EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 448
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26101 Posts
On September 01 2021 09:00 Anc13nt wrote: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?la=en depends on vaccine. I am not too sure about AstraZeneca but in Canada, most people got Pfizer and Moderna. Read page 3 of the link to see the impressive efficacy of the vaccines. Unless one has legitimate medical reasons (emphasis on legitimate) not to get a vaccine, one has to be very irrational not to get a MRNA vaccine. I can understand a person younger than 60, especially women, not wanting to get AstraZeneca because of the blood clot risk but that's about it. However, the fear mongering about MRNA vaccine causing myocarditis or anaphylaxis is unreasonable. To be clear I wasn’t disputing the efficacy of vaccines, I was merely under the impression that with delta it was more a matter of them being very effective at mitigating the harmful effects of the virus, but they aren’t currently a magic bullet to prevent spread. Whereas if we were dealing with the initial variants of Covid, our current vaccines would be considerably more effective at lessening the spread too. Indeed if we weren’t a couple of variants down the line, with our current toolset we’d have a shot at elimination versus merely mitigation, based on vaccine efficacy against those versus the likes of delta. I may be wrong on that, I’m a mere layman and I get most of my info via you guys on this thread, having largely eschewed too much of the news for my own sanity. I mean I’m in the camp that felt stringent travel restrictions were lifted way too early, my rationale being that variants emerging and being transmitted was a silly risk to take when vaccine uptake was starting to rise, so I certainly agree with everything you’re saying there man! | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On September 01 2021 10:35 JimmiC wrote: If you want a different vaccine instead AZ in those cases that is reasonable. If you were deciding between AZ and no vaccine it would not be. The chances of clots from.covid are exponentially worse then the AZ risk, which when more and more numbers came in came awfuly close to the amount it just happens. I would generally agree. Getting AstraZeneca is definitely better than no vaccine. The chance of dying from it is something like 1 in 500000 so it is a very small risk (a lot smaller than the chance of getting COVID-19 due to being unvaccinated and then dying, for vast majority of people). The scenario I was imagining was if there was the option to wait for an alternative vaccine in the near future but this wouldn't really have been an option in the UK. | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On September 01 2021 10:48 WombaT wrote: To be clear I wasn’t disputing the efficacy of vaccines, I was merely under the impression that with delta it was more a matter of them being very effective at mitigating the harmful effects of the virus, but they aren’t currently a magic bullet to prevent spread. Whereas if we were dealing with the initial variants of Covid, our current vaccines would be considerably more effective at lessening the spread too. Indeed if we weren’t a couple of variants down the line, with our current toolset we’d have a shot at elimination versus merely mitigation, based on vaccine efficacy against those versus the likes of delta. I may be wrong on that, I’m a mere layman and I get most of my info via you guys on this thread, having largely eschewed too much of the news for my own sanity. I mean I’m in the camp that felt stringent travel restrictions were lifted way too early, my rationale being that variants emerging and being transmitted was a silly risk to take when vaccine uptake was starting to rise, so I certainly agree with everything you’re saying there man! Yes from your previous posts I could tell you weren't anti-vaxxer by any means but I thought it was informative to show the efficacy of the MRNA vaccines in preventing infection as a bit of a counterpoint. The last few sentences were not addressed to you (rather towards anti-vaxxers) and I apologize if it seemed like I was treating you like an anti-vaxxer (which looking back, is probably how it seemed). From what I read of the UK data, I do think that what you said is more applicable to AstraZeneca so there was probably a difference in perspective mainly caused by geographic differences. I was pretty surprised to see that the hospitalization numbers for the vaccinated looked as bad as it did for the UK but then I remembered that they mainly vaccinated older people. The chart in page 4 of link below shows that the fully vaccinated group is much older than the unvaccinated group. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-26-August-2021.pdf | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
