Silvaire wrote:
The foreign workers at German businesses with which I personally have a connection were laid off a few weeks ago and went home to their families in different countries immediately, some Schengen, some not. If they can’t return those businesses are in trouble.
If the workers are so essential, perhaps they shouldn’t have been laid off. But this is more for the Political thread I avoid, so consider this a non-post.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Can you point to some studies about this?
I just did. And there is another one from Korea a day or so ago (in this thread).
Airborne_Again wrote:
At this point it seems that the one thing Sweden could have done better was to prevent the spread of the virus specifically into institutions for the elderly. Virus spread in those places appear to have been driven not by visitors but by staff not applying sufficient safety measures.
That’s a good one. Sure, blame the overworked staff with little or no appropriate equipment and no instructions for how to deal with this disease.
esteban wrote:
Have it crossed your mind that the tests are not random
Yes (as you can read above), and I have no interest in bickering with Internet strangers.
LeSving wrote:
That’s a good one. Sure, blame the overworked staff with little or no appropriate equipment and no instructions for how to deal with this disease.
I stated a fact. I didn’t write anything about who was to blame. (Well, I did write “Sweden”.) If anything I would guess that — as you say — instructions and equipment were lacking.
Seriously, please don’t claim that I wrote things that I didn’t.
LeSving wrote:
I just did.
Are you referring to post #318?
And there is another one from Korea a day or so ago (in this thread).
Are you referring to post #295? In that case it is not another one but the same web page, even.
It is a single preliminary study, which the article itself points out several times.
“Whether these patients were at high risk of rebound or reinfection should be explored in further studies,”
I would be quite wary about single preliminary studies. Remember the German study that showed that an asymptomatic person had infected half a dozen or so others with the virus, while in the end it turned out that she was not asymptomatic at all.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I would be quite wary about single preliminary studies
Yes, well that’s corona in a nutshell. The current “expertise” and “experts” have zero value. It’s all new. Nothing like this has happened before, we have never encountered anything like this virus and the disease it causes. The path to fight this is made while we walk. Here is another one, straight from the Korean health authorities today (not sure if you can open the page?). google translated PDF
What it say is that 74 persons in Korea got infected again, a second time. From the Korean health authorities.
A_A, I’m sure you can find the previous links. One from Korea, one from China. (I didn’t post the Korean one, only the China one)
If there is little or no immunity, that is yet another reason why this virus needs to be suppressed (in terms of the density in the population) until it dies out.
Just out, and in all German media (e.g. https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article207155699/Coronavirus-Studie-Heinsberg-15-Prozent-immun-erste-Lockerungen-moeglich.html) – a study of the earliest and most affected communality of Heinsberg.
Edit: https://www.n-tv.de/wissen/Heinsberg-Studie-entraetselt-Coronavirus-article21704605.html
This is stating the obvious but did they test randomly selected people? Since everybody with any education will immediately ask this Q, why didn’t they give details? Maybe it is in the video but that doesn’t google translate 
Regardless of the answer, these studies need to be done in different places, because it is totally obvious that the density of the virus varies around the place. For example in the UK, London has by far the highest density (unsurprisingly, looking at the sardine-class public transport there, and other factors) and I am sure this will be similar in every other country. Elsewhere it is much less e.g. in provincial cities, and then much less again in villages in the countryside.
If one is going to relax the clampdown according to the virus density (which I think is the only way forward, given the uncertain data on long term immunity etc) then it will have to be done differently in different areas.
Then, anybody who can get out of their city will do so, to live in a more free environment. I don’t know how many actually would. Probably not many.
Interesting result, anyway.
The viral load also appears to affect the incubation time: 2 days for a big dose, 14 days for a small dose. Average has been reported as 5 days which suggests most people who pop up on the radar (=get to a hospital) had a fairly big dose. Also consistent with reports that some 90-95% (depending on where you read it) don’t need any treatment.
The 2nd article is very good also. However, “However, Hartmann emphasizes, immunity to Sars-CoV-2 only lasts for six to 18 months.” – I wonder where this could possibly come from. This thing has been around for barely a few months.
Peter wrote:
This is stating the obvious but did they test randomly selected people?
There are 12,446 inhabitants in Gangelt according to Wikipedia, and 1,000 have been screened. This has been a representative sample selected according to age, sex, occupation and citizenship, according to this article from March 27 about the start of the “COVID-19 Case-Cluster-Study”:
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111548/Heinsberg-Studie-zur-Klaerung-von-Ansteckungswegen-beginnt
