Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

probability estimates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • probability estimates

    how it started ...




    February 27th, 2006, 05:26 PM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    probability estimates



    OK, here is my probability-estimates thread at flutrackers !


    I always considered and still do consider this the main question
    in the whole context, yet never saw this asked by others :
    (strange !)

    =================================================
    what's the expert's estimates on the probability of a severe
    pandemic with >100million H5N1-deaths in the next (-say-) 5 years
    =================================================

    are there experts out there, who would answer this question ??
    I was not very successful to find some in the past.
    See my threads "probability estimate"
    at fluwiki http://www.fluwikie.com/index.php?n=...bilityEstimate
    and this webpage: http://www.psandman.com/gst2005.htm#guenter

    what do you think, will be the average answer experts will give to
    the above question ? (_if_ they answer)

    why do experts usually refuse to answer this ?
    do you think they would answer, if they could stay anonymous ?

    another question which I'm even more interested in:

    =================================================
    what's your expectation value of the number of H5N1-deaths
    in the next 5 years ?
    =================================================


    I'm looking for a list of the most qualified experts who are also
    likely to answer one of these questions.
    And a referrence, if someone ever has seen an expert
    answering this or a similar question.


    Last edited by sharon sanders; July 10th, 2006 at 03:52 PM.


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #2 February 27th, 2006, 08:26 PM
    Toaster2
    Resident Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 196

    Re: probability estimates



    Gsgs I am afraid that by definition, none of the experts will give you a (gu)es(s)timate.


    Toaster2
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Toaster2
    Find all posts by Toaster2
    Add Toaster2 to Your Contacts

    #3 February 28th, 2006, 07:35 AM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    Re: probability estimates



    > Gsgs I am afraid that by definition, none of the experts will not
    >give you (gu)es(s)timate.

    what do you mean with "by definition" ?

    Yes, replace "estimate" with "guesstimate" it you prefer.
    Do you think, I should use "guesstimate" instead ? It's not
    in my dictionary.

    And why won't they answer "to me" ? Would they more likely answer to
    someone else ? Someone whom I can hire for that task ?

    The double negation, I assume it is a mistake and not a
    positive statement.


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #4 February 28th, 2006, 09:41 AM
    Toaster2
    Resident Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 196

    Re: probability estimates



    gsgs, the not was indeed a typo, I corrected that. What I meant is that the experts will not make guesses as to how many people will die on an internet forum (regardless of who is asking). That is because in order for them to be taken seriously by their community, they should stick to the facts. And the fact is that no-one really knows - it all depends on many factors as you know.

    Any expert that will come out and say: I guess there will be 1 billion dead will be ridiculed. Any expert who says, only 3 million will also be ridiculed. So basically it is smarter not to give a quote, as it most likely is a lose-lose situation for a scientist to make a (gu)es(s)timate on a sensitive issue like this.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gsgs
    > Gsgs I am afraid that by definition, none of the experts will not
    >give you (gu)es(s)timate.

    what do you mean with "by definition" ?

    Yes, replace "estimate" with "guesstimate" it you prefer.
    Do you think, I should use "guesstimate" instead ? It's not
    in my dictionary.

    And why won't they answer "to me" ? Would they more likely answer to
    someone else ? Someone whom I can hire for that task ?

    The double negation, I assume it is a mistake and not a
    positive statement.



    Toaster2
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Toaster2
    Find all posts by Toaster2
    Add Toaster2 to Your Contacts

    #5 February 28th, 2006, 12:41 PM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    Re: probability estimates



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Toaster2
    I meant is that the experts will not make guesses as to how many people will die on an internet forum (regardless of who is asking). That is because in order for them to be taken seriously by their community, they should stick to the facts. And the fact is that no-one really knows - it all depends on many factors as you know.

