This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Basic reproduction number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
@ Ftrebien: The Omicron variant needs to be in that table. If you don't like the references, please provide better ones. Without that entry, it's harder to find the Wikipedia article on " Omicron variant" and makes this article look dramatically deficient, especially since "Omicron is now the dominant COVID strain in the U.S., making up 73% of new infections", according to NPR. Mediocre references are universally better than nothing, unless they are likely blatantly dishonest, I think.
I don't have time now to research this further, but I'm reverting your deletion. This will make it easier for someone else to find the information needed to improve it. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Namely, the transmission advantage of Omicron over Delta is likely gained by the mechanism of Omicron to escape from existing immunity in the population... Of course, our exercise does not refute the actual elevation of the transmissibility of Omicron compared with the Delta variant. However, at least the order elevation of four times entirely due to increased transmissibility is unlikely.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)We have a minimally reliable source for Omicron now, but by no means definitive. I think it makes sense to leave it there and update it when better sources become available. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 13:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
For this page - the general page on Basic reproduction number - we need to start thinking about what this page looks like years and decades from now. We have perhaps, justified or not, been overly focused on SARS-CoV-2 edits over the past three years. In the long run, it does not make sense to have multiple rows for the same pathogen, even if there are multiple strains of that pathogen (Flu, SARS-CoV-2, etc.). As discussed above, it is incredibly hard to know what the R0 is for any given strain (even to the point of there being many different R0s – each population and circumstance dependent). Even if there were not a problem with uncertainties in both the definition and the measurements of R0s, the table will end up being cluttered. It will also be biased towards certain pathogens that have more strains documented by editors. And it becomes a venue for endless debate among us editors over which strains should be included (and what the values to enter in the table should be). Of course, there can be lots of information on the differences in reproduction numbers between strains and circumstances for each pathogen. These discussions, perhaps with mini-tables, should go on each pathogen-specific page, not on this main page. We can still put ranges on reproduction numbers for each pathogen. We can link these ranges to pathogen-specific pages. I'll try to work on these simplifications as I get an opportunity in the coming months, but feel free to jump the gun. Discussion/comments welcome. Jaredroach ( talk) 20:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the description of the SEIR model is flawed. It is apparently based on reference 21, but the content of this reference does not correspond to the content of the relevant section. The whole thing should be completely rewritten; maybe I'll do it when I have more time. Jt omega ( talk) 09:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Is the effective reproduction number often referred to by the term "Reff" (Reff)? If so, why not add this information to the article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Basic reproduction number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
@ Ftrebien: The Omicron variant needs to be in that table. If you don't like the references, please provide better ones. Without that entry, it's harder to find the Wikipedia article on " Omicron variant" and makes this article look dramatically deficient, especially since "Omicron is now the dominant COVID strain in the U.S., making up 73% of new infections", according to NPR. Mediocre references are universally better than nothing, unless they are likely blatantly dishonest, I think.
I don't have time now to research this further, but I'm reverting your deletion. This will make it easier for someone else to find the information needed to improve it. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Namely, the transmission advantage of Omicron over Delta is likely gained by the mechanism of Omicron to escape from existing immunity in the population... Of course, our exercise does not refute the actual elevation of the transmissibility of Omicron compared with the Delta variant. However, at least the order elevation of four times entirely due to increased transmissibility is unlikely.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)We have a minimally reliable source for Omicron now, but by no means definitive. I think it makes sense to leave it there and update it when better sources become available. -- Fernando Trebien ( talk) 13:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
For this page - the general page on Basic reproduction number - we need to start thinking about what this page looks like years and decades from now. We have perhaps, justified or not, been overly focused on SARS-CoV-2 edits over the past three years. In the long run, it does not make sense to have multiple rows for the same pathogen, even if there are multiple strains of that pathogen (Flu, SARS-CoV-2, etc.). As discussed above, it is incredibly hard to know what the R0 is for any given strain (even to the point of there being many different R0s – each population and circumstance dependent). Even if there were not a problem with uncertainties in both the definition and the measurements of R0s, the table will end up being cluttered. It will also be biased towards certain pathogens that have more strains documented by editors. And it becomes a venue for endless debate among us editors over which strains should be included (and what the values to enter in the table should be). Of course, there can be lots of information on the differences in reproduction numbers between strains and circumstances for each pathogen. These discussions, perhaps with mini-tables, should go on each pathogen-specific page, not on this main page. We can still put ranges on reproduction numbers for each pathogen. We can link these ranges to pathogen-specific pages. I'll try to work on these simplifications as I get an opportunity in the coming months, but feel free to jump the gun. Discussion/comments welcome. Jaredroach ( talk) 20:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the description of the SEIR model is flawed. It is apparently based on reference 21, but the content of this reference does not correspond to the content of the relevant section. The whole thing should be completely rewritten; maybe I'll do it when I have more time. Jt omega ( talk) 09:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Is the effective reproduction number often referred to by the term "Reff" (Reff)? If so, why not add this information to the article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)