The Virus - Are You Affected?

[Derec]

You are wrong about herd immunity. It requires actual immunity, whether from an infection or a vaccine.

You are also wrong about R₀. R₀ is the initial (hence the naught) average number of people that each infected person infects. It is based on a population where everybody is susceptible, so herd immunity, be it from infections or vaccinations, cannot affect R₀. But masking, social distancing and such can.

So I think you have been conflating and mixing up some of the terms.

https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-r0-and-herd-immunity

Not sure what you are trying to say with the link since you posted it without comment. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Because the article you posted is saying exactly what I have about R₀ and the definition of herd immunity..

One caveat I have about it is that their calculation of herd immunity is based on a simplification that everybody in the population is equally likely to get COVID. But that is not the case. Some people (e.g. workers who interact with the public) have a higher chance of infection. They are therefore driving both the R₀ and the number who are no longer susceptible. The upshot is that herd immunity could be achieved with far less than 70% of people immune. Just by itself if we are talking natural immunity, and by prioritizing people who work in those jobs to receive the vaccine once one is approved.

 

[Derec]

The vast, VAST majority of people who contract Covid-19 recover unscathed.

That's not true. Many carry long-term consequences.

 

[Derec]

Started off (exactly a week ago) with severe headache, achey limbs, etc. At first I didn't notice the loss of smell and taste but there was that too. Then a bit of a cough. That's when I had the test (last Thursday) which turned out positive (last Friday). Since then, headache dwindled, as did cough, but there was a tightness in my chest for a few days. Now that has eased a lot.

I just self-isolated at home alone, took lots of vitamin D, vitamin C & zinc tablets, drank loads of water, and rested. I know I'm not necessarily out of the woods yet, but at least I'm currently getting better not worse. I'm to stay self-isolated until Saturday. I'm 60, so not exactly outside a risk group.

I have no idea where I caught it. I don't know anyone else who has it and I had a very quiet, indoors week prior, as regards mixing with other people. My best guess is that I got it while out shopping, by touching something someone else had touched.

There is some evidence that the level of exposure is correlated with disease severity. So if you got it through casual contact, chances are you didn't get nearly as many virions are if you had had prolonged contact with an infected person. So that should work in your favor.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are wrong about herd immunity. It requires actual immunity, whether from an infection or a vaccine.

You are also wrong about R₀. R₀ is the initial (hence the naught) average number of people that each infected person infects. It is based on a population where everybody is susceptible, so herd immunity, be it from infections or vaccinations, cannot affect R₀. But masking, social distancing and such can.

So I think you have been conflating and mixing up some of the terms.

https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-r0-and-herd-immunity

Not sure what you are trying to say with the link since you posted it without comment. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Because the article you posted is saying exactly what I have about R₀ and the definition of herd immunity..

One caveat I have about it is that their calculation of herd immunity is based on a simplification that everybody in the population is equally likely to get COVID. But that is not the case. Some people (e.g. workers who interact with the public) have a higher chance of infection. They are therefore driving both the R₀ and the number who are no longer susceptible. The upshot is that herd immunity could be achieved with far less than 70% of people immune. Just by itself if we are talking natural immunity, and by prioritizing people who work in those jobs to receive the vaccine once one is approved.

It's just an in depth explanation for how R0 works. It's a good article. I thought it was relevant in the discussion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The vast, VAST majority of people who contract Covid-19 recover unscathed.

That's not true. Many carry long-term consequences.

It depends what you mean by long term effects. About 60% report severe fatigue 21 days after illness onset. Because of lacking follow ups we don't know how long time that fatigue stays. But 3 months is a common number I've seen. How long is long in "long term" effects?

10-15% develop serious disease and need to be hospitalised. I personally think that 9/10 is arguably a vast majority. But not a vast VAST majority.

We have no idea how chronic their damages end up being since we have litterally no statistically significant data long enough to know.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...e-36-long-term-symptoms.pdf?sfvrsn=5d3789a6_2

TSwizzle is talking out his ass.