    Any expert that will come out and say: I guess there will be 1 billion dead will be ridiculed. Any expert who says, only 3 million will also be ridiculed. So basically it is smarter not to give a quote, as it most likely is a lose-lose situation for a scientist to make a (gu)es(s)timate on a sensitive issue like this.

    that doesn't make sense. Imagine a superexpert who has all available
    data and very intensive studies and his guesstimate is SE.
    Other experts who ridicule about SE were clearly wrong.

    So, ridiculing others' estimates is as "dangerous" as giving an own
    guesstimate when you don't know what SE really is.

    And also, this could be prevented by allowing the experts to stay
    anonymous.

    Not giving probability estimates is just being
    unprecise/noninformative/ambiguous deliberately.

    We should insist on these estimates. That's what we pay the experts for.
    You won't accept them withholding all information about their
    research but you do accept them hiding their conclusions
    in ambiguous statements instead of giving guesstimates ?


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #6 February 28th, 2006, 12:58 PM
    Toaster2
    Resident Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 196

    Re: probability estimates



    gsgs, please note, I am not trying to discourage you. But we all know the possible scenarios - these numbers have been going around for quite awhile.

    The options are:

    1) no pandemic will occur
    2) only a very mild version will achieve efficient H2H (result +/- 3 million deaths)
    3) an intermediate version will go H2H (result 3-30 million)
    4) a severe as in 1918 will do it (30-180 million)
    5) the indonesion goes H2H witouht losing its death rate (180 million-1 billion or more)

    Everyone knows these options, and as soon as a pandemic H5N1 arises one can start making predictions because by then the most likely scenario is known. Until then it is just a person's gut feeling that determines what he thinks is likely or not.

    Although it would be interesting to know what people's gut feelings are I just do not think that people working in the field of influenza will step forward and present us with their personal opinion - which as they are experts may cause panic and may have an adverse effect on their credibility if their guess is way off.

    You are right to say ridiculing such estimates would be wrong - I should have written that these people would lose their credibility rather than be ridiculed.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gsgs
    that doesn't make sense. Imagine a superexpert who has all available
    data and very intensive studies and his guesstimate is SE.
    Other experts who ridicule about SE were clearly wrong.

    So, ridiculing others' estimates is as "dangerous" as giving an own
    guesstimate when you don't know what SE really is.

    And also, this could be prevented by allowing the experts to stay
    anonymous.

    Not giving probability estimates is just being
    unprecise/noninformative/ambiguous deliberately.

    We should insist on these estimates. That's what we pay the experts for.
    You won't accept them withholding all information about their
    research but you do accept them hiding their conclusions
    in ambiguous statements instead of giving guesstimates ?



    Toaster2
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Toaster2
    Find all posts by Toaster2
    Add Toaster2 to Your Contacts

    #7 February 28th, 2006, 02:23 PM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    Re: probability estimates



    >gsgs, please note, I am not trying to discourage you.

    thanks for your feedback.

    >But we all know the possible scenarios - these numbers
    >have been going around for quite awhile.
    >
    >The options are:
    >
    >1) no pandemic will occur
    >2) only a very mild version will achieve efficient
    > H2H (result +/- 3 million deaths)
    >3) an intermediate version will go H2H (result 3-30 million)
    >4) a severe as in 1918 will do it (30-180 million)
    >5) the indonesion goes H2H witouht losing its death rate
    > (180 million-1 billion or more)

    splitting it into 5 or more or less scenarios doesn't change anything.

    >Everyone knows these options, and as soon as a pandemic H5N1 arises
    >one can start making predictions because by then the most likely
    >scenario is known. Until then it is just a person's gut feeling
    >that determines what he thinks is likely or not.

    ...but using the data in the available papers and own analysis on
    the likelyhood of virus-mutations etc.
    Clearly the experts should have a better "gut feeling" here
    than the other people.

    >Although it would be interesting to know what people's
    >gut feelings are I just do not think that people working
    >in the field of influenza will step forward and present
    >us with their personal opinion - which as they are experts
    >may cause panic and may have an adverse effect on their
    >credibility if their guess is way off.

    or may have a positive effect on their credibility if it isn't.
    Note, that such estimates are already being done, just that
    they are more or less inexact, are obfuscated or kept ambiguous.
    No numbers are given to make it precise, but the experts do
    give interviews - and are frequently misunderstood.

