"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

[Worldtraveller]

As of today:
5.6 million cases
174 thousand deaths.

We've killed off the equivalent of a small US city, and so many people are shrugging as if it's nothing. That's almost 60 '9/11' disasters in a few months.

Compare the response to 9/11 a one off event, to the pandemic, the government's, the media's, and the people. I wish it only killed those that downplay it, but it's a danger to everyone.

 

[George S]

As of today:
5.6 million cases
174 thousand deaths.

We've killed off the equivalent of a small US city, and so many people are shrugging as if it's nothing. That's almost 60 '9/11' disasters in a few months.

Compare the response to 9/11 a one off event, to the pandemic, the government's, the media's, and the people. I wish it only killed those that downplay it, but it's a danger to everyone.

My computer model I wrote (and remember every model has flaws) predicts 250,000 at herd immunity in the US. Regardless of PPE. If the lockdown continues herd immunity will be postponed.
Yes, that is a lot of people. Almost triple the annual flu death count [which is very low this year (perhaps because some who would have died of flu died of COVID)]. The number who have died due to depression and suicide due to lockdown is unknown, but the numbers are up. No one knows about how the loss of economic activity will have affected things in the long term. Poverty kills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As of today:
5.6 million cases
174 thousand deaths.

We've killed off the equivalent of a small US city, and so many people are shrugging as if it's nothing. That's almost 60 '9/11' disasters in a few months.

Compare the response to 9/11 a one off event, to the pandemic, the government's, the media's, and the people. I wish it only killed those that downplay it, but it's a danger to everyone.

My computer model I wrote (and remember every model has flaws) predicts 250,000 at herd immunity in the US. Regardless of PPE. If the lockdown continues herd immunity will be postponed.
Yes, that is a lot of people. Almost triple the annual flu death count [which is very low this year (perhaps because some who would have died of flu died of COVID)]. The number who have died due to depression and suicide due to lockdown is unknown, but the numbers are up. No one knows about how the loss of economic activity will have affected things in the long term. Poverty kills.

You've posted a lot of bad data here, why should we think your model is any more accurate? Herd immunity is probably at 10x the number you state and with tens of millions with lasting damage.

 

[George S]

As of today:
5.6 million cases
174 thousand deaths.

We've killed off the equivalent of a small US city, and so many people are shrugging as if it's nothing. That's almost 60 '9/11' disasters in a few months.

Compare the response to 9/11 a one off event, to the pandemic, the government's, the media's, and the people. I wish it only killed those that downplay it, but it's a danger to everyone.

My computer model I wrote (and remember every model has flaws) predicts 250,000 [total deaths] at herd immunity in the US. Regardless of PPE. If the lockdown continues herd immunity will be postponed.
Yes, that is a lot of people. Almost triple the annual flu death count [which is very low this year (perhaps because some who would have died of flu died of COVID)]. The number who have died due to depression and suicide due to lockdown is unknown, but the numbers are up. No one knows about how the loss of economic activity will have affected things in the long term. Poverty kills.

You've posted a lot of bad data here, why should we think your model is any more accurate? Herd immunity is probably at 10x the number you state and with tens of millions with lasting damage.

Added a clarification in bold.

The herd immunity state I use is to model Sweden and NYC with approx 20% recovered. I used 30. It seems that up to 50% may have T-cell, not B-cell immunity. I used 40. No time specified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've posted a lot of bad data here, why should we think your model is any more accurate? Herd immunity is probably at 10x the number you state and with tens of millions with lasting damage.

Added a clarification in bold.

The herd immunity state I use is to model Sweden and NYC with approx 20% recovered. I used 30. It seems that up to 50% may have T-cell, not B-cell immunity. I used 40. No time specified.

Parts of Italy lost more than 1% of their total population. Why should we fare more than 10x better??

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think Trump and all his lovely followers should bypass the deep state and use Putin's vaccine. I'll wait on the deep state for approval, myself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...state-coronavirus-vaccine-tweet-a9683406.html

 

[bilby]

You've posted a lot of bad data here, why should we think your model is any more accurate? Herd immunity is probably at 10x the number you state and with tens of millions with lasting damage.

