COVID-19

[Neven]

I looked up  "Swiss Policy Research"   in google and google classifies the group as:

Types of site: Propaganda, Conspiracy theory

Even then, I wanted to trust the source so I clicked deeper.

I stop clicking soon after.

First of all, Google itself is propaganda and part of large-scale conspiracies. Second, you're lying when you say you wanted to trust. You don't want to trust because the story has been fixly set in your mind from day 1, and so you look for one or two things you disagree with, as this allows you to say: Conspiracy theories, I'm out of here, back to CNN.

[pietkuip]

I still believe that what was possible in Sweden in not possible in many other countries. A low density of population is a major advantage. Even if hotspots are in cities, I don't believe that Stockholm and London or Paris have much in common regarding density.

One now sees how rural USA is being hit. It seems to me that cosmopolitan cities were often hit first, with subways fueling rapid transmission. Stockholm is an example where many residents have relatives abroad that come and visit. Oslo and Helsinki are not quite the same kind of international centers.

Regarding which policy was the best, I think that it is just too early to conclude anything, but one thing is sure, real scientific information is required if people should learn how to manage it.

Added  1: I believe that a hard lockdowns are the result of a panic attack at the government level. This is generally due to the fact that no actions have been taken in time in order to avoid the catastrophe.

Added 2 : Iran and Israel have a second wave of cases, but also of deaths https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/iran/   https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/ In Luxembourg, we only have a second wave of cases. I wonder how it will continue. Also in Sweden. But again, Sweden might have the second wave later because people might be more often outside right now to enjoy the weather. At least when I was there during the summer 5 years ago, we lived mostly outside.

In Sweden it will be possible to tighten the official advice when the situation gets worse. That is difficult in many other countries now, there is some populist resistance growing in several places, also in Europe. Such panicky measures are not sustainable in the population.

Achimid: I was comparing the current death rate of Sweden (about 20 per day, maybe a bit less) with countries like the Netherlands or Belgium that had higher peaks. It is still higher here. Lockdown measures almost everywhere were too late to have much effect on the peak height.

[pietkuip]

We pay for this with a covid death rate that is still higher now than in countries like the Netherlands that had a harder lockdown.

Isn't the general opinion in Sweden - also the government's - that the relatively high amount of deaths is due to the failure to protect risk groups, ie the elderly, better?

Other countries had similar problems with protecting care homes.

My point was that the current death rate in Sweden is still higher than in other countries that had higher peaks. Lockdowns helped getting death rates down quicker, I think I there is agreement about that.

So there is in Sweden a vocal crowd of scientists (physicists etc) that demands tougher measures: school closings, mandatory masks, mandatory quarantines, etc. The right-wing opposition also wants that.

[Aporia_filia]

Quote from el Cid:

"(the answer is that individuals of Western civilizations suddenly, out of the blue face the threat of immediate death and are scared to shit)"

IMHO, you've hit the nail here. And correlates very well with AGW. We have heard so many times that we can still avoid Climate Change, from soft deniers to climate scientists, always a kind of tail to any article talking about the climate issues; If we are good boys we can and will stop this 'future' catastrophe.
That is: creating the illusion that we are still in CONTROL of the situation.
With Covid we've seen what happens when we see a situation that's out of our CONTROL, if we keep living our normal lives.

And yet again we've seen in these pages how emotions fly over and cancel rational thinking when uncertainty is what we have to deal with.

[Neven]

This part of the Swiss Policy Research COVID-19 page is more conspiratorial, but I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed:

On the origin of the new coronavirus

In the June update it was shown that renowned virologists consider a laboratory origin of the new coronavirus to be “at least as plausible” as a natural origin. This is due to some genetic peculiarities of the virus in the area of receptor binding, which lead to particularly high transmissibility and infectivity in humans.

In the meantime, further evidence for this hypothesis has emerged. It was already known that the virus most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 was found in 2013 in southwest China. This bat corona virus was discovered by researchers from the Wuhan Virological Institute and is known as RaTG13.

However, researchers with access to Chinese papers have since found out that the Wuhan scientists did not reveal the whole story. In fact, RaTG13 was found in a former copper mine with a lot of bat feces after six miners fell ill with pneumonia during clean-up work. Three of the miners died.

