Continuation The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 2

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Just to reiterate on vaccines, Dr Fauci - whom I think everyone in this thread would defer to - is confident we will see a vaccine by the end of this year: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/23/213005...estimony-house

Isn't he one of the guys who said, back in March or so, that there was no evidence that face masks had the effect of significantly reducing person-to-person transmission?

I'm less certain of this: didn't he also say, early on, that there was no evidence that people without symptoms (but who were infected) could infect others?

ETA: ninja'd by SG ...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Steve

There is a lot of speculating here that there will be a vaccine. Even yourself in this post. I am less confident that there will. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but that is my opinion and it is not your place to tell me I should not post it.

You can post any damn thing you want. I'm pointing out specifically why you are wrong.

And it doesn't have anything to do with whether there will or won't be a vaccine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Isn't he one of the guys who said, back in March or so, that there was no evidence that face masks had the effect of significantly reducing person-to-person transmission?

I'm less certain of this: didn't he also say, early on, that there was no evidence that people without symptoms (but who were infected) could infect others?

Why yes, yes he is. He said both things.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But that's not the only way to study the role kids might play in spreading the virus. We need to start by looking at viral shedding in asymptomatic infections in children.

No we don't because there's no evidence that children are contagious enough to warrant that kind of study. The authorities have been looking for signs that children could be significant sources of infection, but there's nothing that indicates this at all. If children were contagious to any significant degree it would have been seen by now.

You don't do studies on kids just to confirm what's clear: children are not a significant factor in the spread of this virus.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I repost this link because apparently it has been dismissed.

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral load by patient age

Quote:

Abstract
Data on viral load, as estimated by real-time RT-PCR threshold cycle values from 3,712
COVID-19 patients were analysed to examine the relationship between patient age and
SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Analysis of variance of viral loads in patients of different age categories
found no significant difference between any pair of age categories including children. In
particular, these data indicate that viral loads in the very young do not differ significantly from
those of adults. Based on these results, we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of
schools and kindergartens in the present situation. Children may be as infectious as adults.

It had a large sample size:

Quote:

Results
From January to 26
th April, 2020, virology laboratories at Charité and Labor Berlin screened
59,831 patients for COVID-19 infection, 3,712 (6.2%) with a positive real-time RT-PCR result.
We divided patients according to two categorizations to investigate whether there is a
relationship between patient age and viral load. The first categorization is based on ten-year
brackets, ages 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, 71-80, 81-90, and 91-100. The
second categorization is based on broad social strata: kindergarten (ages 0-6), grade school
(ages 7-11), high school (ages 12-19), university (ages 20-25), adult (26-45 years), and mature
(age over 45). Patient counts in each age group, and number and percentage of PCR positive
patients are shown in Table 1. A comparison of age stratification in tested cases versus the
Berlin population is shown in Figure A1. Of note, whereas younger age groups have lower
detection rates (Table 1), this does not imply an age-based estimate of infection prevalence
because of mostly symptoms-directed testing. ...

Look at Table 2 showing the viral loads in fluid recovered from the nasopharynx by age groups:

Quote:

Table 2: Statistics describing the viral load distributions in C1 and C2. The mean, standard
deviation (SD), standard error (SE), 95% Confidence Interval (95% Conf.), and the interval are
shown for the base-10 logarithm of viral load for A) categorization C1 (by age class), and B)
categorization C2 (by schooling/social). KG: kindergarten; GS: grade school; HS: high school;
Uni: University.

Limitation:

Quote:

Whereas the attack rate in children seems to correspond to that in adults (2), it is obvious that
children are under-represented in clinical studies and less frequently diagnosed due to mild or
absent symptoms.

And what I've been saying:

Quote:

For instance, the age profile during the
early phase of the outbreak in many European countries makes it difficult to derive transmission
rates from household contact studies. Early transmission clusters were started by travellers of
adult age, making children less likely to be index cases in households (4). Another circumstance
making children less likely to carry the virus into households is that kindergartens and schools
were closed early in the outbreak in Germany These combined effects will cause children to be
more likely to receive rather than spread infections in households for purely circumstantial
reasons. This observation may be misunderstood as an indication of children being less
infectious.

The study was in Germany.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

So "0.2-1.0%" is "within margin of error of 0.5%"?

Now you're conflating different things.

I said that the final IFR will be 0.5%. or "within margin of error" of that number.