 

[ruby sparks]

Started off (exactly a week ago) with severe headache, achey limbs, etc. At first I didn't notice the loss of smell and taste but there was that too. Then a bit of a cough. That's when I had the test (last Thursday) which turned out positive (last Friday). Since then, headache dwindled, as did cough, but there was a tightness in my chest for a few days. Now that has eased a lot.

I just self-isolated at home alone, took lots of vitamin D, vitamin C & zinc tablets, drank loads of water, and rested. I know I'm not necessarily out of the woods yet, but at least I'm currently getting better not worse. I'm to stay self-isolated until Saturday. I'm 60, so not exactly outside a risk group.

I have no idea where I caught it. I don't know anyone else who has it and I had a very quiet, indoors week prior, as regards mixing with other people. My best guess is that I got it while out shopping, by touching something someone else had touched.

There is some evidence that the level of exposure is correlated with disease severity. So if you got it through casual contact, chances are you didn't get nearly as many virions are if you had had prolonged contact with an infected person. So that should work in your favor.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking, and it makes sense, though I'm no expert. And luckily I'm fit & healthy with no underlying conditions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Started off (exactly a week ago) with severe headache, achey limbs, etc. At first I didn't notice the loss of smell and taste but there was that too. Then a bit of a cough. That's when I had the test (last Thursday) which turned out positive (last Friday). Since then, headache dwindled, as did cough, but there was a tightness in my chest for a few days. Now that has eased a lot.

I just self-isolated at home alone, took lots of vitamin D, vitamin C & zinc tablets, drank loads of water, and rested. I know I'm not necessarily out of the woods yet, but at least I'm currently getting better not worse. I'm to stay self-isolated until Saturday. I'm 60, so not exactly outside a risk group.

I have no idea where I caught it. I don't know anyone else who has it and I had a very quiet, indoors week prior, as regards mixing with other people. My best guess is that I got it while out shopping, by touching something someone else had touched.

There is some evidence that the level of exposure is correlated with disease severity. So if you got it through casual contact, chances are you didn't get nearly as many virions are if you had had prolonged contact with an infected person. So that should work in your favor.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking, and it makes sense, though I'm no expert. And luckily I'm fit & healthy with no underlying conditions.

Indoors moisture particles can be suspended in air for a long time. And if a lot of people are moving about it requires very little. That's why everybody indoors should have a mask at all times. Especially while shopping. Because that's the one place sick people, without a support system, might have to go to.

 

[bilby]

The vast, VAST majority of people who contract Covid-19 recover unscathed.

That's not true. Many carry long-term consequences.

It depends what you mean by long term effects. About 60% report severe fatigue 21 days after illness onset. Because of lacking follow ups we don't know how long time that fatigue stays. But 3 months is a common number I've seen. How long is long in "long term" effects?

10-15% develop serious disease and need to be hospitalised. I personally think that 9/10 is arguably a vast majority. But not a vast VAST majority.

We have no idea how chronic their damages end up being since we have litterally no statistically significant data long enough to know.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...e-36-long-term-symptoms.pdf?sfvrsn=5d3789a6_2

TSwizzle is talking out his ass.

From a social perspective, 'long term' incapacity becomes significant when your paid sick leave runs out, and you lose your job and, shortly afterward, your home.

So in the USA, "long term" is a lot shorter than it is in the developed world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to this, there are currently 43 candidates in phase 1 or 2. 11 are in phase 3.
Are you suggesting all of them are thought to be of very limited effectiveness?

You seem to equate non-sterilizing with partial and partial with ineffective. But we have very effective vaccines that are non-sterilizing.

No, partial means that it works some of the time. With the current Covid-19 candidates you can be vaccinated but then get sick anyway. Just like the common cold, or influenza, vaccines work today. They most often work. But not always. So even when vaccinated you might have to socially isolate anyway. This shit will continue. Perhaps permamently.