Added a clarification in bold.

The herd immunity state I use is to model Sweden and NYC with approx 20% recovered. I used 30. It seems that up to 50% may have T-cell, not B-cell immunity. I used 40. No time specified.

Parts of Italy lost more than 1% of their total population. Why should we fare more than 10x better??

CFR is at about 5% according to Worldometers. Closed cases at 22 August

Global:


USA:


That implies that if only 40% of Americans have to contract this disease in order to reach "herd immunity", then that goal entails six and a half million dead Americans.

Apparently some feel that this is a reasonable price to pay for a robust economy. Although how robust your economy will be with that many dead people is a question we should probably consider.

Perhaps it's time to buy some shares in undertakers, cemeteries, and coffin makers.

 

[crazyfingers]

Parts of Italy lost more than 1% of their total population. Why should we fare more than 10x better??

CFR is at about 5% according to Worldometers. Closed cases at 22 August



USA:


That implies that if only 40% of Americans have to contract this disease in order to reach "herd immunity", then that goal entails six and a half million dead Americans.

Apparently some feel that this is a reasonable price to pay for a robust economy. Although how robust your economy will be with that many dead people is a question we should probably consider.

Perhaps it's time to buy some shares in undertakers, cemeteries, and coffin makers.

6.4 million US deaths would be over 16 times the number of US military personnel killed in WWII.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Parts of Italy lost more than 1% of their total population. Why should we fare more than 10x better??

CFR is at about 5% according to Worldometers. Closed cases at 22 August

...
That implies that if only 40% of Americans have to contract this disease in order to reach "herd immunity", then that goal entails six and a half million dead Americans.

Apparently some feel that this is a reasonable price to pay for a robust economy. Although how robust your economy will be with that many dead people is a question we should probably consider.

Perhaps it's time to buy some shares in undertakers, cemeteries, and coffin makers.

I don't think it's really 5%, though--that's not counting a lot of mild cases.

 

[bilby]

Parts of Italy lost more than 1% of their total population. Why should we fare more than 10x better??

CFR is at about 5% according to Worldometers. Closed cases at 22 August

...
That implies that if only 40% of Americans have to contract this disease in order to reach "herd immunity", then that goal entails six and a half million dead Americans.

Apparently some feel that this is a reasonable price to pay for a robust economy. Although how robust your economy will be with that many dead people is a question we should probably consider.

Perhaps it's time to buy some shares in undertakers, cemeteries, and coffin makers.

I don't think it's really 5%, though--that's not counting a lot of mild cases.

Sure; Maybe it's 'only' 2.5% (3.3 million dead @ 40% exposed); or even just 1% (1.3 million dead).

I don't think you're really going to see herd immunity at only 40% infected, either. It's more likely double that. Or more. It's not even certain that herd immunity is possible.

 

[fromderinside]

As good a starting point as any I suppose.

“Herd Immunity”: A Rough Guide https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/7/911/299077?dom=prime&src=syn

Abstract: The term “herd immunity” is widely used but carries a variety of meanings [1–7]. Some authors use it to describe the proportion immune among individuals in a population. Others use it with reference to a particular threshold proportion of immune individuals that should lead to a decline in incidence of infection. Still others use it to refer to a pattern of immunity that should protect a population from invasion of a new infection. A common implication of the term is that the risk of infection among susceptible individuals in a population is reduced by the presence and proximity of immune individuals (this is sometimes referred to as “indirect protection” or a “herd effect”). We provide brief historical, epidemiologic, theoretical, and pragmatic public health perspectives on this concept.