On September 01 2021 08:47 Anc13nt wrote: because COVID has much higher r0 and has much more potential than say, the flu, to evolve into something even more dangerous or infectious than delta That is something that boggles me: Why do you think Covid gets worse? You mention the flu. Nobody ever knew how the flu evolves/ed! If it is more dangerous, more infectious or anything. Not even what strain it will be. Because of that flu-vaccination is probably the worst effective of all vaccine "we" ever invented! So why do "all" people think, that Covid will get worse? Remember "Lambda" the new, highly dangerous variant from South-America? (for German example here: > https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article232722931/corona-variante-lambda-mutation-peru-spanien-europa.html) Well, a month later: > https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/who-lambda-mutation-fachleute-101.html Also German, but bottom line: Delta is "killing" this competition quite effectively! So: Not getting worse! Yeah, it _could_ happen. But it is not "god-given"! Could also fizzle around for nothing. btw. "worse" is relative! Delta is more infectious ... that's it! There is no indication, that is more deadly or similar thatn the variants before it. I think I even read an article that said, that the very first version in Wuhan was more deadly then the versions that "hit the world"! So breath deep, take a beer and cool it! | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 01 2021 16:16 Geisterkarle wrote: That is something that boggles me: Why do you think Covid gets worse? You mention the flu. Nobody ever knew how the flu evolves/ed! Viruses don't evolve, they mutate randomly. As more virus is in circulation, the chance of a mutation increases. Some of those mutations are meaningful, and we call a meaningful mutation a new "strain". If you want to know how we label a given mutation as a new strain, feel free to ask. If it is more dangerous, more infectious or anything. We have been observing flu viruses and their properties for many decades. We know quite well how dangerous and infectious they are. Not even what strain it will be. Of course we can't predict the outcome of a random event like a mutation. We're not clairvoyant. But we can analyze the new strains when they appear. Because of that flu-vaccination is probably the worst effective of all vaccine "we" ever invented! Flu vaccines are quite effective, but it depends on the type of flu. Also, we mainly need to worry about the more dangerous flu strains. Furthermore, since the flu is largely endemic and most flu strains weren't typically life threatening, there wasn't a great incentive to combat it as strongly as sars-cov-2. Quote from the CDC: "In general, current flu vaccines tend to work better against influenza B and influenza A(H1N1) viruses and offer lower protection against influenza A(H3N2) viruses." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm So why do "all" people think, that Covid will get worse? Because it already has. Delta (which was discovered December 2020 in India) is the latest example of it getting (a lot) worse. This one is considered a "variant of concern" and its transmissibility is considered "dominant". Other examples have also popped up. We categorize them as variants of interest and variants under monitoring. Any of these have the potential to become the next dominant variant. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern Remember "Lambda" the new, highly dangerous variant from South-America? (for German example here: > https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article232722931/corona-variante-lambda-mutation-peru-spanien-europa.html) Well, a month later: > https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/who-lambda-mutation-fachleute-101.html Also German, but bottom line: Delta is "killing" this competition quite effectively! So: Not getting worse! Delta is already the worst variant. You're basically arguing that, because there's currently a dominant variant out there, therefore we have little reason to be concerned about a different variant becoming dominant in place of Delta. That is completely backwards reasoning. Delta itself is proof that we should always be concerned about new strains. It is the variant that we're fearing, and it has set a very clear precedent of the constant threat. To argue that we can therefore show significantly less caution is absolutely backwards reasoning. Yeah, it _could_ happen. But it is not "god-given"! Could also fizzle around for nothing. Mutations are guaranteed to happen. As more mutations keep happening, new strains are also guaranteed to appear. This is exactly how the flu has kept propagating over the past century, otherwise it would've long disappeared. The exact same thing is true for sars-cov-2, they follow the same basic mechanism of propagation through mutation.. btw. "worse" is relative! Delta is more infectious ... that's it! There is no indication, that is more deadly or similar thatn the variants before it. I think I even read an article that said, that the very first version in Wuhan was more deadly then the versions that "hit the world"! So breath deep, take a beer and cool it! Just recently I posted that the death rate of covid-19 has increased by a factor of 2 since December 2020. We went from ~1.5 million dead to ~4.5 million dead over roughly the same timespan. The numbers alone disprove you. | ||
|
Slydie
1927 Posts