The 0.2 - 1% is the consensus opinion, and it happens the 0.5% (which I've mentioned many times previously) is right in that range.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I need a LOT more convincing ...

Not my problem - I don't post to convince people of anything, I just like to look at evidence.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Then there's Vitamin D ... if "the world IFR at the end of Covid looks like 0.5%", Vitamin D won't make any difference, will it?

Yet again, all I'm going to add on the subject is we will know for certain in the future and I'll be happy to admit to being wrong, if I am.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Suggestion: re-read your original post (the one I first responded to), and see how many examples of poor logic you can find. Here's a good example: "We are very sure that 90% of cases are never counted, which means that it's not 80% of disease that's mild, it's 98% are asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic."

I'm not sure whether you're hopeless at arithmetic, or what the problem is, but there's no weakness of logic in what I'm saying - it's backed by a large and growing weight of evidence.

Can you not even understand the simple equations I gave you?

20% (0.2) of x is identical to 2% (0.02) of 10x. Even my 10 year old understands that.

Feel free to show some actual numbers - not from Iceland, Taiwan or Singapore, because cherry-picking countries is absurd.

I could equally point to San Marino, which with 17% of the entire population tested, is showing an IFR of 6%. Everyone panic!

Originally Posted by JeanTate

News flash: there are reliable media items galore about people who were sick, with symptoms that resembled those of Covid-19, but who were not tested, so they did not get counted as a Covid-19 "case" ....

I have no idea how you think that has any relevance whatsoever, so do feel free to enlighten me. "News items galore" doesn't cut any mustard.

I recommend you start with filling in the gaps in your knowledge on sheep and work forwards slowly.

[JeanTate]

I missed this ...

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

And wrong again - sheep don't grow merino, they grow wool. Merino sheep grow merino wool.

Sensible option to raise sheep incorrectly when the other bloke's a Kiwi.

<snip>

So, you did get it!

"Merino thinking" means "wooly thinking" (or perhaps "woolly thinking"), and the term itself is an example!

(there's an English word for such words, can't think of it just now ...)

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

[...]
Here's a simple model, for a nasty infectious disease:
- it kills everyone 70 and over, but no one under 70 (except those with condition X)
- it kills all those with condition X (BMI>40, perhaps), but no one else (under 70)

* On Island A ("young, healthy"), everyone is under 70, and no one has X
What is the IFR?

* On Island B ("old, unhealthy"), everyone is 70 or over and everyone has X
What is the IFR?

* On Island C ("young, unhealthy"), everyone is under 70, and half have X
What is the IFR?

* the world comprises Islands A, B, and C only; pre-nasty infectious disease, their populations were equal.
Post nasty disease, what is the global IFR?

Then there's Vitamin D ... if "the world IFR at the end of Covid looks like 0.5%", Vitamin D won't make any difference, will it?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Today I was going to mention islands.

Australia & NZ (Flight/ship entry with quarantine only).
UK (Quarantine only began last week for land entry).

Let's look at other islands and their IFR.

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Now you're conflating different things.

I said that the final IFR will be 0.5%. or "within margin of error" of that number.

The 0.2 - 1% is the consensus opinion, and it happens the 0.5% (which I've mentioned many times previously) is right in that range.

I think you may be conflating "margin of error" with "range" or "variance" (or similar).

Example: country A at time t₁ 11.0±0.1; country B at time t₂ 13.0±0.1. The difference between the two results is real, well outside the combined confidence interval (unless there's a really weird distribution). Combine them, to get a weighted arithmetic mean say (perhaps 12.2), and the range (2.0) is not a margin of error.

Quote:

Not my problem - I don't post to convince people of anything, I just like to look at evidence.

Indeed.

I wonder who wrote this? "There are other studies going right back to February, so let me know if you need more convincing."

Quote:

Yet again, all I'm going to add on the subject is we will know for certain in the future and I'll be happy to admit to being wrong, if I am.

Indeed.

Yet you yourself indirectly said it won't have any significant effect.

The IFR, today, is 0.5% (per your two sources). And "the world IFR at the end of Covid looks like 0.5%". So, at some point in the future, the IFR will be ~the same as it is today, meaning that dex, Vitamin D, etc make no significant difference.

Quote:

I'm not sure whether you're hopeless at arithmetic, or what the problem is, but there's no weakness of logic in what I'm saying - it's backed by a large and growing weight of evidence.