According to the original Chinese papers, the medical assessment at the time was that these pneumonia cases were caused by a SARS-like virus. But the head of the Wuhan Laboratory strangely said in an interview with the Scientific American in April 2020 that the cause was allegedly a fungus. The institute didn’t disclose that RaTG13 came from that fateful mine, either.

The head of the US “Eco Health Alliance”, which worked together with the Wuhan Institute on virological “gain of function” research (which produces potentially pandemic viruses), claimed that RaTG13 was partially sequenced at the time and then put in a freezer and “not used again until 2020” (when it was compared to SARS-CoV-2).

However, virological database entries found in the meantime show that this is not true either: the virus – then known under the internal code 4991 – was already used for research purposes in the Wuhan laboratory in 2017 and 2018. Moreover, various Chinese virus databases have since been strangely deleted.

Virologists agree that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be a direct, natural successor to RaTG13 – the necessary mutations would take several decades at least, despite a 96 percent genetic match. However, it is theoretically possible that SARS-CoV-2 was generated, based on RaTG13, by virological “gain of function” research in a laboratory, or was itself present in the 2013 mine.

In this sense, it would be conceivable that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the laboratory in Wuhan in September or October 2019 – during a laboratory inspection at that time or during preparations for it. Such laboratory accidents are unfortunately nothing unusual and have already occurred in the past in China, the US, Russia and other countries.

(Spanish researchers reported a single positive PCR wastewater sample from March 2019, but this is likely to be a false positive result or contamination).

Read more: Seven year coronavirus trail from bat cave via Wuhan lab (Times, July 4, 2020)

Besides the Chinese aspect there is, however, also an American aspect.

It has long been known that US researchers at the University of North Carolina are world leaders in the analysis and synthesis of SARS-like, potentially pandemic viruses. Due to a temporary moratorium in the US, this research was partially transferred to China (i.e. Wuhan) a few years ago.

In April, the Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva published information and documents that show that the US Department of Defense, together with the US health authority CDC, was also conducting research on potentially pandemic SARS-like corona viruses.

This corona virus research was carried out in a Pentagon biological laboratory in Georgia (near Russia), among other places, and was also coordinated by the above-mentioned US “Eco Health Alliance”, which cooperated with the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, too. In this respect, the “Eco Health Alliance” may be seen as a military research service provider or contractor.

Thus, apart from its own SARS corona virus research, the US military must have been very familiar with Chinese research in Wuhan, due to its partnership with “Eco Health Alliance”.

Read more: Pentagon biolab discovered MERS and SARS-like coronaviruses in bats (DG)

US investigative journalist Whitney Webb already pointed out that the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security – which organized the well-known coronavirus pandemic exercise “Event 201” in October 2019 together with the Gates Foundation and the WEF Davos – had also organized the anthrax exercise “Dark Winter” in 2001.

This exercise took place a few months before the actual anthrax attacks in September 2001, whose origin could later be traced back to a Pentagon laboratory. Some of the participants of “Dark Winter” are also involved in the current management of the Corona pandemic.

Developments since the beginning of 2020 show that the new corona virus cannot be seen as a “bioweapon” in the strict sense of the term, as it is not deadly enough and not targeted enough. However, it may well – similar to “terrorists” and amplified by the media – cause fear and terror among the global population and be exploited politically.

In this context, it is noteworthy that vaccine investor and Event 201 cosponsor Bill Gates repeatedly spoke of seeing the current corona virus as “pandemic one”, while “pandemic two” would be a genuine bioterrorist attack for which one must be prepared against.

Nevertheless, besides a potential lab origin, a natural origin continues to be a realistic possibility, even though the “Wuhan wet market” hypothesis and more recently the pangolin hypothesis have already been ruled out by experts.

Regardless of how much is true, I believe that any research and facility that could lead to the production of bioweapons (to increase concentrated wealth) should be shut down.

[blumenkraft]

We believe in lies because the pain of reality is so damn hard to bear.

[gerontocrat]

The only way is up.

I guess in the USA the percentage of people who in the name of "Freedom!" will defy all social distancing and self-protection measures may be enough to keep the graph heading up for some time to come.

[greylib]

Here’s that “cumulative deaths per million” graph again. This time, I’ve chosen some Early Adopters - Belgium, Italy, Spain, France, United Kingdom - early European hotspots. And added European Union for an overall picture.



