Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding's twitter account seems to have been removed

I found some amazing tweets from a Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding. When I went looking for his twitter account I couldn't find anything

Gone!

A Harvard professor!

Coronavirus day 3: 56M 

people in quarantine, 

reproductive RO 

value"of 3.8 is 

unprecedentedly high"

Via Google Translate, from the Dutch

https://www.geenstijl.nl/5151624/begint-wel-spannend-te-worden/

Day 3, and it doesn't look good at all. Ominous videos here from day I and day II. The images below of a sister who does not like it anymore and the unverified voice message from the sister from paragraph 3.

poster

According to * official * figures in China, 41 deaths and 1354 patients worldwide, 237 of which are in critical condition. SkyNews reports that there are now 18 Chinese cities in lockdown, with which around 56 million people live in quarantine. Three cases have been confirmed in France, according to the hospital, the patient in Bordeaux "said to the doctors that he had traveled to France via the Netherlands, but RIVM states that he has not been to the Netherlands."

Meanwhile, these two threads of epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding (even has its own wiki) go hard. Purpose: 1) some virus carriers show no symptoms. "New research on the Wuhan corona virus has found the virus may be present in the lungs or individuals with no obvious symptoms (...)," which of course makes the curtailment rather difficult. 2) Dr. Ding cites a (non-peer reviewed) study that attributes Coronavirus a virality coefficient of 3.8. The study concludes that measures must prevent 72-75% of transmissions to stop the growth of the virus, but only 5.1% of cases are identified. Ding further states that even if 3.8 turns out to be a too high estimate (there is also an unpublished estimate of 2.5) this is still super high. Much higher than the 1.8 of the Spanish Flu that killed 50 to 100 million people in 1918 without modern transport infrastructure. This thread nuances Dr. Dings findings, and emphasizes that the researchers of the cited article have adjusted their virality coefficient to 2.5.

This completely unverified video of an alleged Chinese sister is circulating, the translation consensus of which seems to say that there are 90,000 (!) Infected in Wuhan. This unverified voice message from an alleged Chinese sister says something along the same line: "The infection is much more horrible than reported on TV. There are so many cases. Doctors have estimated about 100,000 infected. We have more than 10 doctors here, and each doctor has treated more than 100 infected people in 1 day. Many of them will not make it (...). We are on our own. "

 

From Hal Turner...

MEDICAL MARTIAL LAW

From Dr. Eric Ding, at Harvard University:

The new coronavirus Has an R0 value of 3.8!!! How bad is that reproductive R0value?

It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad - never seen an actual virality coefficient like this in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating...

“We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) to be 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing.

 We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8-5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, and by 21 January a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the start of the year.

We predict the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially larger by 4 February (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), infection will be established in other Chinese cities, and importations to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that.

Travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China; with a 99% effective reduction in travel, the size of the epidemic outside of Wuhan may only be reduced by 24.9% on 4 February. 

Our findings are critically dependent on the assumptions underpinning our model, and the timing and reporting of confirmed cases, and there is considerable uncertainty associated with the outbreak at this early stage. With these caveats in mind, our work suggests that...

A basic reproductive number for this 2019-nCoV outbreak is higher compared to other emergent coronaviruses, suggesting that containment or control of this pathogen may be substantially more difficult.

SUMMARY: so what does this mean for the world??? We are now faced with the most virulent virus 🦠 epidemic the world has ever seen. An R0=3.8 means that it exceeds SARS’s modest 0.49 viral attack rate by 7.75x — almost 8 fold! A virus that spreads 8 faster than SARS...

Cannot be stopped by containment alone. A 99% quarantine lockdown containment of Wuhan will not even reduce the epidemic’s spread by even 1/3rd in the next 2 weeks.

Thus, I really hate to be the epidemiologist who has to admit this, but we are potentially faced with an unchecked pandemic that the world has not seen since the 1918 Spanish Influenza.