bohreffect

> While I fully endorse allied health professionals, I would certainly advise anyone reading this to give birth in a medical facility under the supervision of an OB/GYN.

I'm really happy to see knowledgeable folks with a lot of pushback in this thread. Thanks for putting this out there; there are a lot of specious correlations being suggested here that will lead to worse outcomes, if only at least due to a lack of precision in language.

No wonder expecting mom's are completely overwhelmed with information collection and decision making fatigue.

The number of months falls into a computational epidemiologist's expertise; there aren't many of them. Imperial College, London has internationally recognized experts who are publishing models and forecasts at this moment---there are also a few at Johns Hopkins, Arizona State, and Harvard.

From my conversations with people in the field, they're betting 4-5 months for the US due to a couple factors: few very dense cities, and no animal reservoir in repeated close contact with humans for the virus to retreat to once targets of opportunity, so to speak, have been infected (the belief is that the virus originated in bats, or potentially camels where MERS-SARS originated). Additionally some epidemiologists have suggested that the virus won't follow a seasonal surging pattern like influenza.

That bet's in the absence of a vaccine. Clinical trials have begun at Kaiser in Seattle as of yesterday, as well as in Canada, I think? The problem is that the efficacy of the vaccine will require a few weeks to test, given the virus' incubation period post infection.

To be fair that Vermont mathematician working on the twin-primes conjecture bound was working at a Subway for a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang

What is fundamentally wrong with fossil fuel companies owning the complete carbon lifecycle through their own commercial carbon sequestration methods?

This kind of vertical integration has been shown time and time again to be overly difficult to manage profitably, and markets would certainly encourage others (e.g. forestry companies) to outcompete on the sequestration and capture side of the carbon lifecycle, but what is inherently wrong with fossil fuel companies reading the writing on the wall and participating in new net-carbon negative markets?

Factual statements can be implicitly opinionated via Russel Conjugation commonly referred to as "spin", affecting its truthfulness depending on the reader. In your research, do you discriminate between factual statements that have been subject to this conjugation?

How do you fence off disinformation combat beyond "X is Y" type statements that are produced by the AP or Reuters?