Notice the smooth curves. The UK is a bit ragged, probably due to under-reporting of weekend deaths. All, though, show the same pattern: an exponential rise for the first 20-30 days, then the curve flattens. Different governments, different lockdown solutions, but  all trending to less than 0.1% fatality. Maybe there’ll be a new exponential rise in a few months, but from the above graph, it’s looking less likely all the time.

Which makes posts like this one look a bit silly:

Without any medical care, IFR is somewhere in the 5% - 10% range.

Converting percentages back into real numbers, you get the following:
10% mortality worldwide: 700 million deaths
5% mortality: 350 million deaths
1% mortality: 70 million deaths
0.2% mortality: 14 million deaths
Bear in mind that six months into the pandemic, there have been a half-million deaths reported. Allowing for under-reporting, the true figure may be over a million. But those curves are flattening, and it’s unlikely that we’ll get anywhere near that 1% figure, let alone 5% or 10%. People just love bad news, I guess.

Other people looking for bad news have seen the curves flattening and changed the message:

I was asking myself if there’s an index on how many people get disabled by the virus. A lot of young people end with severe chronic problems.

But these official statistics miss quite a lot. Specifically, they fail to represent Covid-19 morbidity — the harm that the disease causes, even in people that it doesn’t kill. In terms of measuring the long-term impact of the disease — and accurately evaluating risk — that’s a big problem.

There are quite a few stories out there which support this. A couple I know may have had a mild case in March. Both of them still have symptoms of extreme lassitude. The two facts may be related, but it’s also possible that (a) it wasn’t COVID, and (b) the tiredness is a lockdown effect.

Other stories are more serious: blood clots leading to coronaries or strokes, perhaps months or years later. People whose lungs look to be thirty years older than they are. So far, though, it’s all anecdotal. No studies and no firm data. We’re told over and over on this forum that without data there’s no evidence. And without evidence, it’s no better than a guess.

My thoughts on why death rates are dropping:

(1) First infections took out the ‘low hanging fruit’ - the old and the sick. After that, the virus had to work harder to kill people.
(2) New medical knowledge is improving treatment.
(3) “Stay healthy” messages are getting through - hand washing, disinfecting surfaces, masks, distancing.
(4) People have learned that crowded rooms are unsafe, especially when unmasked people are coughing, shouting, singing, laughing.

(3) and (4) look to be unlikely. Many people don’t follow advice, and if they did the infection rate would be dropping, which it mostly isn’t. Or not as fast as the death figures.

Or, my theory. I’m not a medical expert, or a virology expert. Just somebody with a reasonable IQ who likes to think his way through problems. Feel free to call me a Loon:

A COVID-19 carrier breathes or coughs out droplets containing live virus. If the virus doesn’t infect a host, it dies. Thus if there are infectious people around, dead viruses accumulate (outdoors, obviously - everybody is rigorously cleaning indoor surfaces!). The droplets dry out; the virus corpses are blown into the wind. People breathe them in.

Inactivated (i.e. dead) viruses can create partial immunity to influenza - possibly COVID-19 as well? If so, once the first storm has passed, people are breathing in those dead viruses, and gaining some sort of resistance. Probably not enough to avoid getting sick, but maybe enough to avoid getting dead. The more inactive virus lying around, the fewer deaths. It makes sense to my limited knowledge, but I'm no kind of an expert.

[oren]

From "Swiss Policy Research":

On the lethality of Covid-19

Most antibody studies have shown a population-based Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of 0.1% to 0.3%. The US health authority CDC published in May a still cautious “best estimate” of 0.26% (based on 35% asymptomatic cases).

At the end of May, however, an immunological study by the University of Zurich was published, which for the first time showed that the usual antibody tests that measure antibodies in the blood (IgG and IgM) can detect at most about one fifth of all coronavirus infections.

The reason for this is that in most people the new coronavirus is already neutralised by antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or by cellular immunity (T cells) and no symptoms or only mild symptoms develop.

This means that the new coronavirus is probably much more widespread than previously assumed and the lethality per infection is around five times lower than previously estimated. The real lethality could therefore be significantly below 0.1% and thus in the range of influenza.

At the same time, the Swiss study may explain why children usually develop no symptoms  (due to frequent contact with previous corona cold viruses), and why even hotspots such as New York City found an antibody prevalence (IgG/IgM) of at most 20% – as this already corresponds to herd immunity.