    >You are right to say ridiculing such estimates would be wrong
    > - I should have written that these people would lose their
    >credibility rather than be ridiculed.


    would you recomment to replace "guesstimate" by "gut feeling"
    in the question now ?


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #8 February 28th, 2006, 04:57 PM
    Toaster2
    Resident Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 196

    Re: probability estimates



    I hpe there will be reactions - the info would be nice - but still I think the experts won't react.


    Toaster2
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Toaster2
    Find all posts by Toaster2
    Add Toaster2 to Your Contacts

    #9 March 2nd, 2006, 04:37 PM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    Re: probability estimates



    see here, how easy it is to get estimates :-)


    I must have been doing something wrong all the years.


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #10 May 1st, 2007, 06:04 AM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    Re: probability estimates



    time to bump this.
    time to ask experts for probability estimates when there
    are not so much news to talk about.






    "numbers,statistics,probabilities" is not just a passion or kink of me,
    in fact it's exact science, generally accepted and supported by experts who
    wrote book s about it also a blog entry by Michael Steele

    Don't get distracted by the fact that you meet other gsgs's here rarely.

    Neustadt,May identified the lack of probability-estimates discussion
    as the major mistake in the swine flu-non-pandemic aftermath.
    The same could happen in the H5N1-panflu aftermath.

    The problem is just that medical people don't want to realize it.
    I guess, those Osterholms,Websters,Gregers have no education in
    statistics,probability theory.(the reveres have, but still won't give numbers !)
    They can't so well give numbers so they claim
    it's impossible. But those actuaries _can_ assign numbers to the panflu-threat
    and they do it and this is all what we and the politicians and economists have,
    since these are not being challenged by medical experts, who retract from
    interdisciplinary discussion about numbers.
    They have their own agenda for getting funding and politicians might reduce it to that,
    while not taking the claims very serious.

    The whole organisation of medical scientice is not so supportative
    for interdisciplinary truth. Influenced by big pharma,economics,University-rivalry
    resulting in secret databases, programs without code, papers being published
    only years after the outbreaks, contradicting researchers, no public expert forums or mailing lists.
    Not what I'm used to see within mathematics.


    See here for a collection of statements and polls about estimating the panflu-thread:

    __________________
    I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
    my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT


    Last edited by gsgs; May 1st, 2007 at 09:17 AM.


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #11 May 1st, 2007, 01:47 PM
    Jonesie
    Senior User Join Date: Oct 2006
    Posts: 490

    Re: probability estimates



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gsgs


    would you recomment to replace "guesstimate" by "gut feeling"
    in the question now ?

    gsgs ... Since you are having so much difficulty with unclear words and phrases, why don't you take your questions to the WordReference Forums, where they just might have the patience and expertise to help you out:



    They do have a sub-forum: German For questions about German, or translations between German and any other language:

    Questions about German, or translations between German and any other language.



    And they do discuss pandemics:






    Jonesie
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Jonesie
    Find all posts by Jonesie
    Add Jonesie to Your Contacts

    #12 May 1st, 2007, 03:47 PM
    gsgs
    Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: germany
    Posts: 10,302

    Re: probability estimates



    OK, it's here:

    let's see whether there will be some feedback
    __________________
    I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
    my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT


    gsgs
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to gsgs
    Visit gsgs's homepage!
    Find all posts by gsgs
    Add gsgs to Your Contacts

    #13 May 1st, 2007, 04:31 PM
    Treyfish
    Moderator Join Date: Feb 2006
    Posts: 9,767

    Re: probability estimates



    I have a gut feeling,that a pandemic is extremely likely.Most scientist estimate it is certainly probable.It is impossible to accuratly predict the start of a pandemic.The worst guessimate anyone can make, would be to assume it was unlikely.Maybe i'm wrong ,but from news i read,that is my guess!