Can you not even understand the simple equations I gave you?

20% (0.2) of x is identical to 2% (0.02) of 10x. Even my 10 year old understands that.

Feel free to show some actual numbers - not from Iceland, Taiwan or Singapore, because cherry-picking countries is absurd.

I could equally point to San Marino, which with 17% of the entire population tested, is showing an IFR of 6%. Everyone panic!



I have no idea how you think that has any relevance whatsoever, so do feel free to enlighten me. "News items galore" doesn't cut any mustard.

<snip>

What %-age of the "90% of cases" that were "never counted" were mild? Asymptomatic? Serious? Severe? We already know that a significant number of those who died of/with Covid-19 have yet to be "counted"*

It seems to me that you are saying ~all the cases which were "never counted" were "asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic". Are you? If so, cite please.

Note that "never counted" can only be retrospective.

*the first example I can recall is when China made an adjustment in its "deaths", based on a retrospective examination of cases in Wuhan (some time in March?). More recently, New Jersey has added a "probable deaths" category. And I think New York (state) did something similar, in May.

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Now we're getting somewhere.

Today I was going to mention islands.

Australia & NZ (Flight/ship entry with quarantine only).
UK (Quarantine only began last week for land entry).

Let's look at other islands and their IFR.

Dividing the "deaths" by the "confirmed cases" in the WHO situation reports may suggest a possible maximum for IFR (while both are surely under-estimates of actual deaths by/with Covid-19 and Covid-19 infections, the former may be closer to actual).

You have to leave out places with "small numbers", say fewer than 1k cases or 20 deaths.

And you have to make a call re reliablity of the data (Nicaragua, for example, is reporting numbers which are hard to accept; not that it's an island of course).

So, how about this as a preliminary list (no particular order)?
- Australia
- Cuba
- Iceland
- Ireland
- NZ
- Cyprus
- UK
- Madagascar
- Haiti
- Dominican Republic
- Puerto Rico
- Indonesia
- Philippines
- Sri Lanka

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I repost this link because apparently it has been dismissed.

Even when this study was reported by the media its conclusion was not consistent with reports of how people were infected. No one was reporting that children were infecting adults to any significant degree.

Two months later and that has not changed.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I think you may be conflating "margin of error" with "range" or "variance" (or similar).

Nope - you're still conflating two completely different subjects.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I wonder who wrote this? "There are other studies going right back to February, so let me know if you need more convincing."

Oh, for Zarquon's sake, you asked me to convince you, right here:

Originally Posted by JeanTate

I need a LOT more convincing ...

I do find it interesting that people will be so dishonest over such trivial matters.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

What %-age of the "90% of cases" that were "never counted" were mild? Asymptomatic? Serious? Severe? We already know that a significant number of those who died of/with Covid-19 have yet to be "counted"*

The age and demographics are utterly irrelevant. Your understanding of simple arithmetic is so lacking that you don't understand what an average is, so I can't do much for you, sorry.

Originally Posted by JeanTate

It seems to me that you are saying ~all the cases which were "never counted" were "asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic". Are you? If so, cite please.

Well, they didn't all die, or cemeteries would have noticed and they didn't go to hospital, so I'm pretty confident in saying they were almost exclusively mild or asymptomatic.

It's funny how that stuff works, eh?

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Note that "never counted" can only be retrospective.

Oh, very good! You're going to make it all the way to understanding evidence and maths if you work forward from there.

[Orphia Nay]

Islands. Here goes.
Iceland.

On April 3, in Iceland:

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/healt...ptoms-c-950989

Quote:

“The results of the additional tests performed by deCODE have given an indication that efforts to limit the spread of the virus have been effective so far,” the government wrote last week, adding “testing in the general population will continue to elicit a much clearer picture of the actual spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in Iceland.”

Some of the revelations have been stark. Although fewer than 1% of the tests came back positive for the virus, the company’s founder Dr. Kári Stefánsson told CNN that around 50% of those who tested positive said they were asymptomatic, confirming multiple studies that show that asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic, people have played an important role in spreading the virus.

