August 28, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Staying away from other people and lock downs are two different things. They kind of are though.
August 28, 20205 yr 17 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: https://mises.org/wire/do-lockdowns-work-mounting-evidence-says-no Quote Mises Wire offers contemporary news and opinion through the lens of Austrian economics and libertarian political economy. C'mon man enough with this libertarian news source nonsense. Use some common sense, and maybe Google Scholar. This is with like 2 minutes of searching: https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/27/3/taaa037/5808003 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25827 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32498655/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32413914/ 10 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.amp.html Later in that article: Quote "When people change their behavior," said Lauren Gardner, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering who models epidemics, "those model parameters are no longer applicable,” so short-term forecasts are likely to be more accurate. "There is a lot of room for improvement if we act appropriately.” And the name of the article is literally "Worst-Case Estimates for US Coronavirus Deaths". So you're looking at models based on the worst case scenario of the disease spread and if the US and rest of the world did nothing to prevent spread. Again man stop it with this.
August 28, 20205 yr https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8607731/amp/Why-Sweden-pilloried-world-refusing-lock-having-laugh.html
August 28, 20205 yr 6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: They kind of are though. Quote The premise here is not that voluntary "social distancing" has no effect. Rather, the question is to whether "police-enforced home containment" works to limit the spread of disease. Meunier concludes it does not.
August 28, 20205 yr Quote The overwhelming majority—nearly 75 percent—of deaths from COVID-19 occur in patients over sixty-five years of age. Of those, approximately 90 percent have other underlying conditions. Thus, limiting the spread of COVID-19 is most critical among those who are already engaged with the healthcare system and are elderly. In the US and Europe, more than half of COVID-19 deaths are occuring in nursing homes and similar institutions. This is where we failed the most. These are the people we should have protected better but did not.
August 28, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: This is where we failed the most. These are the people we should have protected better but did not. Yea, people not wearing masks, idiots bringing it home to the older people who immidiately get sick.
August 28, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8607731/amp/Why-Sweden-pilloried-world-refusing-lock-having-laugh.html #1) The Daily Mail is also not a particularly reliable source of news and you know that. #2) Sweden is absolutely not close to achieving "herd immunity". Quote Dr Julian Tang, Honorary Associate Professor in Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, said: "This is an interesting report though I note that no Swedish public health co-authors were involved. "The data is a bit patchy, for example, no serology data is given from Finland and Norway in Table 2 – and the line for Denmark seems to have been included with the UK data – likely a formatting error. "If we assume that what they show is what was available at the time of writing, and that it has been accurately mined from the references given, it appears that the seropositivity rate in Stockholm (17%, Sweden) with no drastic lockdown measures, is about the same as Gangelt (14%, Germany), London (17%, UK) and New York City/State (12.3-21.6%, USA) – during April-May. "Unfortunately, it is difficult to completely contextualise this data in terms of interventions, as Table 3 does not show the interventions implemented for Gangelt, London or New York during this period, but from what we know from the contemporaneous media and other coverage, all these other locations had imposed some form of lockdown by end of March 2020. "So, we might have expected that any increase in the number of infections and therefore herd immunity in Gangelt, London and New York would have been frozen during the lockdown, yet that for Stockholm would have continued to rise further. However, there are no additional serology results beyond April shown in this paper to compare and demonstrate this difference between the seropositivity rates between each of these locations into June/July 2020. "So the data seems a bit disjointed, but maybe that was all that was available for data-mining at the time of writing this article. "Yet, if we assume that the Norway and Finland seropositivity rates were similar at the time to that of Denmark (2%, April, Table 2), where similar levels of interventions had been implemented (Table 3), you may well end up with the COVID-19 mortality plots shown in Figure 1b. As these are shown up to the end of June 2020, these also imply that the seropositivity rates for Sweden would be much higher than Norway and Finland at that time, given the number of daily new COVID-19 deaths per million population shown (since the more severe infections are likely to produce seroconversion). "Ideally, we would really need to see the SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity rates for June/July 2020 to compare the current levels of herd immunity across all these locations. "So the authors’ conclusion from their title: "Four months into the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden’s prized herd immunity is nowhere in sight” may not be entirely accurate and a bit premature – because we have not seen and compared the updated seropositivity rates for June/July 2020 across these same locations – at least from what I can see presented in the paper.” Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading, said: "Natural herd immunity, generated by letting Covid-19 sweep through a population, may have been an appealing notion to some because of the lack of a lockdown or curbs on people’s freedoms, but it was nothing more than an idea which lacked supporting data. The Swedish experience of attempting to achieve this, compared to other Nordic countries responses, resulted in much higher numbers of infections and deaths per capita, in addition to a prolonged outbreak. Moreover, far fewer Swedes than predicted generated antibodies to the coronavirus, suggesting the strategy failed to generate widespread protective immunity. These findings should prove a salutary warning, that appealing concepts and theories require supporting data when people’s lives are at stake and should not be used to fit pre-conceived narratives.” ‘Four months into the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden’s prized herd immunity is nowhere in sight’ by Worlowski et al was published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine at 00:05 hrs (UK time) on Wednesday 12 August 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31673-1/fulltext https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-has-developed-herd-immunity-after-refusing-to-lock-down-experts-claim-its-coronavirus-infection-rate-is-falling-2020-08-24 3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: This is where we failed the most. These are the people we should have protected better but did not. And not locking down protects them how? You can't just lock down a small subsection of the population and let everything else carry on business as usual. Not with a virus this contagious.
