Jump to content

COVID-19 is not going away soon or ever


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Do nothing, and let the virus continue to spread and infect more widely, and there's still the vast majority of the country's population that have yet to be touched by the virus. Meaning lots more people who can be exposed, and lots more people who could face hospitalization and ultimately death, with the U.S. currently running about a 2.4% case fatality rate (meaning about 2.4% of the people confirmed to have the virus end up dying overall).

There is some fairly credible research suggesting that the herd immunity threshold for Covid could be as low as 20% of the population (due to variations in the probability of exposure & susceptibility). As for the US CFR, it's shockingly high for one of the richest countries in the world. But that's the average over the whole period: I'd hope it's come down a lot for recent case (eg because treatment is improving &/ more testing is being done).

 

Antibody data from a very specific group (eg dialysis patients, who presumably have been trying their best to avoid exposure) may not be very representative.

 

(This isn't intended as a justification for a 'let it rip' herd immunity approach, but there's a lack of nuance in the media.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not like a regular flu at all. They want masks and distancing to be permanent. None of that happened for regular flu or any other diseases, far as I know. I'm happy to go back to life as pre coro

eventually, everyone will copy sweden and move on as it was a year ago, but its bitter and humiliating for politicians around the world to admit they committed high treason on their own coun

Not to mention that they have destroyed their countries' already fragile economies, that will need years to recover, if ever...

Posted Images

7 hours ago, onebir said:

There is some fairly credible research suggesting that the herd immunity threshold for Covid could be as low as 20% of the population (due to variations in the probability of exposure & susceptibility). As for the US CFR, it's shockingly high for one of the richest countries in the world. But that's the average over the whole period: I'd hope it's come down a lot for recent case (eg because treatment is improving &/ more testing is being done).

 

Antibody data from a very specific group (eg dialysis patients, who presumably have been trying their best to avoid exposure) may not be very representative.

 

(This isn't intended as a justification for a 'let it rip' herd immunity approach, but there's a lack of nuance in the media.)

I read Sweden's herd immunity was at some 10%.  I'll try to find the article, but this lays out why their strategy failed.  An interesting read.

 

https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/

The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, onebir said:

There is some fairly credible research suggesting that the herd immunity threshold for Covid could be as low as 20% of the population (due to variations in the probability of exposure & susceptibility). As for the US CFR, it's shockingly high for one of the richest countries in the world. But that's the average over the whole period: I'd hope it's come down a lot for recent case (eg because treatment is improving &/ more testing is being done).

 

Antibody data from a very specific group (eg dialysis patients, who presumably have been trying their best to avoid exposure) may not be very representative.

 

(This isn't intended as a justification for a 'let it rip' herd immunity approach, but there's a lack of nuance in the media.)

 

I would not characterize US case fatality rates that way, see graph, or that money is the main factor. In general, the earlier a region was hit by SARS2 the higher the CFR, simply because little was known about the disease (see China). Clotting, cytosine storms, overuse of intubation because oxygen levels were not understood are just a few factors. The US was never the top CFR country. 

 

Also note that the formula for CFR means its graph will drop over time as it over estimates in the beginning.

image.png.4d22233e3870e2b0372ed2ebd2e23218.png

 

Edited by rabas
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I would not characterize US case fatality rates that way, see graph, or that money is the main factor. In general, the earlier a region was hit by SARS2 the higher the CFR, simply because little was known about the disease (see China). Clotting, cytosine storms, overuse of intubation because oxygen levels were not understood are just a few factors. The US was never the top CFR country. 

 

Also note that the formula for CFR means its graph will drop over time as it over estimates in the beginning.

image.png.4d22233e3870e2b0372ed2ebd2e23218.png

 

 

The U.S. has the most CV cases of any country, the most CV deaths of any country (both in part due to its large population), and is usually around 12th or so among countries based on its number of CV deaths per capita.

 

But, the U.S. is nowhere near the worst among countries in terms of its CV case fatality rate (the share of those people who have confirmed CV infections that end up dying). And that official CFR rate for the U.S. has gone down over the course of the pandemic to about 2.5% at present.

 

What that above means, to me, is the U.S. has done a horrible job at preventing the spread of the coronavirus among its population. But once people get sick with the CV there, there are a lot of other countries where you'd have a greater chance of dying. Which shouldn't be any great surprise, considering the spending in the U.S. on medical care and its expertise in critical case medicine.

 

970279603_USCFR.jpg.d6c104179b4f17725c316fdd001f42b6.jpg

 

Below is the list of the countries with the highest CV CFRs, with the UK being further down on the list than shown below, but still much worse than the U.S. at 4.4%.

 

579190804_CFRbyCountry.jpg.b5778d0efa64bd56fcd0eeae8f132c00.jpg

 

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, onebir said:

There is some fairly credible research suggesting that the herd immunity threshold for Covid could be as low as 20% of the population (due to variations in the probability of exposure & susceptibility). As for the US CFR, it's shockingly high for one of the richest countries in the world. But that's the average over the whole period: I'd hope it's come down a lot for recent case (eg because treatment is improving &/ more testing is being done).

 

Antibody data from a very specific group (eg dialysis patients, who presumably have been trying their best to avoid exposure) may not be very representative.

 

(This isn't intended as a justification for a 'let it rip' herd immunity approach, but there's a lack of nuance in the media.)