    Treyfish
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Treyfish
    Find all posts by Treyfish
    Add Treyfish to Your Contacts
    I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
    my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

  • #2
    Re: probability estimates


    2007-poll : http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26844
    5-year poll : http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10507

    ================================================== ===========

    list of other polls:

    Posted: 18 May 2007 10:22 am Post subject: panflu-polls, summary




    what is the probability that H5N1 will become an efficient human-to-human transmitter
    (capable of being propagated through at least two epidemiological generations of affected humans)
    sometime during the next 3 years ? (Nov.2005)
    Experts:1%(4),10%(5),20%(2),30%(1),50%(1),60%(2),7 0%(2),80%(1)
    ----18 votes, median=15%, mean=29%
    "Experts":30%(2),40%(2),50%(1),60%(3),70%(4)
    ----12 votes, median=60% ,mean=38%

    If there is an outbreak of H5N1 or a similar virus among humans in the next 3 years,(...),
    how many people in the world will die of H5N1 over the next 3 years ? (Nov.2005)
    Experts:25-165 million , "Experts":6.25-200 million


    poll at flu_pandemics on Dec. 1, 2005
    What, do you estimate is the probability of an avian flu pandemic this season
    (until 21 June 2006)? Pandemic = 1000 deaths in each of 3 different continents.
    <1%:12 , 1-3%:3 , 3-10%:8 , 10-20%:1 , 20-40%:3 , >40%:3
    30 votes, mean:12.6% , median:4%


    will there be a pandemic in 2006 ? (11.Jan.2006)
    yes:41,no:10


    how many deaths in the next pandemic ? (12.Jan.2006)
    1-5million:1,5-20 million:3,20-100million:6,100-500million:6,>500million:1


    likelyhood that there will be more than a million birdflu-cases in USA in the next 3 years: (4.Apr.2006)
    <1%:4,1-2%:2,2-4%:0,4-8%:2,8-16%:2,16-32%:3,32-64%:4,more than 64%:4


    probability of a pandemic starting in 2006: (4.Jan.2006)
    <10%:12,10-20%:7,20-30%:23,30-40%:13,40-50%:17,50-60%:25,60-70%:10,70-80%:8,80-90%:9,>90%:10
    134 votes , mean : 47%, median:48%


    fluwiki survey, June 2006
    1) your estimate of a pandemic in the next 6 months
    0%:6,5%:3,6%:1,10%:10,15%:3,17%:1,20%:6,25%:14,30% :2,33%:2,40%:4,
    50%:44,55%:1,70%:1,75%:14,80%:1,90%:1,100%:2
    116 votes , median=45%, mean=40%
    2) your estimate of a pandemic in the next year
    10%:3,14%:1,15%:2,20%:2,25%:7,30%:4,40%:4,
    50%:50,60%:2,67%:1,70%:1,75%:36,80%:7,90%:5,100%:1 3
    138 votes , median=72% , mean=62%


    pandemic in 2006 (2.July 2006)
    <10%:18,10-20%:23,20-30%:27,30-40%:16,40-50%:16,50-60%:24,60-70%:10,70-80%:8,80-90%:3,>90%:5
    150 votes, average : 38%


    pandemic in 2007 (31.Dec.2006)
    <10%:7,10-20%:12,20-30%:7,30-40%:10,40-50%:10,50-60%:15,60-70%:6,70-80%:4,80-90%:1,>90%:1
    73 votes , mean: 40%, median:40%


    at least one pandemic in the next 5 years: (17.Sept.2006)
    0,0,1,0,2,5,3,6,4,23
    47 votes, average : 80%


    poll among 656 US-physicians, efficient H2H within 12 months: (1.May 2006)
    very likely(#1):1%,somewhat likely(#2):13%,neutral(#3):14%,somewhat unlikely(#4):30%, very unlikely(#5):42%
    12 months:1,13,14,30,42 median#=4.5
    24 months:7,22,21,32,18 median#=3.5
    36 months:16,28,24,23,10 median#=2.7
    48 months:26,30,19,17,9 median#=2.4