To complicate matters we have no research on how these vaccines interact. So if there's two vaccines that both give partial immunity that are overlapping, and would together give complete immunity. The combination might give rise to all manner of horrific side effects that we have no way of, currently, predicting. So no matter what happens we'll most likely have to put all our chips on one partial candidate and just run with that one. It's not an ideal situation.

The idiots refusing to wear masks make it more important for others to wear masks. The idiots refusing to take any vaccine will of course make all limitting and quarantining efforts prolonged.

I agree with you with wearing masks during a pandemic. Expecting people to continue wearing masks after it is not that beneficial.

If anybody using public transport would use a mask the prevalence of influenzas and common colds would plummet. That's just a fact and I'd argue beneficial. Regular influenzas kill tens of thousands of people each year. We should always have been wearing masks. It's just fucking stupid that we don't have that tradition already.

All the societies that had a MERS outbreak developed a culture where it became normal to wear masks even after the epidemic was defeated.

MERS mostly hit the Middle East (duh!)
I don't think there is a culture of mask wearing there, except for burqas.
I have seen a lot of everyday mask-wearing in East Asian countries though.

...and South Korea. It was after South Korea was hit by MERS that all of the Far East shifted to wearing more masks permanently. They already were more than in the West. Japan has had a culture of anybody with cold symptoms wears masks. But after MERS it expanded. And now with SARS-2 it'll be even more. I predict the same situation here.

Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian police state. They had no problems stamping it out. So it didn't effect the culture. Fun fact, Saudi Arabian camels are still carriers of MERS. It could come back any moment.

Masks aren't going anywhere. They will be the new normal.

I sure hope not!
At least in the US that is very unlikely. We can't get many people to wear masks even at the height of the pandemic. Imagine trying to get people here to wear them when there is no active pandemic? Fuggedaboutit! Germans are much more obedient as a people, not sure about you Swedes.

I'm not so sure. The non-mask wearing states have been hit hard by Covid-19. Mask wearing states will be spared. Non-mask wearing states are also poorer and with a fatter population. So will for that reason be even harder hit. There's just so much people can stick their heads in the sand. It might very well be the reverse effect. Those states against it now, will be the most extreme for it, when the opinion shifts towards masks.

 

[Jokodo]

No, partial means that it works some of the time.

And "some of the time" may well be good enough to stop the spread, or reduce it to a trickle. If previously, one infected person was infecting 2.5 people on average, and the vaccine works (even in the sense that a vaccinated person may develop light symptoms and have some virus reproduction, but not enough to become infectious themselves) only 70% of the time, one spreader now produces 0.75 instead of 2.5 new potential spreaders, and over time the virus is driven out of the population.

Sure, those people on whom it doesn't work at all will still have the same outcomes as before if they get infected, but their chance of getting infected becomes radically lower, and decreases over time.

Of course if it works only 50% of the time, the vaccine alone won't drive R below 1, but it's a question of the actual numbers. It is wrong to assume that a vaccine that doesn't work near 100% at the individual level cannot give near-perfect protection at the population level. The sum is greater than its parts, and epidemiology is not a subfield of studying how individuals react to a pathogen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, partial means that it works some of the time.

And "some of the time" may well be good enough to stop the spread, or reduce it to a trickle. If previously, one infected person was infecting 2.5 people on average, and the vaccine works (even in the sense that a vaccinated person may develop light symptoms and have some virus reproduction, but not enough to become infectious themselves) only 70% of the time, one spreader now produces 0.75 instead of 2.5 new potential spreaders, and over time the virus is driven out of the population.

Sure, those people on whom it doesn't work at all will still have the same outcomes as before if they get infected, but their chance of getting infected becomes radically lower, and decreases over time.

Of course if it works only 50% of the time, the vaccine alone won't drive R below 1, but it's a question of the actual numbers. It is wrong to assume that a vaccine that doesn't work near 100% at the individual level cannot give near-perfect protection at the population level. The sum is greater than its parts, and epidemiology is not a subfield of studying how individuals react to a pathogen.

Yes, I was just explaining that even with a vaccine we might have to continue to social distance and wear masks.