On April 14, the final study is published:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100

Quote:

RESULTS
As of April 4, a total of 1221 of 9199 persons (13.3%) who were recruited for targeted testing had positive results for infection with SARS-CoV-2. Of those tested in the general population, 87 (0.8%) in the open-invitation screening and 13 (0.6%) in the random-population screening tested positive for the virus. In total, 6% of the population was screened. Most persons in the targeted-testing group who received positive tests early in the study had recently traveled internationally, in contrast to those who tested positive later in the study. Children under 10 years of age were less likely to receive a positive result than were persons 10 years of age or older, with percentages of 6.7% and 13.7%, respectively, for targeted testing; in the population screening, no child under 10 years of age had a positive result, as compared with 0.8% of those 10 years of age or older. Fewer females than males received positive results both in targeted testing (11.0% vs. 16.7%) and in population screening (0.6% vs. 0.9%). The haplotypes of the sequenced SARS-CoV-2 viruses were diverse and changed over time. The percentage of infected participants that was determined through population screening remained stable for the 20-day duration of screening.

CONCLUSIONS
In a population-based study in Iceland, children under 10 years of age and females had a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than adolescents or adults and males. The proportion of infected persons identified through population screening did not change substantially during the screening period, which was consistent with a beneficial effect of containment efforts. (Funded by deCODE Genetics–Amgen.)

This shows what I've been saying all along:

Most people have a mild case, even to the extent of not noticing it;

Men generally have worse obesity & health than women and children which affects COVID-19 symptoms severity;

Islands can contain the virus' spread within from external increases.


Did Iceland impose strict social distancing, cleanliness, lockdown, etc?

In the conclusion, a non-sequitur:

"The proportion of infected persons identified through population screening did not change substantially during the screening period, which was consistent with a beneficial effect of containment efforts."

People kept getting infected within the island, despite containment efforts.

[The Atheist]

I see the numbers out of Aussie aren't very encouraging - 81 cases reported today.

(I wouldn't be at all surprised if we end up in that boat in the next week or two)

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I see the numbers out of Aussie aren't very encouraging - 81 cases reported today.

(I wouldn't be at all surprised if we end up in that boat in the next week or two)

Mostly in Melbourne. The rest of the country is doing pretty well.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Mostly in Melbourne. The rest of the country is doing pretty well.

Big problem is that it might spread to the rest of Australia. It only takes a few people to go to Melbourne, get the virus and then go home. They each spread it to several people and they each spread to several other people before it is detected. By then it will be almost too late to contain it by any method other than another lockdown. This is what has happened in China recently.

It could also spread if a few people, from Melbourne, with the virus, have an interstate holiday. The effect would be the same. I also also seeing the numbers increase in NSW, but only slowly. In Victoria they are doubling every week and have been since the end of May. In the last fortnight there have been a total of 308 new cases in Victoria.

Edit https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...08a9bfb6232fec

Quote:

Victorian authorities are updating that situation now – but 75 new cases in the last 24 hours

More detail here https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...daily-increase

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You can post any damn thing you want. I'm pointing out specifically why you are wrong.

[/hilite]And it doesn't have anything to do with whether there will or won't be a vaccine[/hilite].

My sole point is that I am pessimistic that an effective and practical vaccine will be developed in a timely manner. My opinion is based on two things:
- a successful vaccine has not been developed for any other coronavirus.
- recent evidence that antibodies developed by those infected fade in a time frame of months.

Conversely, those posting here that are optimistic about the development of a vaccine seem to be relying solely on optimistic statements from the vaccine developers, and not on any actual evidence.

Yes, I am speculating. The vast majority of posts in ISF are speculation. If everyone here stopped speculating and offering opinions based on inconclusive information the Forum would quickly die from lack of interest.

I have already conceded that my comparison to functional medical aspects of flu vaccines likely wrong so you do not need to keep harping on that. I was looking at how the flu vaccine is an annual event and thinking how practical a vaccine that needs to be repeated every 6 months or so would really be.

[alfaniner]

The new thing being pushed is that masks may actually help protect you from getting the virus. That was the original push for wearing masks in the first place! It had evolved that they said you should wear a mask to protect others from getting infected by you.

ffs, just wear a mask!

[JeanTate]

Once more ...

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

We are very sure that 90% of cases are never counted, which means that it's not 80% of disease that's mild, it's 98% are asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic. Given that 98% of Americans are obese, it shows that it's not that deadly, because they're holding to the 0.5%.

<snip>

my hilite

That's nonsense, of course.