    June 2006 poll in Canada
    HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU ABOUT A POTENTIAL PANDEMIC?
    very concerned:11% , somewhat concerned:43% , not concerned:46%


    anonymous poll with 161 physicians, predominantly from Europe,50% from UK
    with an interest in pediatric infectious diseases. April(?) 2007
    [What is the probability of an influenza pandemic in the next few years?]
    Almost inevitable:15 , Very likely:57 , Possible:73 , Unlikely:12 , Very unlikely:4

    poll at several bird flu forums 15.June 2007 - 1.July 2007:
    flu-pandemic starts in 2007 ?
    16,12,13,8,13,7,11,5,4,0 for the 10% intervals.
    89 votes, mean: 36% (+-24) median:44%

    poll at several bird flu forums 23.Dec. 2007 - 13.Jan.2008:
    flu-pandemic starts in 2008 ?
    22,10,6,11,8,15,13,9,4,7 for the 10% intervals.
    105 votes, mean: 43% (+-29) median:45%

    timebomb2000, Jan.2009

    perceived pandemic probability within the next 5 years, now and maximum of the last 5 years
    7*2 votes, median for (now) : ~30% median for (max):~55%

    FT,FW,TBM , Jan.2010
    perceived non-H1-pandemic probability for 2010
    FW :7,2,2,1,3,3,0,0,0,0
    TBM:1,1,0,3,1,0,0,0,0,1
    FT :4,1,0,0,0,0,1,3,1,0
    for the 10% intervals
    (members of PFI were asked to vote at one of these 3 instead)
    35 votes, mean=35% , median=27%

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    forum polls, pandemic starts in the next xx months (votes):
    Dec.2005 , 6M : [13%](30),FP
    Jan.2006 , 12M : 47%(134),CE
    Jun.2006 , 6M : 40%(116),FW
    Jun.2006 , 6M : 38%(150),CE
    Jun.2006 , 12M : 62%(138),FW
    Sep.2006 , 60M : 79%(50),FT
    Jan.2007 , 12M : 40%(73),CE
    Jun.2007 , 6M : 36%(89),several
    Sep.2007, 60M : 12%(47),German chicken-owner forum
    Dec.2007,12M : 43%(105),birdflu forums
    Dec.2007,12M : 28%(34),CE
    Jan.2009,60M : 30%(7),TB2K
    Jan.2010,12M : 35%(35),flu-forums
    _________________

    ================================================== ===================

    what else I collected on my forum about pandemic probability estimates :


    ================================================== ==================
    I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
    my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: probability estimates

      Baruch Fischhoff , 2012
      Communicating Uncertainty Fulfilling the Duty to Inform


      comment by Peter Sandman:
      I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
      my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: probability estimates



        The Influenza Risk Assessment Tool (IRAT) is an evaluation tool being developed by CDC
        and external influenza experts that measures the potential pandemic risk posed by
        influenza A viruses that currently circulate in animals but not in humans.

        Can the IRAT predict a future pandemic?
        No. The IRAT is an evaluative tool, not a predictive tool. Flu is unpredictable, as are future pandemics.

        What is the purpose of the IRAT?
        ... 5.) Be an effective communications tool for policy makers and the influenza community;


        (pdf,5 pages, 2012)

        video: http://ncwebcasting.mediasite.com/me...39a1117179541d
        presentation about IRAT by Nancy Cox at 48:30-1:13:40 in that video

        they call it influenza risk assessment tool, I'd rather call it
        expert dymamic anonymization,motivation,and aidance tool for giving quantitative pandemic
        probability weightings to influenza strains
        Well, that's part of the risk assessment, though.



        WHO and ECDC are publishing risk assessments now. I assume IRAT shall also
        be used for risk communication later, to improve the risk assessments, which basically
        are summaries of events so far.