Neven or anyone - how does the above fit with the total deaths recorded in New York City? The official number is 23000 dead, with excess mortality higher than that. With a population of 8.4 million, we get about 0.275% total death rate even if we ignore excess mortality. This is about 4.5-14 times more than the rates claimed in the quote:
20% infection rate x 0.1%-0.3% IFR = 0.02%-0.06%, or "significantly below 0.1%" as the claim goes.
Explain away.

Note: I wonder, with all the numbers cited from the NYC "hotspot", that the total deaths were somehow not mentioned.

[OrganicSu]

A major reason why reactions are different to Covid versus car accidents, malaria, diabetes, cancer etc is exponential growth. Many are back to thinking linearly now that the danger has passed for them.
Covid exponential growth becomes apparent only after it is fairly widely disbursed in the society. The increase in IFR is a knock on effect of out of control Covid and has been shown several times (morgues unable to deal with the inflow of dead bodies - Wuhan, Lombardy, NYC.) Covid isn't a problem and doesn't deserve the lockdowns or overreaction etc until it is a problem.

[pietkuip]

Different governments, different lockdown solutions, but  all trending to less than 0.1% fatality. Maybe there’ll be a new exponential rise in a few months, but from the above graph, it’s looking less likely all the time.

Which makes posts like this one look a bit silly:

Without any medical care, IFR is somewhere in the 5% - 10% range.

Look at smaller regions: Bergamo instead of all of Italy. Or the zip-codes in New York where mortality rose higher than 0.5 % of the population.

The droplets dry out; the virus corpses are blown into the wind. People breathe them in.

Inactivated (i.e. dead) viruses can create partial immunity to influenza - possibly COVID-19 as well? If so, once the first storm has passed, people are breathing in those dead viruses, and gaining some sort of resistance. Probably not enough to avoid getting sick, but maybe enough to avoid getting dead. The more inactive virus lying around, the fewer deaths. It makes sense to my limited knowledge, but I'm no kind of an expert.

Interesting hypothesis! I have never heard of it, but I hope it is true.

[blumenkraft]

Covid isn't a problem and doesn't deserve the lockdowns or overreaction etc until it is a problem.

If only humans had the means to extrapolate into the future. Or at least be able to observe the past and act on it.

Have to wait for an intelligent species to come along i guess.

[dnem]

This has been said a few times upthread but it bears repeating. The difference in response to COVID-19 compared to other issues that kill lots of humans is that it is caused by a virus that can grow exponentially through a naive population. C'mon, this is pretty simple. In the explosive growth phase of this bug, the infected population doubles every 2.5 DAYS. We have seen this in multiple places. When that happens, hospitals get overrun, critical supplies run short and health care workers get exhausted and they get sick. That result must be avoided, period.

A total lock down is a blunt tool, to be sure. It was mostly deployed only in the first weeks of all this, and it was warranted. In places that have the virus under reasonable control, relatively benign mitigations should be able to keep it under control, and hopefully lots of places will be able to muddle through as treatments improve and perhaps a vaccine become available.

In places like the US, Mexico and Brazil where there is widespread community transmission, I honestly don't know what the answer is. It seems pretty clear that the middling measures in place are not quite sufficient, and we are getting perilously close to serious problems with the hospitals again.  Obviously, better compliance with the measures in place would help.

It's pretty clear to me that this thing is going to cause a significant and long-lasting drop in global economic activity.  It's not a bad early test for the planned retrenchment of the human endeavor that will NEED to happen if we have any hope of getting out of the mess of messes we are in.

[Archimid]

Which makes posts like this one look a bit silly:

Without any medical care, IFR is somewhere in the 5% - 10% range.

Only to someone ignorant on the matter. Those who are following can imagine what happens without medical care. But just to show you how incredibly wrong you are, a small sample from NY. I'll leave to your imagination what happens to the death rate if the 5279 people that required hospitalization didn't get it. As would be the case with overwhelmed hospitals.

Of 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged.

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1966

About 5%-10% of C19 patients require oxygen. What do you think happens to them without medical care?

Converting percentages back into real numbers, you get the following:
10% mortality worldwide: 700 million deaths
5% mortality: 350 million deaths

Under the "die for the economy" plan implied by Neven et al, that is the ball park, yes.  But not really because such disruption would reshape the politics of the planet.

