EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 450
| 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. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
We have data available for experts to make models to determine what previous curves would have looked like with delta variant, but overall, Joe Shmoe who doesn't work in computational epidemiology should not be saying anything about comparing 2021Aug to 2020Aug. It is hard to understate just how big a deal it is for Delta variant to be 300x the viral load in the early stages of infection. We would be soooooooo fucked if this is what we were dealing with in 2020March. It is very likely that masks basically don't work indoors for unvaxed-unvaxed transmission, though decreasing the viral load from masks of course improves the outcome of unvaxed folks. Infection is a differential equation. Your starting conditions matter. The unvaxed folks are soooo lucky smart people are getting vaccinated. I likely saved lives by being vaccinated. Edit: Another thing worth mentioning is that some academic circles are rejecting covid death statistics for the reasons JimmiC described. Its really just terrible data, especially in Florida, Texas and New York. A much better statistic to use is "excess deaths" compared to 2019/2018. It paints a much clearer picture. There are some issues with it, but very small ones, and it is way better than the garbage data we have from the CDC and individual states. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4428 Posts
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-01/victoria-covid-cases-lockdown-melbourne-restrictions/100423686 Playgrounds will reopen with QR codes and age limits There will be minimal easings on Friday, when playgrounds will reopen, but only for children under 12 with only one parent or carer. The government said adults "should not remove their masks to eat or drink" and QR codes would be provided at playgrounds. Authorities anticipate reaching the 70 per cent first-dose threshold for Victorians aged 16 and older by around September 23. After that threshold is reached, the 5-kilometre travel limit will expand to 10 kilometres and outdoor exercise will also be allowed for three hours with personal training permitted. Construction will also be allowed to operate at 50 per cent capacity once 90 per cent of workers have had one jab. So even after 70% vaxx target reached the lockdown continues, just with a change from 5km travel limit to 10km and you can have 3 hours exercise instead of one hour. Envy of the world! | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
> https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/long-covid-much-more-than-you-wanted Papers, links, interpretation, further links, ... knock yourselves out! | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18365 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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.. 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. While I agree with the general sentiment that geisterkarle is staggeringly wrong in his understanding of evolution, it is also not right to counter that with that viruses don't evolve. Viruses obviously *do* evolve, and mutation is the way that evolution happens. The problem is that many people think evolution has some sort of purpose, or for that matter, viruses have some type of agency. That the coronavirus exists to make people sick (and thereby spread). But that is the wrong way of understanding such "simple" natural processes. Similarly, evolution in viruses (or anywhere else) doesn't have any purpose. It isn't trying to make viruses better at spreading, more (or less) deadly, or anything else. Evolution is simply a stochastic process (I initially wrote "optimization" here, but honestly that assumes there is something to optimize, and there really isn't)! So lets start with "what is a virus"? A virus is nothing more and nothing less than an instruction manual on how to produce more instruction manuals. Why does it exist? Well, random chance, I guess. But why is it *good* at what it does? Because all instruction manuals that give *bad* instructions on how to build more instruction manuals are no longer around. In other words, in evolutionary terms, an instruction manual that gives *good* instructions on how to produce more instruction manuals outcompetes those instruction manuals that give *bad* instructions. The only ones that still exist are those that give good instructions. Now if it were impossible to produce copies of instruction manuals, or no piece of RNA/DNA had been randomly configured to instruct processes to create copies, then we wouldn't be talking about viruses at all. But this goes back all the way to the beginnings of life: all humans are, are *really* sophisticated engines for producing copies of our instruction manuals. So viruses don't have a purpose. They just float around, and if they happen to get read by the right type of cell, then that cell produces copies of that virus. This is where evolution starts to really kick off. Evolution as we should understand it is not about survival. It is simply statistics. Survival is a by-product. If two instruction manuals exist in the same cell with very slightly different instructions on how to produce copies of themselves, and one is very slightly better at producing copies of itself, then when the cell dies, there will be more copies of the manual that was slightly better at reproducing than of the other one. Those that are slightly better will therefore be picked up by slightly more cells and produce even more copies. Because instruction manuals have a high mortality rate, soon all of those that were slightly worse at copying themselves have died off and only those that were slightly better still exist. *THAT* is what survival of the fittest means. Not that there is some drive to be a better virus. Just that by pure random chance it is more likely for fitter specimens to reproduce. There are obviously very many ways of "being fit" and this is where words like evolutionary pressure come in. A virus can be fitter by simply giving faster instructions on how to reproduce itself. Or it could be fitter by increasing its chances of being picked up by the type of cell that will create the copies. Or it could be fitter by having some protection against the processes that cause it to die (either inside a body or outside). or it could be fitter by being able to be reproduced by more different types of cells (e.g. human cells and pangolin cells, but also just human blood cells and also human lung tissue cells). Furthermore, because of the *randomness* of this whole process, it is also possible that by pure chance at some times there will