interview with the NRK 21. may say FHIs leader Camilla Stoltenberg, that the control on the COVID-19-the infection might have been achieved without the extensive measures because reproduksjonstallet (R) was already decreased to around 1.1 right before 12. march. She emphasizes that there is great uncertainty around the number. Despite the uncertainty she uses the figure of 1.1 as an important argument that the closure was not necessary, and that FHI had the right in their recommendations whether or not to shut down Norway.FHI-director Camilla Stoltenberg at the meeting with prime minister Erna Solberg and health and care services ms. Bent High 12. march. Photo: Heiko Junge / NTB Scanpix Show more
This stands in clear contrast to the assistant director, Espen Rostrup Nakstad in the ministry of Health, which in Dagbladet 11. may say that it is before the 12. march was a theoretical possibility that one could go from 500 infected to a half a million infected in just over a month. This would not have been possible if the R had been 1,1.
Why is it important to gain clarity in what reproduksjonstallet was right before 12. march? Smittebegrensende action is about to get R down. If R the 12. march was only 1,1 and not around 3,1 which FHI has previously reported, it would have been sufficient with simple steps to get the R further down to 0.7 and the closure of the Uk would have been unnecessary.Proving that the termination was necessary
We don't have the answer to what R was in the days just before 12. march. What we want is to get clarity in how FHI have come up to the number of 1.1 and about these calculations is to rely on.
the Number R indicates how many individuals one infected person on average infects further. If the number is above 1, the pandemic quickly get out of control. If R is 2, will a infected person infecting 2 others, which in turn infects 4 new, 8, 16, 32, 64 o.s.v. This is what we now all know as exponential growth, and that happened in Norway before the 12. march. If R is below 1, will the epidemic die out as it has done in Norway since 12. march.
Norway registered approx. 300 new infected per. the day when the pandemic was at its highest at the end of march. At the time we tested only a small fraction of those with symptoms, so the real figures could have been much higher. We are now down to approx. 15 registered new infected per. day, i.e. a reduction of the infection in more than 95 percent since the measures began to work.
Sweden, which followed similar advice from statsepidemiolog Tegnell that the FHI gave the Norwegian government, has still a smittenivå over Norway was on top, and have over 4000 dead compared with Norway's 235 dead.Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError CORONA: the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have shared this video. Reporter: Madeleine Liereng / Dagbladet TV Show more
FHI calculates R on two different ways: Via Metapopulasjonsmodellen and EpiEstim. Metapopulasjonsmodellen use nyinnlagte in the hospital with COVID-19-diagnosis, as the data. Based on these data and transaction data for Norway, they calculate what smitteutviklingen was two weeks before. This is the calculation FHI attributes the most weight. FHI has chosen to calculate R, for three intervals, R0 from pandemiens the beginning to the and with 14. march, R1 from 15. march 19. april, and R2 from the 20. april to now.
R0, which also covers 12. march, is of FHI intended for 3,06, with a 95 per cent confidence interval from 2,56 to 3,51. The last means that FHI count it as 5 per cent likely that R0 is below 2,56 or over 3,51.
the Value of 1.1 for R the 12. march can be impossible to get from the Metapopulasjonsmodellen. It then remains only EpiEstim calculation as a candidate for the number of 1.1. And quite correctly, when one reads of the basket from the EpiEstim for 11. march gets you an R of approx. 1,1. Can we trust this calculation?- Can burn out by itself,
EpiEstim using as data only the number of positive COVID-19-test results. R is calculated from the change of the number of positive tests over time. As EpiEstim did not differ between the infected in Norway and those who were infected outside Norway, is the calculation of R in pandemiens first days directly error.
When the number of new infected coming into the country, increases over time, this leads to an increasing R, which remains far above 1, even though it has not happened a single local infection in Norway. And vice versa; when the number of people with infection from outside are less than a few days before, the R out from this model remain below 1, still without that it has been going on for a local infection in Norway. However, R should measure the local infection in the Uk, not the pace of change in the imported infection.the City where "everyone" is infected
FHIs beregningsgruppe describes this clearly in his research report from 22. may: ” The analysis of laboratory-confirmed cases does not take into account the effect of imported cases during the early outbreak in Norway; the early results are less reliable than the pretend results when the impact of importactions is negligible ”.
When the share of imported infection is neglisjerbar, will EpiEstim be a good tool to calculate the R, but not before. For example, gave EpiEstim a value for R of 0.7 18. February, which is a meaningless result because no smittebegrensende measures were initiated then.We presented as smittebomber Debate
Number of 1.1 for R the 12. march from EpiEstim says so very little about the local infection in Norway at the time.
This must be well known for Camilla Stoltenberg. Nevertheless, she chooses to use this figure in his argument that the closure of the Uk was unnecessary. We look forward to a clearing where the figure of 1.1 comes from, and how it is possible on the basis of this calculation to conclude that the closure of Norway 12. march was not necessary.Beat the alarm: - all of The self
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!