I believe that 20% research comes from epidemiologist Gupta at Oxford. She is one of the three who put out the Great Barrington Declaration which suggested that the young should go about their lives, whatever. There was a storm of scientists who objected, and about 30 published a letter in The Lancet to refute the Barrington crowd pretty definitively. Note that Barrington has a White House connection through a far-right think tank which brought the three together.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 12:48 AM, onebir said:

There is some fairly credible research suggesting that the herd immunity threshold for Covid could be as low as 20% of the population (due to variations in the probability of exposure & susceptibility). 

As others have said, that 20% figure has been disputed by many other reputable scientists.

 

According to the article linked to below, it requires a bunch of assumptions, especially about the nature of "super spreaders," that are not necessarily supported.

 

As Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, and Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California say in the piece, one thing mitigating against the idea of herd immunity from natural infection is the possible short duration of naturally-acquired immunity, and the fact is that herd immunity has never been achieved this way before:

Quote

If the people who are infected become susceptible again in a year, then basically you’ll never reach herd immunity” through natural transmission, Rivers says.

 

“There’s no magic wand we can use here,” Andersen says. “We have to face reality — never before have we reached herd immunity via natural infection with a novel virus, and SARS-CoV-2 is unfortunately no different.” Vaccination is the only ethical path to herd immunity ...

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

As others have said, that 20% figure has been disputed by many other reputable scientists.

Yeah, I wasn't proposing the 'let everyone get infected' approach. But the 1-1/r estimate of the herd immunity threshold derived from the SIR model is just one estimate, and models with different assumptions can give very different estimates. So before doing anything drastic, policymakers in places where there's evidence that a substantial proportion of the population has been infected should, at least, be open to the possibility that the region could be approaching the herd immunity threshold, if there's data pointing in that direction.

 

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

As Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, and Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California say in the piece, one thing mitigating against the idea of herd immunity from natural infection is the possible short duration of naturally-acquired immunity, and the fact is that herd immunity has never been achieved this way before:

That's a remarkable claim, given that various plagues failed to wipe out humanity long before vaccination was invented.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 5:29 PM, roquefort said:

Ready and waiting. The problem is the sheeple have no capacity to analyse, rationalise or question any of the garbage their governments and the MSM feed them.

You talking to the neo-liberal dem audience or the Christian right? They both be victims of the TV.

 

Nice.

Edited by Solinvictus
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, onebir said:

Yeah, I wasn't proposing the 'let everyone get infected' approach. But the 1-1/r estimate of the herd immunity threshold derived from the SIR model is just one estimate, and models with different assumptions can give very different estimates. So before doing anything drastic, policymakers in places where there's evidence that a substantial proportion of the population has been infected should, at least, be open to the possibility that the region could be approaching the herd immunity threshold, if there's data pointing in that direction.

 

That's a remarkable claim, given that various plagues failed to wipe out humanity long before vaccination was invented.

Plague is less infectious. I don't know the R number for plague, but anyway transmission is not airborne. We cannot keep isolating countries from each other, so the idea of an area having "herd immunity" is wishful thinking. Depend on the size and extent of the subject population, eg India vs Iceland, the time to infect 70% will vary, and we still don't know how long an immunity from natural infection would last.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, placnx said:

Plague is less infectious. I don't know the R number for plague, but anyway transmission is not airborne.

PlagueS - I meant it as a generic term for epidemics (inc airborne ones like influenza)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. continues to go the wrong way in all kinds of CV indicators:

 

Quote

American Academy of Pediatrics Reports Highest One-Week Increase in Child Cases of COVID-19 Since Onset of Pandemic

The surge in COVID-19 cases across the country is impacting children in unprecedented levels, according to data compiled by the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association, which are tracking data reported by state health departments.
 

As of Oct. 29, more than 853,000 children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic, including nearly 200,000 new cases in children during the month of October. In the one-week period ending Oct. 29, there were 61,000 new cases in children, which is larger than any previous week in the pandemic.

...

“On every measure – new infections, hospitalizations, and deaths – the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction,” [said AAP President Sally Goza, MD, FAAP]. “We urge policymakers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them."

 

https://services.aap.org/en/news-room/news-releases/aap/2020/american-academy-of-pediatrics-reports-highest-one-week-increase-in-child-cases-of-covid-19-since-onset-of-pandemic/

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, onebir said:

PlagueS - I meant it as a generic term for epidemics (inc airborne ones like influenza)

Influenza after the 1918 pandemic is not near as serious as Covid for mortality, not to mention other possible complications now being noted. At the same time, influenza mutations help obscure the issue of whether there is any herd immunity after an epidemic. Immunity to cold virus seems to be fairly fleeting. The proposition of having a population acquire herd immunity to Covid by infection has been definitively dismissed by the scientific community. Vaccination is the route to herd immunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, placnx said:

Influenza after the 1918 pandemic is not near as serious as Covid for mortality, not to mention other possible complications now being noted. At the same time, influenza mutations help obscure the issue of whether there is any herd immunity after an epidemic. Immunity to cold virus seems to be fairly fleeting. The proposition of having a population acquire herd immunity to Covid by infection has been definitively dismissed by the scientific community. Vaccination is the route to herd immunity.

That would depend on how much it costs. Front line workers should get it free, but they may require others to pay, depending on country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, placnx said:

Influenza after the 1918 pandemic is not near as serious as Covid for mortality, not to mention other possible complications now being noted. At the same time, influenza mutations help obscure the issue of whether there is any herd immunity after an epidemic. Immunity to cold virus seems to be fairly fleeting. The proposition of having a population acquire herd immunity to Covid by infection has been definitively dismissed by the scientific community. Vaccination is the route to herd immunity.

The actual numbers for the 1918 pandemic are unknown.  There wasn't enough testing and they still don't know enough about the original strain to understand everything.  And that virus is still with us today.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...