Per the US CDC (source): "The prevalence of obesity was 42.4% in 2017~2018. [Read CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data brief]" The context is adults. For children, per the CDC (source) "Obesity prevalence was 13.9% among 2- to 5-year-olds, 18.4% among 6- to 11-year-olds, and 20.6% among 12- to 19-year-olds." And here's the study these results are from: Prevalence of Obesity Among Adults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016.

But hey TA, maybe you can cite a reliable source which concludes that "98% of Americans are obese"?

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I see the numbers out of Aussie aren't very encouraging - 81 cases reported today.

(I wouldn't be at all surprised if we end up in that boat in the next week or two)

More than 100 times that in Florida alone yesterday. 40,450 in the USA, on a Sunday, when reporting is usually lower. Very bad news.

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Generally speaking, I would call it the first wave. Some places in the US are at risk for a second wave - New York City, for example, but for most of the US, it's first wave. For there to be a second wave, it's pretty much necessary for the first wave to have significantly gone down, and plateaus don't really count.

Expanding on this, if you look at individual states (from sites like covidactnow.org, rt.live, or aatishb.com ), many states appear to be in or starting a second wave, while many are still in the trailing end of a first, and some appear to have already finished the second. By looking at the USA as a whole, it blends those all together to a fuzzy, indistinct curve that's difficult to draw conclusions from. Many states are really too far apart to lump together as a single national number; physically, emotionally, and politically.

[Pixel42]

No evidence that taking vitamin D prevents coronavirus

Quote:

A rapid review of evidence into claims that the so-called sunshine vitamin could reduce the risk of coronavirus was launched amid concerns about the disproportionate number of black, Asian and minority ethnic people contracting and dying from the disease. Higher levels of melanin in the skin lead to less absorption of vitamin D from sunlight.

However, on Monday, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) said that, having examined five studies, it had not found evidence to support any benefit from vitamin D with respect to Covid-19.

“While there are health benefits associated with vitamin D, our rapid evidence summary did not identify sufficient evidence to support the use of vitamin D supplements for the treatment or prevention of Covid-19,” said Paul Chrisp, the director of the centre for guidelines at Nice. “We know that the research on this subject is ongoing, and Nice is continuing to monitor new published evidence.”

At the same time, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) reached similar conclusions, stating that the evidence did not support recommending vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs).

Disappointing.

[fromdownunder]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Mostly in Melbourne. The rest of the country is doing pretty well.

And within a few suburbs of Melbourne.

Health authorities in Victoria are literally door knocking these entire suburbs where spikes have been identified and getting people to test on the spot, symptomatic or not. The hope is that 50% of the population per suburb will test. This will be around 100,000 tests in 10 days.

Apparently on Sunday (on the ABC or the TV news - sorry, can't find a report), the positive test rate from this blitz was 0.2. So, yes it is bad when compared to the rest of Australia, but they are actively seeking positives, and not unnaturally, in a spike area, finding them. But not too many.

I still have hope that this can be contained.


Norm

[JeanTate]

Twice again ...

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't think that's too hard, actually and I've tried so hard to be objective that some people accused me of wanting a pandemic at the start.

There's enough evidence now that we can be fairly sure that age, morbid obesity and hypertension are the big dangers.

We can be fairly sure the IFR will be within margin of error of 0.5%.

We are very sure that 90% of cases are never counted, which means that it's not 80% of disease that's mild, it's 98% are asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic. Given that 98% of Americans are obese, it shows that it's not that deadly, because they're holding to the 0.5%.

Within that 25 of severe illness, an unknown - but very small - number of younger people end up with a debilitating and long-lasting disease, for reasons also unknown. Or die.

All those numbers are small, but the problem is that when everyone gets it at the same time, it screws health systems big time, leading to the unenviable situation of triaging for death. We can increase the size of ICUs all we like, but ya gotta have people to staff them.

<snip>

My hilite.

"that 25 of severe illness" - huh?

Missing "%" (e.g. "25%")? or decimal point (e.g. "2.5")? Both?

Where are Shannon Warnest or John Kirkpatrick when you need them?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

Originally Posted by JeanTate

Nonsense

Except it's not nonsense at all, but established by various studies.

USA - the CDC estimates ten times more infections than positive tests.

Germany - Bonn University conducted a rigorous study and found the same.

My hilite.