August 28, 20205 yr 6 hours ago, DEagle7 said: #2) Sweden is absolutely not close to achieving "herd immunity". There is no definitive evidence at this point supporting this claim just as there is no definitive evidence to support a claim that Sweden has reached herd immunity. The evidence to date is not decisive in either direction. Yes the positive anti-body testing has resulted in numbers under 20% but that doesn't tell the whole story (t-cells, etc.) and all the other numbers have been down down down (note: very slight upticks the last couple of weeks so that needs to be monitored). I'll post the weekly updated graphs later today as they come out every Friday (deaths per week, mortality rates, r-number). This week will be particularly interesting. In the meantime, tell me what you think we should be seeing in Sweden now six months in after only partial distancing measures and work from home for a few months but no masks at any point, schools never closed (except senior hs/college), restaurants always open, gatherings under 50 allowed, and once we hit mid-June people were largely back to normal. Towns are full of life just as normal and people are starting to come back to work slowly.
August 28, 20205 yr 8 hours ago, Green Dog said: Yea, people not wearing masks, idiots bringing it home to the older people who immidiately get sick. Most of these cases happened in nursing homes. I hear that some governors sent sick patients to some of the nursing homes.
August 28, 20205 yr 9 hours ago, DEagle7 said: #1) The Daily Mail is also not a particularly reliable source of news and you know that. #2) Sweden is absolutely not close to achieving "herd immunity". And not locking down protects them how? You can't just lock down a small subsection of the population and let everything else carry on business as usual. Not with a virus this contagious. Wolf absolutely did shut down parts of population and let other carry on. Most blue collar workers in my area have been working and pretty much going on with business as usual. I social distance and wear a mask when I can. I can’t control others except to stay away from the idiots as much as possible. For all the whining about non mask wearers, I would think such a contagious virus would have taken them all out by now.
August 28, 20205 yr 9 hours ago, DEagle7 said: C'mon man enough with this libertarian news source nonsense. Use some common sense, and maybe Google Scholar. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200526091413.htm https://www.aei.org/articles/lockdowns-dont-work/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-05-21/coronavirus-lockdowns-haven-t-proved-they-re-worth-the-havoc https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812
August 28, 20205 yr 21 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/do-lockdowns-save-many-lives-is-most-places-the-data-say-no-11587930911 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200526091413.htm https://www.aei.org/articles/lockdowns-dont-work/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-05-21/coronavirus-lockdowns-haven-t-proved-they-re-worth-the-havoc https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87812 Mostly weak reasoning from people who came with an answer and looking only for evidence to support it. In the case of the South Korean approach, I can buy the reasoning but it wouldn't work here (ironically for reasons most libertarians would put forth). It would require that infected people regularly volunteer information about themselves that Americans simply will not do, and testing at a scale that certainly at the time and still today isn't happening here. Eschewing lockdowns in low density areas may be fine, but in NYC where you had a massive outbreak of a disease we knew very little about in a very densely populated area? Yeah a lockdown was the right call.
August 28, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Mostly weak reasoning from people who came with an answer and looking only for evidence to support it. In the case of the South Korean approach, I can buy the reasoning but it wouldn't work here (ironically for reasons most libertarians would put forth). It would require that infected people regularly volunteer information about themselves that Americans simply will not do, and testing at a scale that certainly at the time and still today isn't happening here. Eschewing lockdowns in low density areas may be fine, but in NYC where you had a massive outbreak of a disease we knew very little about in a very densely populated area? Yeah a lockdown was the right call. It’s always weak reasoning when it doesn’t aligns with yours. The lack of testing in this country is still inadequate and the CDC can’t keep their story straight in who needs tested and who doesn’t. Contact tracing is still not being rolled out here on a large scale so we really don’t know how many people will or will not volunteer. I’m sure there will he push back from the non maskers and others but I suspect enough will to make a difference. I would trust anonymous contact tracing more than I would a hastily rolled out vaccine.