        10 risk elements

        a1) genomic variation,
        a2) receptor binding,
        a3) transmissibility in laboratory animals
        a4) antiviral treatment susceptibility/resistance
        b1) the existing immunity levels in the human population
        b2) the disease severity and pathogenesis
        b3) the antigenic relationship of the virus to existing vaccine candidates.
        c1) the global distribution among animal species,
        c2) the animal species infected,
        c3) human infections with the virus.


        CIDRAP in 2012: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-persp...aredness-tools
        Attached Files
        I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
        my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: probability estimates

          Prioritizing Emerging Zoonoses in The Netherlands

          Havelaar AH, van Rosse F, Bucura C, Toetenel MA, Haagsma JA, et al. (2010)
          PLoS ONE 5(11): e13965. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013965

          Background To support the development of early warning and surveillance systems of emerging zoonoses, we present a general method to prioritize pathogens using a quantitative, stochastic multi-criteria model, parameterized for the Netherlands. Methodology/Principal Findings A risk score was based on seven criteria, reflecting assessments of the epidemiology and impact of these pathogens on society. Criteria were weighed, based on the preferences of a panel of judges with a background in infectious disease control. Conclusions/Significance Pathogens with the highest risk for the Netherlands included pathogens in the livestock reservoir with a high actual human disease burden (e.g. Campylobacter spp., Toxoplasma gondii, Coxiella burnetii) or a low current but higher historic burden (e.g. Mycobacterium bovis), rare zoonotic pathogens in domestic animals with severe disease manifestations in humans (e.g. BSE prion, Capnocytophaga canimorsus) as well as arthropod-borne and wildlife associated pathogens which may pose a severe risk in future (e.g. Japanese encephalitis virus and West-Nile virus). These agents are key targets for development of early warning and surveillance.

          risk score for NL based on 7 weighted criteria C1,..,C7

          Campylobacter spp., Toxoplasma gondii, Coxiella burnetii
          Mycobacterium bovis, BSE prion, Capnocytophaga canimorsus
          Japanese encephalitis virus, West-Nile virus

          C1 Probability of introduction into the Netherlands % / year
          C2 Transmission in animal reservoirs Prevalence per 100,000 animals
          C3 Economic damage in animal reservoirs Million euro per year
          C4 Animal-human transmission Prevalence per 100,000 humans
          C5 Transmission between humans Prevalence per 100,000 humans
          C6 Morbidity (disability weight)
          C7 Mortality (case-fatality ratio) %

          normalized scores from 0.68 for the
          pathogen with the highest risk (Influenza A virus (avian) H5N1) to
          0.15 for the pathogens with the lowest risk (Dhori virus).
          Attached Files
          I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
          my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

          Comment


          • #6







            There is a 47% to 57% chance the world will experience another pandemic or epidemic that kills at least as many
            people as COVID-19 in the next 25 years, according to estimates from Metabiota, a San Francisco-based company
            that tracks infectious disease risks and outbreaks.

            Metabiota applies catastrophe risk modeling — which allows financial institutions, insurers, and public
            agencies to understand the likelihood of extreme events and crises, such as wildfires, floods, and
            earthquakes — to pandemics and epidemics ...

            [seems that they only consider historical data and e.g. do not consider the
            new risk from manmade pandemics].
            I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
            my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

            Comment


            • #7
              https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/...uture-in-which

              paper by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy :


              Executive summary
              The world is demonstrably vulnerable to the introduction of a single pandemic virus
              with a comparatively low case fatality rate. The deliberate and simultaneous release
              of many pandemic viruses across travel hubs could threaten the stability of civilisation.
              Current trends suggest that within a decade, tens of thousands of skilled individuals
              will be able to access the information required for them to single-handedly cause new
              pandemics. Safeguarding civilisation from the catastrophic misuse of biotechnology
              requires delaying the development and misuse of pandemic-class agents while building
              systems capable of reliably detecting threats and preventing nearly all infections.
              Report Post Edit/Delete Message
              I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
              my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

              Comment

              Working...
              X