"The assessment comes from looking at blood samples across the country for the presence of antibodies to the virus. For every confirmed case of COVID-19, 10 more people had antibodies, Redfield said" - first source.

"The study, [...] found that about 15% of Gangelt residents had been infected with covid-19, compared with the official infection rate at the time of only 3%." - second source.

Of course, the media headlines are based, ultimately, on models. In the second of your sources, that's made clear and easy enough to find what they are; not so much for the first (I'm still digging).

Quote:

There are other studies going right back to February, so let me know if you need more convincing.

The rest is simple maths - if 20% of x = y, then 2% of 10x = y as well.

Quote:

Take Iceland:

Nope. Iceland, NZ, Taiwan & a few other islands are outliers and don't conform.

You accuse me of posting nonsense, then try to use an example making up 0.001% of total infections when we have the other 99.999% to work with.

<snip>

Then I guess using a sample that's far smaller (I estimate ~0.0004%) would be even worse, right?

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by JeanTate

<snip>

Of course, the media headlines are based, ultimately, on models. In the second of your sources, that's made clear and easy enough to find what they are; not so much for the first (I'm still digging).

<snip>

Here's what I've found so far:

From this transcript (bold in original): Transcript for the CDC Telebriefing Update on COVID-19 (Press Briefing Transcript Thursday, June 25, 2020)

"Maggie Fox: Thanks. Dr. Redfield, I was very intrigued by something you said, that for every case that’s tested positive, there might be ten that weren’t detected. Can you expand on that? And I think you probably know, the Wall Street Journal has said that the CDC estimates many millions more cases than has been diagnosed. Thanks.

Robert Redfield: Yeah. Thank you for the question. I mean. We have one of the realities, because this virus causes so much asymptomatic infection. And again, we don’t know the exact number. There’s ranges between 20%, as high as 80% in different groups. But clearly, it causes significant asymptomatic infection. The traditional approach of looking for symptomatic illness and diagnosing it obviously underestimated the total amount of infections. So, now, with the availability of serology, the ability to test for antibodies, CDC has established surveillance throughout the united states using a variety of different mechanisms for serology, and that information now is coming in and will continue as we look at the range, for example, where you have a different range of percent infections, say on the west coast, where it may be limited, say 1% or so, and then you have the northeast, where it may be much more common. The estimates that we have right now, that I mentioned — and again, this will continue with more and more surveillance — is that it’s about ten times more people have antibody in these jurisdictions that had documented infection. So that gives you an idea. What the ultimate number is going to be — is it 5-1, is it 10-1, is it 12-1? But I think a good rough estimate right now is 10-1. And I just wanted to highlight that, because at the beginning, we were seeing diagnosis in cases of individuals that presented in hospitals and emergency rooms and nursing homes. And we were selecting for symptomatic or higher-risk groups. There wasn’t a lot of testing that was done of younger-age symptomatic individuals. So, I think it’s important for us to realize that, that we probably recognized about 10% of the outbreak by the methods that were used to diagnose it between March, April, and May. And I think we are continuing to try to enhance surveillance systems for individuals that are asymptomatic to be able to start detecting that asymptomatic infection more in real time."

How consistent would you say this is, TA, with what you wrote ("We are very sure that 90% of cases are never counted, which means that it's not 80% of disease that's mild, it's 98% are asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic.")?

Also, from the "Germany" source you cited (my bold):

"In other findings, the study found that 22% of those infected in Gangelt were asymptomatic"

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Mostly in Melbourne. The rest of the country is doing pretty well.

Yeah, I see that, and it's quite odd that Melbourne is alone in it.

Still, the numbers are small enough to get on top of with any luck.

Originally Posted by Steve

Conversely, those posting here that are optimistic about the development of a vaccine seem to be relying solely on optimistic statements from the vaccine developers, and not on any actual evidence.

Wrong. I haven't quoted a single manufacturer and have only quoted vaccine and viral specialists.

Interestingly, China is using one of its virus candidates to vaccinate the army.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2400DZ

Originally Posted by Pixel42

No evidence that taking vitamin D prevents coronavirus

Disappointing.

No!!! There goes my Nobel Prize...

Still more work needed, though.

[The Atheist]

And an absolute outrage from Gilead today, setting the price of Remdesivir at $2-3000 for a single course.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gilead-...nsurance-cost/

[JeanTate]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

We are very sure that 90% of cases are never counted, which means that it's not 80% of disease that's mild, it's 98% are asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic. Given that 98% of Americans are obese, it shows that it's not that deadly, because they're holding to the 0.5%.

