手就行了，戴什么口罩？！

 

[耶书仑]

选另一个傻X？死的更快！

领袖都是SB，你得移民它国了，或者这样的国家不存在，你就将就吧。

 

[茶马盐铁]

我是昨天下午去的医院，从登记到等待室就我一个戴口罩的，加拿大的人心多大呀，真是无知者无畏！

我上礼拜送一个亲戚去的Queensway医院， 我俩从停车场开始，全程戴口罩。
但是没有人上来指责， 也没人上来试图把我们的口罩拉掉。 大家对口罩的反映挺平常。