Re: [113attendees] IETF 113 Update: 2022-02-10

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the note about the R script.

I would like to say a few things about it, if permitted on this list.

I think you mean the R mathematics package, and not the R like in R_0 of 
epidemics.  I think I saw R on my windows.

For the R mathematics package, I wonder whether they have a freely 
available function to interpolate very simply, maybe too naïvely, but 
still a valuable try when nothing else might be available.

This could be used to predict the next peak of a wave.

For example, given the sequence of distances between Austrian peaks 8, 
4, 8, 3 (from outbreak.info), what is the next distance until the next peak?

That potential R interpolation function, applied to that Austrian data, 
could be valuable help in predicting more precisely than the current 
predictions that can be visible at 
https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/COVID-Prognose-Konsortium-2022.html#februar-2022

The ICU Intensivpflege graph gives today a prognosis for March 2nd, as 
illustrated by the small gray areas at the right of the graph:
Kapazitätsvorschau Intensivpflege - 15.02.2022

But a prediction by applying an R interpolation function on the sequence 
8,4,8,3 would give a prediction of when the next peak would appear in 
the next several months.

Probably this would predict that the next peak would be in 7 months time 
(I dont know?), which means peak in August 2022.  August is much far 
away than March.

This kind of prognosis does not tell the details of the wave shape, but 
just its peak.  But it is known that these are waves, not arbitrary shapes.

Alex

Le 18/02/2022 à 07:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
> Jay,
>
> Your approach is the correct one from a medical perspective and the
> same I am taking.
>
> I took the additional step of separating my flight to Europe from the
> flight (ticket) to Vienna, the former with Ethiopian Airlines who are
> very experienced with Covid and have given us no trouble when we had to
> reschedule some visitors doe to Omicron.  The latter is with Austrian
> Airlines and so cheap that if the meeting was cancelled and the airline
> were to prove difficult (which I doubt) I could absorb the loss.
>
>
> That said, one must indeed differentiate between the pure transmission
> rate which in Austria is quite, and in Namibia and New Zealand for
> example is low (but rising in the latter), the hospital utilization rate,
> the ICU utilization rate and of course the death rate.
>
> The death rate in countries with developed health care systems is
> fortunately quite low due to a multitude of factors including the
> experience we have gained over the last two years, and easy accessibility
> to care.
>
> The rolling 7 day (new infection) incidence averaged per 100000 is the
> traditional way of looking at, and comparing it.  The Johns Hopkins
> University publishes a continuously updated data set which is widely used
> and I have a little R script which produces the enclosed images (for
> some countries I am interested in).
>
> For planning purposes the hospital utilization and ICU rates are better
> figures and this is what is now being used more commonly like in
> Austria.
>
> In addition there is indeed the pressure by the populace who are fed up
> with the intrusions into what they perceive as personal freedom and who
> believe their health care systems can take care of them if they get it,
> in particular vaccination breakthroughs which are perceived as usually
> being mild.
>
> I can understand to a (very) small extend the former, but most certainly
> do not agree with it, and leave aside whether the latter is true
> (probably) and at what cost.
>
>
> Now, what does that mean for travelers?
>
> There still is high transmission in Austria, so the risk of contracting
> Covid is a reality.
>
>
> That is what needs to be considered when traveling back to a country
> where health care is less developed/available.  Never mind that the
> airlines may deny boarding of infected passengers, so one should cater
> for that, as well.
>
>
> I, myself, will continue to abide strictly by masking, disinfection, and
> social distancing.  And I assume/propose that the ground rules of the
> meeting reflect that, such as checker board seating, temperature taking
> at the entrance and requiring the (correct) wearing of masks.
>
> I, myself, will not do daily testing, unless of course asked to do so by
> the organizers, but as I want to see how the Everybody Gargles process
> works (it is free, after all), I'll do it on the day of arrival and
> (perhaps) the morning of departure.
>
> greetings, el
>
> On 2022-02-17 23:53 , Jay Daley wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022, at 10:35 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 17.  Feb 2022, at 19:57, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The good news that may encourage people to book, as others have
>>>> already noted, is that the rules in Austria change from 5 March.
>>>
>>> Good news?  I’m not so sure.
>>>
>>> It seems the previous carefully designed science-based prevention
>>> regimes are being thrown to a populistic bonfire of “freedom day”
>>> paroles.
>>>
>>> This mass delusion may make traveling and meeting in person way too
>>> dangerous again.
>>>
>>> I’m registered for onsite, and I don’t have all the data yet, but at
>>> the moment everything looks like I’ll have to reconsider.
>>>
>>
>> While there is indeed considerable political pressure to open up, my
>> reading is that these decisions are still being made on a rational
>> basis.  It appears clear that omicron waves in a well vaccinated
>> society are relatively fast, burn themselves out and result in
>> relatively few deaths or serious injuries with the majority having
>> mild symptoms at the most.  Austria’s omicron wave started on
>> approximately 1 Jan and peaked on approximately 2 Feb.
>>
>> On the basis of that risk assessment and taking into account that I am
>> in a risk group because of my medical history, I am participating in
>> person .  (The meeting would function just as well without me). Of
>> course each of our circumstances and personal risk assessments are
>> different so we all make our own decisions here and I respect anyone
>> who chooses not to travel for theirs.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>
>