be significant populations of viruses that are not actually fitter. They survived due to being luckier. That will absolutely happen. Because we don't have complete information on what makes a virus fit or not (there are wayyyy too many factors that go into that), we can only look "a posteriori" at what strains of viruses have a significant population and try to figure out if these are strains that we need to be concerned about. Moreover, increasing likelihood of reproducing and propensity to make us sick are not even necessarily connected. So a mutation could make the coronavirus "fitter", but of less concern to us! | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 02 2021 10:59 Mohdoo wrote:The unvaxed folks are soooo lucky smart people are getting vaccinated. I likely saved lives by being vaccinated. Correct. Vaccination protects oneself, but also others, and this serves mainly unvaccinated people. This way they're getting somewhat of an indirect (albeit much less effective) dose of vaccination. Frustratingly, people are trying to downplay this fact by stating that it's not true with the Delta variant. That may or may not be the case, but Delta is not and won't always be the only/main variant in circulation. Furthermore, only breakthrough cases carry a chance of transmission to unvaccinated people, and those breakthrough cases are rare. So even with the Delta variant the picture is very clear: each vaccination saves lives, plural. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On September 02 2021 17:39 Magic Powers wrote: Correct. Vaccination protects oneself, but also others, and this serves mainly unvaccinated people. This way they're getting somewhat of an indirect (albeit much less effective) dose of vaccination. Frustratingly, people are trying to downplay this fact by stating that it's not true with the Delta variant. That may or may not be the case, but Delta is not and won't always be the only/main variant in circulation. Furthermore, only breakthrough cases carry a chance of transmission to unvaccinated people, and those breakthrough cases are rare. So even with the Delta variant the picture is very clear: each vaccination saves lives, plural. It's honestly really frustrating to see vaccines labelled as a bad thing. Even in breakthrough cases, they are less sick and sick for less time. Like on an odds basis, ~7/8 times a vaccinated individual escapes a Covid encounter unscathed and uninfected (based on case rates assuming equal risk profiles between the two groups). If you're vaccinated yourself, and it multiplies through that's a 1/64 chance of catching it from another vaccinated person, even if viral load is unchanged from unvaccinated to vaccinated. They're also going to be sick for less time even if they catch it, so at half illness duration that's now like 1/128. Even if half the time a vaccinated individual ia infected they are asymptomatic, that's still a 1/32 risk reduction, which is still easily enough to stop Delta. I welcome the vaccine passport because quite frankly if enforcement is coming, it means the end of worrying about it in most public places. | ||
|
Slydie
1984 Posts
On September 02 2021 18:47 Amui wrote: It's honestly really frustrating to see vaccines labelled as a bad thing. Even in breakthrough cases, they are less sick and sick for less time. Like on an odds basis, ~7/8 times a vaccinated individual escapes a Covid encounter unscathed and uninfected (based on case rates assuming equal risk profiles between the two groups). If you're vaccinated yourself, and it multiplies through that's a 1/64 chance of catching it from another vaccinated person, even if viral load is unchanged from unvaccinated to vaccinated. They're also going to be sick for less time even if they catch it, so at half illness duration that's now like 1/128. Even if half the time a vaccinated individual ia infected they are asymptomatic, that's still a 1/32 risk reduction, which is still easily enough to stop Delta. I welcome the vaccine passport because quite frankly if enforcement is coming, it means the end of worrying about it in most public places. I am generally against vaccine passports for anything except international travel. Here in Spain, there was a debate about requiring them to enter a bar or restaurant, but requiring waiters to check that and be legally responsable if the screw up was not a realistic option. Fortuately, when people get their shots anyway, it isn't really necessary, and otherwise, it creates unfair divides in the population for the ones who did not have it offered yet. If there is a need to put preasure on people, I guess passports can work out well. At one point, whenever I saw someone looking younger than 30 my first thought of them was "UNVACCINATED". This pandemic has done strange things to my brain... | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5606 Posts
On September 02 2021 17:39 Magic Powers wrote: So even with the Delta variant the picture is very clear: each vaccination saves lives, plural. Since we are approaching 6 billion administered vaccine doses, that must mean that the vaccine has saved the entire population of the world. That's amazing!! | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 02 2021 20:58 Elroi wrote: Since we are approaching 6 billion administered vaccine doses, that must mean that the vaccine has saved the entire population of the world. That's amazing!! People are spread out around much of the globe. Vaccination rates are not equal in every country, and also not equal in every region within every country. Secondly, ~27% of the global population has been fully vaccinated. A further ~13% has been partially vaccinated. This is not enough to fully protect every individual. As time goes by, people will continue to be exposed to the virus and therefore continue to run the risk of infection again and again and again. Just because lives have been saved up to this point doesn't mean the same lives will continue to be saved later. This is exactly why booster shots are important, and why it's especially important that unvaccinated people get vaccinated. | ||
|
Slydie
1984 Posts