Simple threshold concept of herd immunity. A, Relationship between the herd immunity threshold, (R₀ – 1)/R₀ = 1 − 1/R₀,and basic reproduction number, R₀, in a randomly mixing homogeneous population. Note the implications of ranges of R₀, which can vary considerably between populations [12], for ranges of immunity coverage required to exceed the threshold. B, Cumulative lifetime incidence of infection in unvaccinated individuals as a function of the level of random vaccine coverage of an entire population, as predicted by a simple susceptible-infected-recovered model for a ubiquitous infection with R₀ = 3 [13]. This assumes a 100% effective vaccine (E = 1). Note that the expected cumulative incidence is 0 if coverage is maintained above V_C = 1− 1/R₀ = 67%.

Other references give a more complete insight although the one I'm providing is a bit dated.

Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice http://www.assis.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/crude-herd-immunity.pdf

Introduction: Herd Immunity has to do with the protection of populations from infection whichis brought about by the presence of immuneindividuals. The concept has a special aura,in its implication of an extension of the protection imparted by an immunization program beyond vaccinated to unvaccinated individuals and in its apparent provision of ameans to eliminate totally some infectiousdiseases. It is a recurrent theme in the medical literature and has been discussed frequently during the past decade. This newpopularity comes as a consequence of several recent major achievements of vaccination programs, i.e.: the historic success ofthe global smallpox eradication program;dramatic increases in vaccination coveragestimulated by national programs and by theExpanded Programme on Immunization; thecommitment of several countries to eradicate measles; and international dedication toeliminate neonatal tetanus and to eradicatepoliomyelitis from the world by the year2000.'

I think you'll find some of the tables (four and five) and figures (4 and 6) in this paper enlightening vis a vis the current virus.

Some of the material in these (1993 and 2011) studies might have just come hot off the presses today.

 

[angelo]

Sweden has tried herd immunity. It hasn't shown that it works by a long, long way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think it's really 5%, though--that's not counting a lot of mild cases.

Sure; Maybe it's 'only' 2.5% (3.3 million dead @ 40% exposed); or even just 1% (1.3 million dead).

I don't think you're really going to see herd immunity at only 40% infected, either. It's more likely double that. Or more. It's not even certain that herd immunity is possible.

Herd immunity can occur at low percentages if we are serious about trying to stop this. Get really serious about masks and we could have herd immunity at 0%.

I do not expect this to happen until the Democrats control all three branches, though, and even then it's far from certain. The GOP won't even try, a million or two dead is better than addressing this properly.

 

[lpetrich]

Asymptomatic people with coronavirus may hold the key to ending the pandemic - The Washington Post - "New research suggests that some of us may be partially protected due to past encounters with common cold coronaviruses"

Something like Edward Jenner's discovering that cowpox protects against smallpox.

Journal paper: Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans | Science

Back to the WP.

The different teams hypothesized this could be due to previous exposure to similar pathogens. Perhaps fortuitously, SARS-CoV-2 is part of a large family of viruses. Two of them — SARS and MERS — are deadly and led to relatively brief and contained outbreaks. Four other coronavirus variants, which cause the common cold, circulate widely each year but typically result in only mild symptoms. Sette calls them the “less-evil cousins of SARS-CoV-2.”

This week, Sette and others from the team reported new research in Science providing evidence the T cell responses may derive in part from memory of “common cold” coronaviruses.

“The immune system is basically a memory machine,” he said. “It remembers and fights back stronger.”

Interestingly, the researchers noted in their paper, the strongest reaction they saw was against the spike proteins that the virus uses to gain access to cells — suggesting that fewer viral copies get past these defenses.

“The current model assumes you are either protected or you are not — that it’s a yes or no thing,” Sette added. “But if some people have some level of preexisting immunity, that may suggest it’s not a switch but more continuous.”

As to why the pre-existing immunity has such hit-and-miss responses to the new coronavirus, I think that it is a consequence of how the immune system works.

It has two parts, an innate part and an adaptive part. The innate part is at least as old as the ancestral bilaterian, while the adaptive part originated in some early jawed fish. The adaptive part works by doing trial and error with antibody proteins to find which one matches with some antigen, something that provokes an immune response. This matching is not absolutely strict, but it was optimized for one particular antigen and not others, so which others it sticks to is a matter of luck.