On September 01 2021 08:47 Anc13nt wrote: because COVID has much higher r0 and has much more potential than say, the flu, to evolve into something even more dangerous or infectious than delta Imo this is backwards logic. A big delta wave with a lot of mild cases is great for preparing our immune systems for the future. Once the vaccination is in the 70% range and all risk groups are covered, I believe it is better to just let go. I am curious about what the plan is for the countries trying to lock themselves out of the world. They inevitably get hit when they eventually open up, and who knows which mutation is dominant at that point. A new promising study suggests that having had covid gives significantly better protection than 2 shots of Pfizer: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 01 2021 17:42 Slydie wrote: Imo this is backwards logic. A big delta wave with a lot of mild cases is great for preparing our immune systems for the future. A big Delta wave is even better for creating lots and lots of new strains that further propagate the virus. This is how a virus overcomes herd immunity again and again ad infinitum. The virus described in the following video lasted for 15 million years. A virus can't do that unless it keeps mutating into new strains, and mutations happen more often as more virus is in circulation. So letting it rip is exactly the opposite of what we should do. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28714 Posts
Because indeed, from the start of december until today, the amount of dead has moved from 1.6 mill to 4.5 mill. (2.8 times more) But the amount of infected has changed from 65 million to 218 million. (3.3 times more) I'm guessing this might be explained more by people being vaccinated and more testing than by the virus changing properties to become less deadly, but 'the numbers' don't indicate that the mortality rate has increased, just that it is way more contagious than it used to be. Looking at Norway, a country where the health care system has never been overrun and where we have pretty high vaccination rates, we had 36000 confirmed infections december 1st 2020, now it's 160000. Deaths have moved from 334 to 814 in the same period of time - showing that far fewer people have died relative to the amount of infections. If I cherry pick even more, I can see that the amount of confirmed infections has doubled since march, but deaths have only moved from 622 to 814. Again - this doesn't necessarily speak for the properties of the virus, as this can be explained by 'what age group is primarily hit by the infection waves', and 'people have been vaccinated since then' - but even so, the mortality rate seems lower than it used to be. I also understand that this is a more common way for viruses to evolve. Insofar as a virus has 'a goal', it's to maximize infection. Killing the host isn't a good way of accomplishing that, so, 'more infectious but less deadly' seems like a more common mutation (at least for becoming a dominant strain) than 'more infectious and more deadly'. Of course, it can happen that we get both, and the more covid spreads, the more likely it is that we get more different mutations. | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
On September 01 2021 17:29 Magic Powers wrote: Viruses don't evolve, they mutate randomly. As more virus is in circulation, the chance of a mutation increases. Some of those mutations are meaningful, and we call a meaningful mutation a new "strain". If you want to know how we label a given mutation as a new strain, feel free to ask. Well, basically jumping ahead, some scientists started to call "Lambda" so I think it is a meaningful mutation ... that was not that important! We have been observing flu viruses and their properties for many decades. We know quite well how dangerous and infectious they are. Of course we can't predict the outcome of a random event like a mutation. We're not clairvoyant. But we can analyze the new strains when they appear. Yeah well, that is the point (that you are turning around on me). Tell me: Could the next 10 meaningful covid mutation be less dangerous then the Delta variant? If yes, why are you crying about mutations!? Let's wait for number 11! Flu vaccines are quite effective, but it depends on the type of flu. Also, we mainly need to worry about the more dangerous flu strains. Furthermore, since the flu is largely endemic and most flu strains weren't typically life threatening, there wasn't a great incentive to combat it as strongly as sars-cov-2. Quote from the CDC: "In general, current flu vaccines tend to work better against influenza B and influenza A(H1N1) viruses and offer lower protection against influenza A(H3N2) viruses." https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm I admit, I read the wikipedia for it. Maybe everything is wrong there: > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grippeimpfung#Wirksamkeit And while highly different things are mentioned, but for my eye I often read something about "gering" (minor) or numbers way below 50% effectivity. Curevac pulled their Covid-vaccine, because they only got 47% effectivity. Hell, bring it on! Still better than most flu vaccines... Just recently I posted that the death rate of covid-19 has increased by a factor of 2 since December 2020. We went from ~1.5 million dead to ~4.5 million dead over roughly the same timespan. The numbers alone disprove you. That is not how math works! Take a disease that kills 1% of all infected. 