August 28, 20205 yr 9 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: It’s always weak reasoning when it doesn’t aligns with yours. No, it's weak reasoning because the reasoning is weak. Take the article comparing COVID-19 to the 1968 H3N2 pandemic. It's ridiculous on its face when you consider the viruses. (I've been over this before) H3N2 is a strain of flu, related to a similar pandemic that had swept through the nation in the late 50s. It was quickly determined that the vaccine developed against this earlier strain was at least somewhat effective against this new strain. Additionally, H3N2 was both less transmissible and less deadly than COVID-19. COVID-19 was novel. This is another aspect lost on those who seek to downplay its risks. It's lazy opinion with an answer looking for evidence to support a predisposition.
August 28, 20205 yr 5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: No, it's weak reasoning because the reasoning is weak. Take the article comparing COVID-19 to the 1968 H3N2 pandemic. It's ridiculous on its face when you consider the viruses. (I've been over this before) H3N2 is a strain of flu, related to a similar pandemic that had swept through the nation in the late 50s. It was quickly determined that the vaccine developed against this earlier strain was at least somewhat effective against this new strain. Additionally, H3N2 was both less transmissible and less deadly than COVID-19. COVID-19 was novel. This is another aspect lost on those who seek to downplay its risks. It's lazy opinion with an answer looking for evidence to support a predisposition. Sure if that works for you go with it. Not being afraid of risk is not downplaying it, however, for most of the population the risk is low.
August 28, 20205 yr 5 hours ago, DrPhilly said: There is no definitive evidence at this point supporting this claim just as there is no definitive evidence to support a claim that Sweden has reached herd immunity. The evidence to date is not decisive in either direction. Yes the positive anti-body testing has resulted in numbers under 20% but that doesn't tell the whole story (t-cells, etc.) and all the other numbers have been down down down (note: very slight upticks the last couple of weeks so that needs to be monitored). I'll post the weekly updated graphs later today as they come out every Friday (deaths per week, mortality rates, r-number). This week will be particularly interesting. In the meantime, tell me what you think we should be seeing in Sweden now six months in after only partial distancing measures and work from home for a few months but no masks at any point, schools never closed (except senior hs/college), restaurants always open, gatherings under 50 allowed, and once we hit mid-June people were largely back to normal. Towns are full of life just as normal and people are starting to come back to work slowly. The T Cell data is interesting and promising, but I believe the data I saw released had something along the lines of 30% of people with asymptomatic/mild cases of Corona had T cell response people despite a negative antibody test. Sure we don't know definitively, but that data still seems to make a true "herd immunity" of hitting around 70% of the population unlikely. I'm not saying if this gets drawn out long term that it's not a possibility or Sweden may end up being correct, but "herd immunity" seems premature. What I would "expect" would be to see gradual slowing of spread as immunity improves but continued new daily rates of infection above those of of countries in the region until you begin to approach herd immunity, which I believe if you look at Norway or Finland is a fair description of where Sweden stands. I fully recognize that may change over even the next 3 months however.
August 28, 20205 yr 20 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: The T Cell data is interesting and promising, but I believe the data I saw released had something along the lines of 30% of people with asymptomatic/mild cases of Corona had T cell response people despite a negative test. Sure we don't know definitively, but that data still seems to make a true "herd immunity" of hitting around 70% of the population unlikely. I'm not saying if this gets drawn out long term that it's not a possibility or Sweden may end up being correct, but "herd immunity" seems premature. What I would "expect" would be to see gradual slowing of spread as immunity improves but continued new daily rates of infection above those of of countries in the region until you begin to approach herd immunity, which I believe if you look at Norway or Finland is a fair description of where Sweden stands. I fully recognize that may change over even the next 3 months however. The exact percent needed for herd immunity for COVID is unknown as you know. Serious estimates range from 40-90% though I agree your 70% seems like the best bet. About six weeks back it was estimated that Stockholm (Sweden's COVID motor) had over 40% that either had T-cell or antibodies. There are also theories that some people may be genetically immune. The bottom line is that no one knows just what it takes to reach an effective herd immunity level. What I react to are statements like "absolutely not close". I understand the politics make it very very hard to have a nuanced logical discussion on the topic. The way I look at it is that it is far from obvious exactly what the most optimal approach should have been or what it should be going forward. I also think each place, country, region is going to be unique. Long term we will be able to look back and make sense of things but right now we are at best making educated guesses and at worst making decisions colored by politics. If we look at the two extremes of New Zealand and Sweden I think it is safe to say both are taking risks. NZ is banking on a vaccine and soon. Sweden is playing the long game and the turtle approach. No one knows how it will turn out. I'll post the updated mortality rates vs. average and deaths per week later as they are just about to release the weekly updates. The numbes per capita vs. many places that used lots of lockdown, masks, closings, etc. are similar (the US is one of those). The COVID motor here is Stockholm along with Gothenburg. Both cities are really back to near normal now minus large gatherings. If we haven't reached some level of herd immunity you'd expect the rates to really go up. It may be too early to tell but so far that hasn't been the case (certainly not if you factor in the amount of testing, we had near zero until about two months back). The R-number has risen to just above 1 as of last week (think it was 1.02) so that will be a key metric to keep an eye on.
