In case it helps, I know eca by reputation and would strongly encourage people with the relevant backgrounds to look into this.

I have a maths background, qualified as an actuary in half the industry average time, and am comfortable with stochastic models, including markov chains and monte carlo methods. Are you able to provide more information? In case you don't want to do so in public, I have sent you a direct message via the forum.

Found this paper: "Optimizing respiratory management in resource-limited settings"
"Mechanical ventilation is an expensive intervention associated with considerable mortality and a high rate of iatrogenic complications in many LMICs. Recent case series report crude mortality rates for ventilated patients of between 36 and 72%. Measures to avert the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in LMICs are showing promise: bubble continuous positive airway pressure has been demonstrated to decrease mortality in children with acute respiratory failure and trials suggest that noninvasive ventilation can be conducted safely in settings where resources are low." ... "One of the most significant developments in acute care research in LMICs in recent years has been the publication of three trials demonstrating that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can reduce mortality in children under 5 years of age, compared with oxygen delivered via standard low-flow nasal cannula [35▪,36,37▪]. CPAP can also decrease the need for invasive mechanical ventilation [38▪▪]. There are three main ways to generate CPAP: first, by using a pressure driver or a ventilator; second, using high flow nasal-cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC); or third, by submerging the expiratory limb of a breathing circuit in water to create so-called bubble CPAP. Traditionally bubble CPAP circuits also contain a driver, although some newer iterations only use the oxygen/air flow from an oxygen concentrator to generate CPAP [39].

All three trials used bubble CPAP as the intervention and together showed a risk ratio of survival of 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–0.82] [38▪▪]. One study had an additional intervention arm using HFNC, but no conclusions were drawn regarding its efficacy as the study was terminated early due to increased mortality in the control group.

Nasal cannulae, used as the patient interface in all three trials, are an attractive option for understaffed environments because they generally require lower levels of nursing supervision to use safely [39]. The basic circuits and simplified care protocols meant that the equipment required few adjustments, especially when compared with invasive mechanical ventilation.

There are elements of each of these studies that epitomize context-appropriate innovation and research. The bubble CPAP circuit deployed in the Bangladesh study was fashioned out of readily available, cheap equipment (standard nasal cannula, a shampoo bottle and intravenous fluid tubing) so the cost of the circuit was approximately $3 per patient [35▪]. They used an oxygen concentrator and no driver in the circuit with additional cost savings." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6319564/

here’s a build diagram for a bubble cpap

https://www.edjones.org/articles/bubble-cpap-in-resource-poor-settings/?fbclid=IwAR05oxQ2tPg1LDD6o73cBWOGKukaYBq8APcFpNmB1y900nPovTwV0yFBWBQ

are studies indicating it’s helpful for adults (despite its primary use in infants)

https://intjem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12245-019-0224-0

Retweets of this appreciated https://twitter.com/NathanPMYoung/status/1234908740803010562

I have mixed feelings about this idea because

1) its still fairly early to know how big a problem this is (and I have heard or read expert opinions on both sides---some say it may be a big problem, while others say it most likely is not)

2) using the EA INT ( Impact-Neglectedness--Tractability) framework (though some use SNT (U) where S= scale=Impact and (U) is 'urgency' (a time discounting or triage factor ---i.e. there's no point in setting up a research program to find a cure if it is going to arrive too late ) I am not sure this issue is Neglected. (I think US govt just allocated 1/2 billion$ to work on this).

there are also already many people---epidimiologists, virologists, health care workers, and health management people ---working on this (internationally). Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't use some help, or that what they are doing is the most 'effective'.

I wouldn't dismiss what these professional people are doing (health departments, CDC, etc.) as innefective or in need of help or input than I would dismiss the efforts of the fire department for fires around here and just try to put the fire myself. But, its possible they could use help (even in a variety of ways---average people can just call the fire dept if they can't put a fire out, and help any people displaced by the fire.)

3) I have already seen a few theoretical epidemiological papers on this subject. https://infomullet.com has one which is not peer reviewed and less theoretical (its more a 'fermi ' or 'back of an envelope' set of calculations (though done on a computer ) than a fully fledged theoretical model. (I think its based on the standard SIR model in epidemiology , or an updated , more complex modification of that).

If one is doing a theoretical model , I think one has to try to review what people are doing or have done , though one can at the same time develop your own models and compare---there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. (While I have done a little labwork as an undergrad, and studied some molecular biology, I am not a 'wet lab worker', so I would be unable to judge anything regarding possible vaccines except from a theoretical POV---and I'm very limited even at that . )

4) My view is, if this turns out to be a big problem, the real thing is to deal with 'population heterogeneity' . I gather China took this route --- they sort of have quarantined entire cities, and have shut down transportation and trade routes . Also, within these cities, they have sort of quarantined subsections of the cities, homes and businesses . (So you have quarantines within quarantines.) (I imagine most people on this forum know that).

This is a preventetive intervention--no different than containing a wildfire (such as the ones that destroyed many homes and lives in California not long ago).

In lieu of a cure, thats the way to go. Just try to keep the problem localized.

In USA, CDC and others are already doing that.

It may be useful if people had an 'app' to know how close and where the virus (or fire) is --no different than an app for checking the weather.

Also, perhaps an 'app' which is a 'checklist' of things you should have at home, carry with you, and also where to go if there is a problem (health facility, or authorities who can tell you where to go if you need help---eg you know someone who i sick).

Also an 'app' which has a list of things you need to do to prepare for a case in which you lose electricity and internet service.

5) As an aside i'm sort of working (possibly with someone else though the project is in its infancy so we haven't agreed on exactly what the project is or what form it takes--we each have our own closely related but distinct approaches---so we are just seeing if collaboration is possible ) . Both of us are more theoretically oriented but want a 'fermi type' solution --something that could be widely useful and applicable, rather than buried in an academic journal written in language noone without a PhD can understand.

It was not oriented towards the corona virus---its a general formalism--but could be applicable to that issue as well. (The idea is really like creating a very small and short 'manual' or handbook, so people can make 'good decisions' based on the information they have---and also figure out what information is most relevant, and how to assign priorities or weights to different possible actions.)

(sorry for the length of this comment. i'm listening to the news right now and they are talking about how they are making emergency proclamations in Seattle and California---and some people are criticizing them because they say they don't have any teeth in them,--just rhetoric or hot air---and don't deal with 'population heterogeneity'. i.e. FB workers are told to stay home and telecommute, while people like post office and delivery workers are told to continue business as usual. )

I'm personally less optimistic about advocacy, because I think there's a strong worry that the professionals should do their jobs (especially since they're likely to be overtaxed very soon) and advocates can easily be more harmful than helpful.

ETA: Maybe I should mention this in that thread.

Are you referring to https://www.covid19risk.com/ , or something else?