 

[Jokodo]

No, partial means that it works some of the time.

And "some of the time" may well be good enough to stop the spread, or reduce it to a trickle. If previously, one infected person was infecting 2.5 people on average, and the vaccine works (even in the sense that a vaccinated person may develop light symptoms and have some virus reproduction, but not enough to become infectious themselves) only 70% of the time, one spreader now produces 0.75 instead of 2.5 new potential spreaders, and over time the virus is driven out of the population.

Sure, those people on whom it doesn't work at all will still have the same outcomes as before if they get infected, but their chance of getting infected becomes radically lower, and decreases over time.

Of course if it works only 50% of the time, the vaccine alone won't drive R below 1, but it's a question of the actual numbers. It is wrong to assume that a vaccine that doesn't work near 100% at the individual level cannot give near-perfect protection at the population level. The sum is greater than its parts, and epidemiology is not a subfield of studying how individuals react to a pathogen.

Yes, I was just explaining that even with a vaccine we might have to continue to social distance and wear masks.

You were also insinuating that that logically follows from a vaccine being only partially effective.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I was just explaining that even with a vaccine we might have to continue to social distance and wear masks.

You were also insinuating that that logically follows from a vaccine being only partially effective.

Insinuating what?

 

[Rhea]

Am I affected? Watching the outbreak at my mother’s nursing home. I can’t imagine the pain for the workers. 75% of residents are covid positive, and 25% of workers. Almost 15% of residents now dead. My mother was Dx positive one week ago. So far she is doing ok. But it’s pretty dire at the facility.

 

[Derec]

Indoors moisture particles can be suspended in air for a long time.

Moisture particles light enough not stay suspended for several minutes or longer will also move around with air currents and random Brownian motion, so their concentration will decrease over time quite rapidly, making is unlikely that anybody would get an infectious dose of virions from just waking through the air previously occupied by an infected (and shedding) person.
Another issue is how long the virions can stay viable in that environment. Unlike bacteria, viruses have no metabolism. They can't repair their membrane or proteins such as the spike protein. Any damage from the environment (which might include salivary proteases) just keeps accumulating. I have seen research about how long these aerosols can stay suspended but I have not seen any research about what percentage of virions in these aerosol particles remain viable 2 or 5 minutes after aerosolization under normal indoor conditions.

And if a lot of people are moving about it requires very little. That's why everybody indoors should have a mask at all times. Especially while shopping. Because that's the one place sick people, without a support system, might have to go to.

Oh, I definitely wear my mask while shopping. But the point I was making is that the number of virus particles one may encounter is far less than being for an hour in a church, a classroom or at a Rose Garden SCOTUS announcement.

 

[Derec]

No, partial means that it works some of the time.

In a previous post you conflated partial immunity with non-sterilizing immunity, which is why I brought it up. In any case, since no vaccine is 100% effective, all of them are technically partial. But there is a big difference betwee a vaccine that is 90% effective, 70% effective or 50% effective.

With the current Covid-19 candidates you can be vaccinated but then get sick anyway. Just like the common cold, or influenza, vaccines work today. They most often work. But not always. So even when vaccinated you might have to socially isolate anyway. This shit will continue. Perhaps permamently.

One of the reasons influenza vaccines have limited effectiveness is that there are so many endemic strains and .

I don't think think it will be viable to "socially distance" (much less "socially isolate" which is even more severe) indefinitely even after a vaccine is approved and deployed. At some point, life will have to go on. Spectators in sporting events, large gatherings, the whole nine yards.

To complicate matters we have no research on how these vaccines interact. So if there's two vaccines that both give partial immunity that are overlapping, and would together give complete immunity. The combination might give rise to all manner of horrific side effects that we have no way of, currently, predicting. So no matter what happens we'll most likely have to put all our chips on one partial candidate and just run with that one. It's not an ideal situation.