Bear in mind that six months into the pandemic, there have been a half-million deaths reported. Allowing for under-reporting, the true figure may be over a million. But those curves are flattening,

Because people protected themselves and it is summer in the most heavily populated hemisphere.

My thoughts on why death rates are dropping:

(1) First infections took out the ‘low hanging fruit’ - the old and the sick. After that, the virus had to work harder to kill people.

Only in places with high death toll like Italy, Spain and NYC and only to a limited extent.

(2) New medical knowledge is improving treatment.

Big reason, if not the biggest.

(3) “Stay healthy” messages are getting through - hand washing, disinfecting surfaces, masks, distancing.

Masking and hygiene lead to smaller doses so yes.

(4) People have learned that crowded rooms are unsafe, especially when unmasked people are coughing, shouting, singing, laughing.

Again, yes, dose size matters.

[blumenkraft]

[pietkuip]

This Week i Virology

Interesting. I am now listening to the case of the patient who was reinfected.
His antibodies had even been used in treatment.

Worrying!

[blumenkraft]

Indeed it is. 

But it's still unclear. Too much is still unclear. *fingers crossed*

[Neven]

Neven or anyone - how does the above fit with the total deaths recorded in New York City? The official number is 23000 dead, with excess mortality higher than that. With a population of 8.4 million, we get about 0.275% total death rate even if we ignore excess mortality. This is about 4.5-14 times more than the rates claimed in the quote:
20% infection rate x 0.1%-0.3% IFR = 0.02%-0.06%, or "significantly below 0.1%" as the claim goes.
Explain away.

Note: I wonder, with all the numbers cited from the NYC "hotspot", that the total deaths were somehow not mentioned.

Assuming the COVID-hype had zero influence on the numbers, it might have to do with general population health, environmental factors, demographics (age, gender, ethnicity). As for general population health, the CDC has this:

Community Overview
New York City, New York, is tackling obesity and tobacco use throughout the community of 8.4 million residents. More than half (57%) of the adults in New York City are overweight or obese, and 27.3% of adults reported no regular physical activity in the past 30 days. Further, approximately 39% of New York City Public School children in kindergarten through eighth grade are overweight or obese, compared to 35.5% of children aged 6-11 nationally.

Tobacco use is also a serious health concern in New York City—smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the city and the nation. While New York City has implemented successful tobacco prevention interventions and adult smoking rates have dropped in recent years, approximately 14% of adults in New York City still smoke, and the smoking rate of New York City teens is 7%. Obesity and tobacco use are disproportionately prevalent among certain populations. For example, 15% of white elementary school students in New York City are obese, compared with 26% of Hispanics and 21% of blacks. In addition to obesity and tobacco use prevention efforts aimed at New York City’s entire population, certain initiatives target high-risk groups.

This is from Business Insider:

Obesity is the biggest factor driving New York City's coronavirus hospitalizations after age

Since the coronavirus pandemic touched down in the US, health experts warned that the virus would hit some populations hardest — namely, older adults and those with underlying conditions like heart and lung disease.

But now, it appears a different population, people with obesity, may be even more at risk for serious illness from COVID-19 than those with heart and lung disease.   

In the largest study so far of US hospital admissions for the virus, researchers in New York City found that having a body mass index over 30, which is considered obese, was the single biggest factor for admission aside from age.

[Neven]

Something else, from The Conversation:

Coronavirus: could it be burning out after 20% of a population is infected?

More than half a million people have died from COVID-19 globally. It is a major tragedy, but perhaps not on the scale some initially feared. And there are finally signs that the pandemic is shuddering in places, as if its engine is running out of fuel. This has encouraged many governments to relinquish lockdowns and allow everyday life to restart, albeit gingerly.

The spread of SARS-CoV-2 has been difficult to predict and understand. On the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for example, where the virus is likely to have spread relatively freely through the air-conditioning system linking cabins, only 20% of passengers and crew were infected. Data from military ships and cities such as Stockholm, New York and London also suggest that infections have been around 20% – much lower than earlier mathematical models suggested.

This has led to speculation about whether a population can achieve some sort of immunity to the virus with as little as 20% infected – a proportion well below the widely accepted herd immunity threshold (60-70%).