On September 02 2021 21:17 Magic Powers wrote: People are spread out around much of the globe. Vaccination rates are not equal in every country, and also not equal in every region within every country. Secondly, ~27% of the global population has been fully vaccinated. A further ~13% has been partially vaccinated. This is not enough to fully protect every individual. As time goes by, people will continue to be exposed to the virus and therefore continue to run the risk of infection again and again and again. Just because lives have been saved up to this point doesn't mean the same lives will continue to be saved later. This is exactly why booster shots are important, and why it's especially important that unvaccinated people get vaccinated. So what is better, booster shots or giving 2 shots to more people around the world? Once again, we are thinking mostly for ourselves, but maybe it is not all bad as poorer countries have a younger populations with persumably stronger immune systems due to less hygienic conditions. I am not sure if limiting the spread to avoid the risk of mutations holds too much merit at this point. The damage has been done and the virus is global. Fewer infections means less immunity, also in combination with vaccines. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 02 2021 21:28 Slydie wrote: So what is better, booster shots or giving 2 shots to more people around the world? Once again, we are thinking mostly for ourselves, but maybe it is not all bad as poorer countries have a younger populations with persumably stronger immune systems due to less hygienic conditions. I am not sure if limiting the spread to avoid the risk of mutations holds too much merit at this point. The damage has been done and the virus is global. Fewer infections means less immunity, also in combination with vaccines. This is a difficult question to answer because there are politics, logistics, ideologies, emotions, and a number of other interests and factors in play. If I had my way, I'd try to convince everyone to get vaccinated at least once and go from there as supply increases. Unfortunately this is not the reality of the situation, so I can't say what approach is best. Also, the best approach when the first vaccines got distributed may no longer be the best approach right now. I don't know if people in poorer countries have a better immune system. But I'm open to information, do you have sources on this? To your last point of "fewer infections = less immunity". That is technically true, but at the same time I don't consider it an improvement. Letting people get infected results in many other things besides wider ranging immunity, and the strongest argument so far has been that of hospitalizations and a clogged - or at worst overwhelmed - healthcare system. That's the first point that doctors bring up and I consider that alone to be a sufficient counter argument. The idea of letting people get infected is - in my opinion - not solution-oriented. At best I consider it the acceptance of one of several possible evils. I'm open to hearing better approaches than my own, but I'm not interested in worse ones. We should weigh every approach against all others and see which ones are the most likely to end the pandemic. And the way I see it, every argument must be based on existing data and concrete observations, while speculation should come last. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5186 Posts
This obviously extends to human behavior. So no matter how hard you try, how convincing you become, there will always be some percentage that will not comply. Try to get as many people vaccinated as possible, but don't get to an ends justifying the means situation because that just begs for yet another fracture in society. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On September 02 2021 23:30 Uldridge wrote: I think a good thing to keep in mind, as Acrofales mentioned, is that biology is statistical. This obviously extends to human behavior. So no matter how hard you try, how convincing you become, there will always be some percentage that will not comply. Try to get as many people vaccinated as possible, but don't get to an ends justifying the means situation because that just begs for yet another fracture in society. I fully agree, all vaccinations should be voluntary. I wouldn't want to live under a government that has the power and the will to force its citizens into any medical procedure. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Amumoman
153 Posts
On September 03 2021 00:57 JimmiC wrote: Vaccination laws used to be very common, small pox is thr big one. Im not sure we need to go there or even should. I do however support the passport system where you either have to be vaccinated or jump through a bunch of hoops to use non essential services. I also think it completely makes sense to have increased costs for health/life insurance the same way we have with smoking for a long time. People should have choice but they should shoulder the responsibilty for those choices, it shouldnt be individual choice and soiciety shoulders the responibility and costs (not just financial) for those choices. Imagine being so arrogant and hubristic as to think one is in a position to decree what is or is not an essential service for someone else. You people are truly something else | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18365 Posts
On September 03 2021 05:01 Amumoman wrote: Imagine being so arrogant and hubristic as to think one is in a position to decree what is or is not an essential service for someone else. You people are truly something else There's probably a grey area, but bars, theatre, concerts, cinemas and clubs are definitely not essential for anyone. Nor is the sport school or a whole range of shops. I don't think it's crazy to expect people who want to partake in such leisure activities to not put the other people there in more danger than they need to. In other words, be vaccinated. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Amumoman
153 Posts
On September 03 2021 05:22 Acrofales wrote: There's probably a grey area, but bars, theatre, concerts, cinemas and clubs are definitely not essential for anyone. Nor is the sport school or a whole range of shops. I don't think it's crazy to expect people who want to partake in such leisure activities to not put the other people there in more danger than they need to. In other words, be vaccinated. Apologies! I didnt realize you were the definitive authority on all matters regarding what is essential and what is merely leisure. Oh joy; whenever there’s a dispute, we can simply turn to you and we shall know the Truth. As for your second paragraph, that’s an interesting argument. Now let us apply your logic to things not vaccination. Should people whose immune system is deemed too weak not be allowed to partake in leisure activities? Should people whose efforts in strengthening their immune system (life style choices) are found wanting not be allowed? Here’s an idea: how about you find likeminded people who value safety (or the illusion of it anyway) over liberty and then you can agree as a community to do things as you see fit - instead of calling for the imposition of your appalling anti-human nonsense with coersion and violence like a machiavellian psychopath? | ||
| ||