Depends on the level of partial protection. A 70% effective vaccine would be fine frankly. If 70% actually take it, that's ~50% immunity from vaccine. Add to that the natural immunity from people who've been exposed already, and life could get to normal. A 50% effective vaccine (CDC floor of efficacy) taken by the same 70% of people would make 35% immune. That's not great, but not terrible either.
You could improve the percentage of vaccine taking by having schools and universities (which already mandate comprehensive vaccinations) mandate COVID vaccine as condition for enrollment. Employers could do the same for their employees.

Also, there is no reason why two complementary vaccine candidates could not be tested together for any side effects and then approved as a combined vaccine. We already have combined vaccines for different diseases. It is also possible to design a vaccine from the get-go to respond to multiple epitopes.

If anybody using public transport would use a mask the prevalence of influenzas and common colds would plummet. That's just a fact and I'd argue beneficial. Regular influenzas kill tens of thousands of people each year. We should always have been wearing masks. It's just fucking stupid that we don't have that tradition already.

About 34k in the US. Less than traffic deaths (~40k). Compare that to total US deaths of ~2.8M.


The reason COVID is being taken so seriously is that it is on tract to kill almost 10 times as many people as influenza. But I do not think flus and colds are enough to change the behavior of people to the extent of permanent universal mask-wearing. Perhaps a norm will develop that people are encouraged to wear masks when they have a cold, but I don't see more happening in the US. Not sure about Europe.

and South Korea. It was after South Korea was hit by MERS that all of the Far East shifted to wearing more masks permanently. They already were more than in the West.

I think that's the important sentence here. They already had a culture amenable to non-pandemic mask-wearing.

I'm not so sure. The non-mask wearing states have been hit hard by Covid-19.

Do you mean US-states or states as in countries?
If you mean US states, there is no division in mask-wearing and non-mask-wearing states. And the states that have been hit hard have been really diverse. Red and blue alike. Wisconsin has a Dem governor and the whole NE part of that state is lit up red right now. I don't think those cheeseheads are all non-mask wearers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In a previous post you conflated partial immunity with non-sterilizing immunity, which is why I brought it up. In any case, since no vaccine is 100% effective, all of them are technically partial. But there is a big difference betwee a vaccine that is 90% effective, 70% effective or 50% effective.

I don't think I did. I think you seem to have a hobby horse. Perhaps you have read an article somewhere that has a specific agenda or has expressed themselves in a specific way, and you think everybody needs to use that terminology of they are wrong. Could that what be what is happening?

One of the reasons influenza vaccines have limited effectiveness is that there are so many endemic strains and .

It's more complicated than that. It's not as simple as a virus mutates into a new strain and then gets by the immune system again. The immune system is increadibly complicated. I'm no virologist. But I know this much.

Here's how memory B-cells work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_B_cell

No, I couldn't follow that in detail either. Because we're not doctors.

The most mindblowing aspect of immunology is that this system is present in bacteria. They have a similar immune system as we do. The scale of this is truly mindblowing.

I don't think think it will be viable to "socially distance" (much less "socially isolate" which is even more severe) indefinitely even after a vaccine is approved and deployed. At some point, life will have to go on. Spectators in sporting events, large gatherings, the whole nine yards.

I'm aware of this. But all that means is that the current situation will be permanent. Life expectancy will drop throughout the world.

The only realistic scenario I can see is that the scientifically minded people in the world lose their patience and measures will turn draconian. The cops will be used to round up anti vaxxers and jail them until this is over. Because given another year or so, the statistics will come in and it will be clear which behaviours had what results. The freedom loving "it's just a flu" people will either switch sides or get steamrolled.

That's what happened in the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.

To complicate matters we have no research on how these vaccines interact. So if there's two vaccines that both give partial immunity that are overlapping, and would together give complete immunity. The combination might give rise to all manner of horrific side effects that we have no way of, currently, predicting. So no matter what happens we'll most likely have to put all our chips on one partial candidate and just run with that one. It's not an ideal situation.