<snip>

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

I'm not sure whether you're hopeless at arithmetic, or what the problem is, but there's no weakness of logic in what I'm saying - it's backed by a large and growing weight of evidence.

Can you not even understand the simple equations I gave you?

20% (0.2) of x is identical to 2% (0.02) of 10x. Even my 10 year old understands that.

Feel free to show some actual numbers - not from Iceland, Taiwan or Singapore, because cherry-picking countries is absurd.

I could equally point to San Marino, which with 17% of the entire population tested, is showing an IFR of 6%. Everyone panic!

<snip>

My hilite.

How about those in The COVID Tracking Project?

Specifically, the reported numbers for Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York (the state)? Add in what Redfield said at the 25 July Press Briefing. If necessary we could get some estimates of each state's population (WP, say).

I'll let you go first, if you wish.

From those sources, what do you estimate the COVID-19 IFR is, over the last few months, for those three states (combined or individually)? With or without confidence intervals/error bars/uncertainties.

What do you estimate the incidence of serious/severe (or worse) cases is, among all those who have (and have had) COVID-19 (in those states, over the last few months)?

What do you estimate the incidence of "asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic" cases is, among all those who have (and have had) COVID-19 (in those states, over the last few months)? Please show your working.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Steve

My sole point is that I am pessimistic that an effective and practical vaccine will be developed in a timely manner. My opinion is based on two things:
- a successful vaccine has not been developed for any other coronavirus.
- recent evidence that antibodies developed by those infected fade in a time frame of months.

This is valid.

Quote:

Conversely, those posting here that are optimistic about the development of a vaccine seem to be relying solely on optimistic statements from the vaccine developers, and not on any actual evidence.

Yes, I am speculating. The vast majority of posts in ISF are speculation. If everyone here stopped speculating and offering opinions based on inconclusive information the Forum would quickly die from lack of interest.

I agree.

I will say the evidence of waning antibodies makes for a good news story but don't put too much stock in that for the moment. Until we see people getting reinfected, the finding of waning antibody might not be as significant as you think, at least not in the 6 month revaccination range. The immune system has a tendency to be reactivated with new exposures to the same virus.

For example, antibodies to the hepatitis B vaccine wane with time but immunity does not correlate with detectable circulating antibody. As long as there was documented immunity from the vaccine at some point, undetectable antibody, even at the time of an exposure, does not require a booster. The virus will stimulate the immune response.

The news media loves fear mongering.

Quote:

I have already conceded that my comparison to functional medical aspects of flu vaccines likely wrong so you do not need to keep harping on that. I was looking at how the flu vaccine is an annual event and thinking how practical a vaccine that needs to be repeated every 6 months or so would really be.

This is a valid observation.

If we have a short lived vaccine there will be a number of variables at play.

First, if we eliminate the burden of the pathogen in large areas, it gives time for revaccinating, especially if rapid recognition of outbreaks and contact tracing is in place (ah the good old days when we had a functioning public health agency).

The drawback is there won't be a lot of natural boosting when a vaccinated person is exposed to the virus in the wild, naturally boosting the person's immunity. There is a bit of work going on now looking to see if lack of natural boosting to chicken pox (whether the initial immunity is from vaccine or natural disease) might contribute to an increase in shingles. You don't catch a new case of chicken pox if your immunity wanes, rather the latent virus in the person is reactivated.


Right now, the biggest problem we are facing was reiterated by the WHO today. Only a small fraction of the world's population has been infected so far. The pool of susceptible hosts is HUGE!

People who think this is over are really being misled by Trump and his fantasyland munchkins.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by GodMark2

Expanding on this, if you look at individual states (from sites like covidactnow.org, rt.live, or aatishb.com ), many states appear to be in or starting a second wave, while many are still in the trailing end of a first, and some appear to have already finished the second. By looking at the USA as a whole, it blends those all together to a fuzzy, indistinct curve that's difficult to draw conclusions from. Many states are really too far apart to lump together as a single national number; physically, emotionally, and politically.

Not that it matters much but you can't have a second wave when the first one has yet to end.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

No evidence that taking vitamin D prevents coronavirus

Disappointing.