1.000.000 persons get it. So, 10.000 people die. Now take a disease that kills 1% of all infected. But 10.000.000 get it. So 100.000 die! I thought we were clear, that Delta is much more infectious then Gamma (or what was the "name" of the dominant pre-Delta variant?). Of course more people will die, if more people get it! Actually, because the deaths "only" doubled and I think Delta was more than double infectious... sounds that it is not that harmful... But also quite a "few" more young people got it and they don't die that often from it and ... well we can't really compare the numbers like that directly! | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 01 2021 18:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I understand 'death rate' to be 'how many people die from covid relative to how many are infected' - not 'how many people die from covid'. From that perspective, the death rate of covid has not increased, rather it has slightly decreased, because the amount of infected has increased a similar amount - or actually, by even more. Because indeed, from the start of december until today, the amount of dead has moved from 1.6 mill to 4.5 mill. (2.8 times more) But the amount of infected has changed from 65 million to 218 million. (3.3 times more) I'm guessing this might be explained more by people being vaccinated and more testing than by the virus changing properties to become less deadly, but 'the numbers' don't indicate that the mortality rate has increased, just that it is way more contagious than it used to be. Looking at Norway, a country where the health care system has never been overrun and where we have pretty high vaccination rates, we had 36000 confirmed infections december 1st 2020, now it's 160000. Deaths have moved from 334 to 814 in the same period of time - showing that far fewer people have died relative to the amount of infections. If I cherry pick even more, I can see that the amount of confirmed infections has doubled since march, but deaths have only moved from 622 to 814. Again - this doesn't necessarily speak for the properties of the virus, as this can be explained by 'what age group is primarily hit by the infection waves', and 'people have been vaccinated since then' - but even so, the mortality rate seems lower than it used to be. I also understand that this is a more common way for viruses to evolve. Insofar as a virus has 'a goal', it's to maximize infection. Killing the host isn't a good way of accomplishing that, so, 'more infectious but less deadly' seems like a more common mutation (at least for becoming a dominant strain) than 'more infectious and more deadly'. Of course, it can happen that we get both, and the more covid spreads, the more likely it is that we get more different mutations. Yes, the death rate (fatality rate) and the IFR (infection fatality rate) are not the same. The reason why I referred to the death rate and not IFR is because the claim I addressed was that of living with the virus being a viable option and therefore relaxation being a good idea - it clearly is not a good option as shown by the two-fold increase in the death rate. We've had numerous extended lockdowns in many countries, and yet somehow the global death rate has not gone down but instead up. And currently, even in many countries that had previously brought down infections and deaths by use of lockdowns, infections are yet again heavily increasing, and with it also deaths, further proving that relaxation right now would come at the completely wrong time. As you correctly point out, the increasing global death rate is a result of the global infection rate also increasing. This results in an increased number of mutations. You're correctly saying that a more severe mutation of sars-cov-2 becomes more likely as the virus keeps spreading. So not only are we still seeing far too many deaths but also far too many infections, both being a major problem for various reasons. "Letting it rip" is the worst policy we could implement right now, and that's what I'm trying to explain. The best policy was and still is to minimize the spread of the virus. Nothing has changed in that regard. This is why I've always said we shouldn't bet everything on lockdowns and vaccines. We're seeing that new waves pop up again and again as regions keep reopening, like clockwork. For someone to ignore this issue and think that we're going to enter an endemic period anytime soon is to ignore what the data clearly shows. PS: Moving forward I'm not going to address any of your claims anymore @Geisterkarle I've lost all patience with you as you not only refuse to acknowledge the facts but you also frequently skip over comments (or forget the content) that have already addressed and refuted claims you make soon after. This is a level of laziness and ignorance that I'm not equipped to handle. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5678 Posts
On September 01 2021 07:30 Slydie wrote: As a person who likes statistics, vaccines are a no brainer if you go by the numbers. Surprisingly, UK and Spain had large recent waves of cases despite a high vaccine %, but the numbers of deaths and hospitalizations were much lower this time. The big question for me is, how and when do we return to normal life? Afaik, Denmark is the first country who said that October 1st, all COVID measures will end. What is the point chasing low numbers with mass testing and quarantines if the worst case scenario is similar to an average flu season? This is if the vaccine % is high enough. The recovery of our minds is going to take years! I don't think the downsides of inducing as much fear as possible through media were well reflected on. Even when the numbers are looking great, the Spanish government is sponsoring Facebook ads where they count historic deaths and cases, much of which happened a long time ago😠 There are a few things to consider. First, the recent wave in the UK was predominantly among people who were not fully vaccinated, i.e. the young people. They were not eligible for a long time because of a high uptake among older people. Secondly, it seems that the vaccine was quite effective in limiting the spread among the fully vaccinated, considering how much more infectious the Delta variant is compared to the Alpha. A person with Alpha infected 3-4 people on average. With Delta is around 5-8. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