 

[lpetrich]

A rather curious issue is cross-vaccine protection.

They knew that the vaccine for smallpox, for example, had been shown to protect against measles and whooping cough. Today, a number of existing vaccines are being studied to see if any might offer cross-protection against SARS-CoV-2.

The results were intriguing: Seven types of vaccines given one, two or five years in the past were associated with having a lower rate of infection with the new coronavirus. Two vaccines in particular seemed to show stronger links: People who got a pneumonia vaccine in the recent past appeared to have a 28 percent reduction in coronavirus risk. Those who got polio vaccines had a 43 percent reduction in risk.

How does that work? Do many viruses have similar infection mechanisms?

Before the pandemic, Gandhi, the University of California researcher, specialized in HIV. But like other infectious-disease experts these days, she has spent many of her waking hours thinking about the coronavirus. And in scrutinizing the data on outbreaks one day, she noticed what might be a pattern: People were wearing masks in the settings with the highest percentage of asymptomatic cases.

...
The scientific literature on viral dose goes back to around 1938 when scientists began to find evidence that being exposed to one copy of a virus is more easily overcome than being exposed to a billion copies. Researchers refer to the infectious dose as ID50 — or the dose at which 50 percent of the population would become infected.

So even if masks aren't 100% effective, they are good for lowering doses of the virus. That makes them less likely to be troublesome - either no infection or an asymptomatic one.

As for finding the ID50 dose for COVID-19, I propose some possible volunteers: lockdown protesters and mask protesters. Since they are so very willing to expose themselves to the virus, then they might be willing to receive controlled doses of it.

A study published in late May involving hamsters, masks and SARS-CoV-2 found those given coverings had milder cases than those who did not get them.

In an article published this month in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Gandhi noted that in some outbreaks early in the pandemic in which most people did not wear masks, 15 percent of the infected were asymptomatic. But later on, when people began wearing masks, the rate of asymptomatic people was 40 to 45 percent.

She said the evidence points to masks not just protecting others — as U.S. health officials emphasize — but protecting the wearer as well. Gandhi makes the controversial argument that while we’ve mostly talked about asymptomatic infections as terrifying due to how people can spread the virus unwittingly, it could end up being a good thing.

“It is an intriguing hypothesis that asymptomatic infection triggering immunity may lead us to get more population-level immunity,” Gandhi said. “That itself will limit spread.”

Surgical Mask Partition Reduces the Risk of Noncontact Transmission in a Golden Syrian Hamster Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic

Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer | SpringerLink

 

[fromderinside]

Any mechanism that prohibits virus from infecting can be seen a herd action since it requires participation of a very significant majority of the population over the period the virus is present. China used isolation, masks, and sanitation applied nearly universally. What remains is for them to assure outside invasions of virus are stifled.

Had they assured no chinese or visitors left china under those conditions the virus probably would now be history. The error was in local authorities hiding the virus - a common problem in closed societies - from central authorities at the beginning. Democracies probably could never have managed that trick even with full openness of problem. Not a knock on democracies. Just a statement of a small weakness in them vis a vis control.

I would argue that a corrupt or poorly lead democracy is inferior to an enlightened closed society in health. Not that China is an enlightened society by any stretch, nor that health is the lynch pin for society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A rather curious issue is cross-vaccine protection.

How does that work? Do many viruses have similar infection mechanisms?

So even if masks aren't 100% effective, they are good for lowering doses of the virus. That makes them less likely to be troublesome - either no infection or an asymptomatic one.

As for finding the ID50 dose for COVID-19, I propose some possible volunteers: lockdown protesters and mask protesters. Since they are so very willing to expose themselves to the virus, then they might be willing to receive controlled doses of it.

A study published in late May involving hamsters, masks and SARS-CoV-2 found those given coverings had milder cases than those who did not get them.

In an article published this month in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Gandhi noted that in some outbreaks early in the pandemic in which most people did not wear masks, 15 percent of the infected were asymptomatic. But later on, when people began wearing masks, the rate of asymptomatic people was 40 to 45 percent.