Do we have a 'told you so' emoji? [Not you specifically]

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The 0.2 - 1% is the consensus opinion, and it happens the 0.5% (which I've mentioned many times previously) is right in that range...

I could equally point to San Marino, which with 17% of the entire population tested, is showing an IFR of 6%. Everyone panic!

Why the emphasis on IFR anyway? It's just the tip of the iceberg. Deaths aren't really that important - it's the people who don't die but go on to develop long term health issues that are the real problem.

My brother is very fit and healthy except for one thing - about a year ago he developed rheumatoid arthritis. After a few months it went into remission, but... This morning we went to the hardware store, and on the way his left foot became so sore that he could hardly walk (we didn't make it to the store). I asked him what could have caused the arthritis to flare up again. Then he told me that about 2 weeks ago he had a sore throat and persistent cough for 3 days. He assured me that it wasn't Covid-19, even though he didn't get tested!

Whether my bother had Covid-19 or some other virus, the effect was the same. Luckily he is on leave right now so it hasn't affected his work output, but this is the kind of thing you don't hear about that will have long-term economic effects - people with symptoms so mild they don't even think they have the virus suffering ongoing related health issues.

2.63 million are known to have contracted Covid-19 in the US so far, and only 1/3 of them have recovered. 128 thousand have died which is tragic, by they are no longer a drag on the economy. Now the virus is infecting more younger people now so the death rate is slowing, but that won't significantly improve the long term medical and economic impact. When everything is tallied up I bet we will find that the death rate was the least of our problems. But of course it gets the most attention because people are scared of dying.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is your brother going to go in to be seen about his foot? He should regardless of the COVID issue.

[Ulf Nereng]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Do we have a 'told you so' emoji? [Not you specifically]

Well, you did tell us so, but:

"Nice said the five studies it had examined all had very low quality of evidence, noting that none had adjusted for confounding factors..."

You may have to tell us so again!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Why the emphasis on IFR anyway? It's just the tip of the iceberg. Deaths aren't really that important - it's the people who don't die but go on to develop long term health issues that are the real problem.

I did mention that very point.

The only reason I got into IFR was an early estimate - it's not something I'd be betting on, and as you say, dead is dead, the living might be a much bigger issue.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Right now, the biggest problem we are facing was reiterated by the WHO today. Only a small fraction of the world's population has been infected so far. The pool of susceptible hosts is HUGE!

People who think this is over are really being misled by Trump and his fantasyland munchkins.

I've been trying to emphasise that everywhere the past couple of weeks - we are at most 10% of the way through, and Covid does have a very long tail.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Do we have a 'told you so' emoji? [Not you specifically]

I'm not conceding that entirely just yet - it's one study says no, others seem to indicate the opposite.

Like a lot of things, needs more work.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

Well, you did tell us so, but:

"Nice said the five studies it had examined all had very low quality of evidence, noting that none had adjusted for confounding factors..."

You may have to tell us so again!

OK, let me tell you again:

Vitamin D deficiency impacts the immune system in a large way.

Extra vitamin D will not boost the immune system.

Vitamin D deficiency is not all that widespread. So don't expect a huge impact.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Vitamin D deficiency is not all that widespread.

Think again.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018438/

Quote:

Vitamin D deficiency is a major public health problem worldwide in all age groups.

Low vitamin D status is a problem even in countries with sun exposure all year round.

This problem is particularly high in the Middle East, specially among girls and women.

__________________________

Meanwhile, if one pandemic isn't enough for people, take a look at the (potential) next one!

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53218704

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Think again.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018438/
__________________________

Meanwhile, if one pandemic isn't enough for people, take a look at the (potential) next one!

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53218704

Given all the deficiency in babies and kids, one has to ask why these groups aren't suffering high rates from COVID 19?

And if a significant vit D deficiency was as widespread as the article makes it seem, why isn't everyone sick?

RE the emerging flu pandemic, we've been on the verge of the next 1918 flu pandemic for decades. Not that it won't happen. One day it most certainly will.

[marting]

I noted LALN's model was putting out bad predictions of when the case "peaks" occured.

They have now removed it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post13133304

Quote:

Oops! Talk about a big miss:

LANL's prediction that Florida's peak in daily Covid cases had already occurred as of 6/17/20, with a probability of 98% has proven not only wrong, but the last 4 days have all exceeded the prior peak.
....