August 28, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, DEagle7 said: The T Cell data is interesting and promising, but I believe the data I saw released had something along the lines of 30% of people with asymptomatic/mild cases of Corona had T cell response people despite a negative antibody test. Sure we don't know definitively, but that data still seems to make a true "herd immunity" of hitting around 70% of the population unlikely. I'm not saying if this gets drawn out long term that it's not a possibility or Sweden may end up being correct, but "herd immunity" seems premature. What I would "expect" would be to see gradual slowing of spread as immunity improves but continued new daily rates of infection above those of of countries in the region until you begin to approach herd immunity, which I believe if you look at Norway or Finland is a fair description of where Sweden stands. I fully recognize that may change over even the next 3 months however. I am not sure where your argument about T Cell immunity making herd immunity unlikely is going. IIRC, T cell immunity is MHC mediated meaning that the immune system has seen a COVID or similar enough protein fragment antigen to activate T cell mediated immune response. It is complementary to antibody mediated immunity.
August 28, 20205 yr 6 minutes ago, BBE said: I am not sure where your argument about T Cell immunity making herd immunity unlikely is going. IIRC, T cell immunity is MHC mediated meaning that the immune system has seen a COVID or similar enough protein fragment antigen to activate T cell mediated immune response. It is complementary to antibody mediated immunity. Yes I understand the immunology. I also know historically a TCell response has been (at least) moderately long lasting in previous SARV. My point was the percentage. The early studies showed 20% of people had antibodies and around 30% who were COVID positive but antibody negative had TCell response. Which comes out to about a total of 45% of positive patients having evidence of immune response. Which is at the absolute lowest end of herd immunity estimates on a population level, let alone just in those with the disease. Now I believe DrPhilly has more up to date data on 40% total out of Stockholm, which would be much closer to where we would consider seeing any type of immunity.
August 28, 20205 yr 2 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: Sure if that works for you go with it. Not being afraid of risk is not downplaying it, however, for most of the population the risk is low. That's fine if you're among the group of population for which the dangers are low. What you're saying is that you care less about people who are at higher risk. They should just "stay home" as the bulk of the population goes about its business, spreading the disease and inevitably killing up to 0.7% of the population. That's a high estimate, but say 100m people get it - that's 700k dead. We're already at 180k, 700k isn't unreasonable to expect if we had issues zero lockdowns in highly populated areas and let the disease just work its way through. It's not about "being afraid of risk" or not, it's accurately assessing the risk-reward and the consequences of different choices.
August 28, 20205 yr 27 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Yes I understand the immunology. I also know historically a TCell response has been (at least) moderately long lasting in previous SARV. My point was the percentage. The early studies showed 20% of people had antibodies and around 30% who were COVID positive but antibody negative had TCell response. Which comes out to about a total of 45% of positive patients having evidence of immune response. Which is at the absolute lowest end of herd immunity estimates on a population level, let alone just in those with the disease. Now I believe DrPhilly has more up to date data on 40% total out of Stockholm, which would be much closer to where we would consider seeing any type of immunity. Yes the estimate was 40% and that was six weeks back. The updated weekly data won’t show updates for those figures. I do think I’ll get a new R-number and for sure updated curves for weekly deaths and results vs expected overall mortality. They also have stuff like confirmed cases but those are so dependent on levels of testing I’ve mainly ignored those for Sweden as the testing has varied widely. Admission to COVID ward rates might be interesting as well.
August 28, 20205 yr 16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: That's fine if you're among the group of population for which the dangers are low. What you're saying is that you care less about people who are at higher risk. They should just "stay home" as the bulk of the population goes about its business, spreading the disease and inevitably killing up to 0.7% of the population. That's a high estimate, but say 100m people get it - that's 700k dead. We're already at 180k, 700k isn't unreasonable to expect if we had issues zero lockdowns in highly populated areas and let the disease just work its way through. It's not about "being afraid of risk" or not, it's accurately assessing the risk-reward and the consequences of different choices. No I’m not saying I care less about the people who are at risk. I’m saying to protect them as much as possible but don’t drag down the rest of society along with them. It is about fear of risk, we all have different fears and levels of risk we are willing to take. Though I am not 100% certain I would survive the virus, I fear giving it to an at risk loved one more than getting it. I mitigate that fear by social distancing and staying away from my at risk loved ones.
Create an account or sign in to comment