She said the evidence points to masks not just protecting others — as U.S. health officials emphasize — but protecting the wearer as well. Gandhi makes the controversial argument that while we’ve mostly talked about asymptomatic infections as terrifying due to how people can spread the virus unwittingly, it could end up being a good thing.

“It is an intriguing hypothesis that asymptomatic infection triggering immunity may lead us to get more population-level immunity,” Gandhi said. “That itself will limit spread.”

Surgical Mask Partition Reduces the Risk of Noncontact Transmission in a Golden Syrian Hamster Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic

Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer | SpringerLink

I'm curious about these rates of reduction. I keep seeing 20 to 35% reduction rates for all sorts of things, which just seems weird. It feels like something else is at play for the reduction.

 

[southernhybrid]

I've also read that those who have asymptomatic cases of COVid are more likely to become infected again. There is still so much that we don't understand about this particular virus, that it's hard to come to any conclusions. Of course, a lot depends on the amount of the viral load. That probably explains why so many health care professional haven very sick or have died. They are constantly exposed to a very high viral load, assuming they work directly with COVID patients and many haven't received adequate PPE. Someone who rarely goes out and always wears a mask in the grocery store isn't going to be exposed to a high viral load. That is why most cases come from parties, churches, bars and restaurants, where people are inside in close proximity. I know of a man who died after catching COVID at church. He was the father in law of a friend of mine.

Right now, Oxford and Astrazeneca are starting up the third trial of a vaccine. It only needs to be 50% effective to be considered a success. But, we don't know if this virus will be like seasonal flu or if a vaccine will be a one time thing. I suspect it may be more like seasonal flu, but of course, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

Flu vaccines are often only about 50% effective, so that may be the best we can hope for. The vaccine that is being tested needs two doses. That's another issue that will make it harder to protect enough people. Some people won't be willing to take the second dose if they experience any untoward side effects from the first dose. Plus, we have so many people in the US who refuse all vaccines.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/world/covid-19-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#link-9b4e96e

A Minnesota man is the first person known to have died of Covid-19 after attending the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota last month, a 10-day event where hundreds of thousands of people gathered, many showing little attention to social distancing or mask wearing, and health officials worried it could become a superspreader event.

State health officials in Minnesota confirmed the death, saying the man was in his 60s and had underlying health conditions; he had been hospitalized for several weeks, they said.

South Dakota has seen sharp increases in coronavirus since the rally in Sturgis, a small town north of Rapid City in the western part of the state. And cases linked to the rally have been reported in as many as 12 other states; Minnesota alone has confirmed more than 50 cases traced back to the Sturgis rally, officials said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've also read that those who have asymptomatic cases of COVid are more likely to become infected again. There is still so much that we don't understand about this particular virus, that it's hard to come to any conclusions. Of course, a lot depends on the amount of the viral load. That probably explains why so many health care professional haven very sick or have died. They are constantly exposed to a very high viral load, assuming they work directly with COVID patients and many haven't received adequate PPE. Someone who rarely goes out and always wears a mask in the grocery store isn't going to be exposed to a high viral load. That is why most cases come from parties, churches, bars and restaurants, where people are inside in close proximity. I know of a man who died after catching COVID at church. He was the father in law of a friend of mine.

Right now, Oxford and Astrazeneca are starting up the third trial of a vaccine. It only needs to be 50% effective to be considered a success. But, we don't know if this virus will be like seasonal flu or if a vaccine will be a one time thing. I suspect it may be more like seasonal flu, but of course, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

Flu vaccines are often only about 50% effective, so that may be the best we can hope for. The vaccine that is being tested needs two doses. That's another issue that will make it harder to protect enough people. Some people won't be willing to take the second dose if they experience any untoward side effects from the first dose. Plus, we have so many people in the US who refuse all vaccines.

I thought flu vaccines lacked high effective rates because it was targeting a plethora of viruses... but in this case we are targeting one.