For those who didn't follow what happened: NZ responded with a quick nationwide lockdown after only one man (!) tested positive for the Delta variant on August 17 (the first local infection since February). Originally intended to be a short lockdown, it was extended to August 27 nationwide and to August 31 in Auckland. If daily infections continue to decline, it would speak volumes about what the best approach likely is, seeing that NZ was free of lockdowns for 6 consecutive months. We'll have to wait and see what develops. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On September 01 2021 20:07 Magic Powers wrote: You can't compare NZ to basically anywhere else.New Zealand is currently seeing a sharp decline in daily infections. It might be variance since it's only been two consecutive days, so I'm not going to draw any conclusions quite yet, but I'm having high hopes. It's been only two weeks since the most recent lockdown. For those who didn't follow what happened: NZ responded with a quick nationwide lockdown after only one man (!) tested positive for the Delta variant on August 17 (the first local infection since February). Originally intended to be a short lockdown, it was extended to August 27 nationwide and to August 31 in Auckland. If daily infections continue to decline, it would speak volumes about what the best approach likely is, seeing that NZ was free of lockdowns for 6 consecutive months. We'll have to wait and see what develops. Its a tiny island that is reasonable self sufficient. Its ability to lock down and prevent any covid infection from entering is not applicable anywhere else that isn't also a self sufficient island... | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 01 2021 20:51 Gorsameth wrote: You can't compare NZ to basically anywhere else. Its a tiny island that is reasonable self sufficient. Its ability to lock down and prevent any covid infection from entering is not applicable anywhere else that isn't also a self sufficient island... I've heard this claim a lot but not once have I seen someone post a source to back it up. I've never asked for a source before, but I will this time. Would you do us the favor? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On September 01 2021 20:59 Magic Powers wrote: You want a source that its easier to isolate an island in the the Pacific ocean then a continental country with hundreds of roads leading in?I've heard this claim a lot but not once have I seen someone post a source to back it up. I've never asked for a source before, but I will this time. Would you do us the favor? what? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28714 Posts
I guess you can look here: http://www.fao.org/3/i2493e/i2493e03.pdf According to this, New Zealand is #5 in the world in terms of being self-sufficient calorie wise, with them producing 185% of their caloric intake. Weird seeing Norway on the bottom of a list for once. :D Anyway, it's 10 years old but I don't think much has changed. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8764 Posts
On September 01 2021 21:08 Gorsameth wrote: You want a source that its easier to isolate an island in the the Pacific ocean then a continental country with hundreds of roads leading in? what? dont be surprised. hes the same guy that didnt realise "traffic" in the context of covid wasnt a reference to ground based vehicles on roads. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 01 2021 21:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm guessing you're not asking for a map of the world, but a source for New Zealand being self sufficient? I guess you can look here: http://www.fao.org/3/i2493e/i2493e03.pdf According to this, New Zealand is #5 in the world in terms of being self-sufficient calorie wise, with them producing 185% of their caloric intake. Weird seeing Norway on the bottom of a list for once. :D Anyway, it's 10 years old but I don't think much has changed. What I'm asking for is evidence for (lack of) self-sufficiency being the reason why other countries can't follow NZ's example of swift, targeted lockdowns to prevent outbreaks and quickly return to normal. That's not a claim I've seen good evidence for so far. Self-sufficiency may be an intuitively valid point, but the claim that NZ's approach can't work in many other countries is pure speculation, because it doesn't follow from self-sufficiency. I'm not talking about closed borders, I'm talking about border control coupled with a quick lockdown when a dangerous strain is discovered. We're already seeing the huge consequences of not responding quickly (or even doing nothing in some cases). This is not a sustainable approach. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28714 Posts
| ||
| ||