Depends on the level of partial protection. A 70% effective vaccine would be fine frankly. If 70% actually take it, that's ~50% immunity from vaccine. Add to that the natural immunity from people who've been exposed already, and life could get to normal. A 50% effective vaccine (CDC floor of efficacy) taken by the same 70% of people would make 35% immune. That's not great, but not terrible either.
You could improve the percentage of vaccine taking by having schools and universities (which already mandate comprehensive vaccinations) mandate COVID vaccine as condition for enrollment. Employers could do the same for their employees.

Sure. But I think the immunologists are already aware of this. It's factored into their predictions.

Also, there is no reason why two complementary vaccine candidates could not be tested together for any side effects and then approved as a combined vaccine. We already have combined vaccines for different diseases. It is also possible to design a vaccine from the get-go to respond to multiple epitopes.

I'd say chances that these trials are already being run in Chinese Uigur concentration camps is pretty high. Perhaps also somewhere in Russia. I know China ordered a regiment of soldiers to all take a vaccine candidate (on something they already knew was pretty safe from a limited trial). There are benefits of being a police state.

If anybody using public transport would use a mask the prevalence of influenzas and common colds would plummet. That's just a fact and I'd argue beneficial. Regular influenzas kill tens of thousands of people each year. We should always have been wearing masks. It's just fucking stupid that we don't have that tradition already.

About 34k in the US. Less than traffic deaths (~40k). Compare that to total US deaths of ~2.8M.

A mask in your pocket takes no space. Going on public transport without a mask is like driving a car without a seat belt. It's probably unnecessary. But why not?

The reason COVID is being taken so seriously is that it is on tract to kill almost 10 times as many people as influenza. But I do not think flus and colds are enough to change the behavior of people to the extent of permanent universal mask-wearing. Perhaps a norm will develop that people are encouraged to wear masks when they have a cold, but I don't see more happening in the US. Not sure about Europe.

I can't see it happening in fashion conscious Europe either. I hope I'm wrong though. I do see the possibility of it becoming a class thing. So the educated middle class wears masks while the working class don't. It becomes a way for the middle class to signal status. Like "sustainable" clothing and fabric shopping bags are today.

and South Korea. It was after South Korea was hit by MERS that all of the Far East shifted to wearing more masks permanently. They already were more than in the West.

I think that's the important sentence here. They already had a culture amenable to non-pandemic mask-wearing.

Well, I saw nobody in masks before Covid-19. It's an improvement now.

I'm not so sure. The non-mask wearing states have been hit hard by Covid-19.

Do you mean US-states or states as in countries?
If you mean US states, there is no division in mask-wearing and non-mask-wearing states. And the states that have been hit hard have been really diverse. Red and blue alike. Wisconsin has a Dem governor and the whole NE part of that state is lit up red right now. I don't think those cheeseheads are all non-mask wearers.

That's not what I heard on Twiv. It's a podcast. So I don't recall the stats. But how hard a state is hit is mostly down to how populous it is. The more people are in close proximity with eachother the more Covid-19. That's why New York was so hard hit, in spite of wearing masks. But you can factor that out when calculating this.

It would be interesting to see how, for example Austin Texas fares in comparrison with Texas in general.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a complete list of Covid-19 vaccines in development

https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/covid-19-vaccine-tracker

You're welcome

 

[TSwizzle]

The insufferable prick Gavin Newsom, governor of California, has steadfastly refused to allow Disneyland and other theme park venues to open. Citing "science" and "data" as the reason but never giving the specifics. This is his mantra, "science" and "data", invoked like a religious incantation. Newsom's office has failed to produce the necessary guidelines that would allow California theme parks to open. Is the "science" and "data" for theme parks oh so different from that which allows Tesla, Costco, Amazon, Lowe's and many other sectors of commerce to operate ? Is it so different from other places where theme parks are operating ? Disney in California has laid off 28,000 employees. That is just Disney, there are numerous other theme parks in California being held hostage to this insufferable prick. Newson is incompetent, a petty control freak and dictator.

 

[barbos]

Gavin Newsom is a responsible governor. I wish others were like him.