The Swedish public health authority announced in late April that the capital city, Stockholm, was “showing signs of herd immunity” – estimating that about half its population had been infected. The authority had to backtrack two weeks later, however, when the results of their own antibody study revealed just 7.3% had been infected. But the number of deaths and infections in Stockholm is falling rather than increasing – despite the fact that Sweden hasn’t enforced a lockdown.

Hopes that the COVID-19 pandemic may end sooner than initially feared have been fuelled by speculation about “immunological dark matter”, a type of pre-existing immunity that can’t be detected with SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.

Antibodies are produced by the body’s B-cells in response to a specific virus. Dark matter, however, involves a feature of the innate immune system termed “T-cell mediated immunity”. T-cells are produced by the thymus and when they encounter the molecules that combat viruses, known as antigens, they become programmed to fight the same or similar viruses in the future.

Studies show that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 indeed have T-cells that are programmed to fight this virus. Surprisingly, people never infected also harbour protective T-cells, probably because they have been exposed to other coronaviruses. This may lead to some level of protection against the virus – potentially explaining why some outbreaks seem to burn out well below the anticipated herd immunity threshold.

Young people and those with mild infections are more likely to have a T-cell response than old people – we know that the reservoir of programmable T-cells declines with age.

In many countries and regions that have had very few COVID-19 cases, hotspots are now cropping up. Take Germany, which quickly and efficiently battled the virus and has had one of the lowest death rates among the large northern European countries.

Here, the R number – reflecting the average transmission rate – has risen again, below 1 until June 18, but rocketing to 2.88 just days later, only to drop again a few days later. It may be tempting to argue that this could be because the hotspots never got close to the 20% infection that was seen in other regions.

But there are counter examples, albeit particularly in older and immunocompromised populations. In the Italian COVID-19 epicenter in Bergamo, a town where one in four residents are pensioners, 60% of the population had antibodies by early June.

The same is true in some prisons: at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville, US, 54% of inmates had tested positive for COVID-19 by early May. And more than half of the residents in some long-term care facilities have also been infected.

Genes and environment
So how do we explain this? Could people in places with higher rates of positive antibodies have a different genetic make-up?

Early in the pandemic, there was much speculation about whether specific genetic receptors affected susceptibility to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Geneticists thought that DNA variation in the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 genes might affect susceptibility to, and severity of, infection. But studies so far have shown no compelling evidence supporting this hypothesis.

Early reports from China also suggested that blood types may play a role, with blood type A raising risk. This was recently confirmed in studies of Spanish and Italian patients, which also discovered a new genetic risk marker termed “3p21.31”.

While genetics may be important, the environment also matters. It is well known that airborne transmission of droplets is enhanced in colder climates. Super-spreading events in several meat production facilities where the indoor climate is cold suggest this has enhanced contagion. People also tend to spend more time indoors and in close proximity during inclement weather.

Warm weather, however, brings people together, albeit outdoors. Indeed, June has been uncharacteristically hot and sunny in many northern European countries, causing parks and beaches to be overrun and social distancing rules flouted. This will likely drive contagion and cause new COVID-19 outbreaks in the weeks to come.

Yet another factor is how interpersonal interactions affect contagion. Some previous models have assumed that people interact in the same way regardless of age, well-being, social status and so forth. But this isn’t likely to be the case – young people, for example, are likely to have more acquaintances than the elderly. Accounting for this reduces the herd immunity threshold to around 40%.

Will COVID-19 disappear?
The lockdowns enforced far and wide, combined with the responsible actions of many citizens, have undoubtedly mitigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and saved lives. Indeed, in cases such as Sweden – where lockdown was eschewed and social distancing rules were relatively relaxed – the virus has claimed an order of magnitude more lives than in its pro-lockdown neighbours, Norway and Finland.

But it is unlikely that lockdowns alone can explain the fact that infections have fallen in many regions after 20% of a population has been infected – something that, after all, happened in Stockholm and on cruise ships.

That said, the fact that more than 20% of people have been infected in other places means that the T-cell hypothesis is unlikely to be the sole explanation either. Indeed, if a 20% threshold does exist, it applies to only some communities, depending on interactions between many genetic, immunological, behavioural and environmental factors, as well as the prevalence of pre-existing diseases.

Understanding these complex interactions is going to be necessary if one is to meaningfully estimate when SARS-CoV-2 will burn itself out. Ascribing any apparent public health successes or failures to a single factor is appealing – but it is unlikely to provide sufficient insight into how COVID-19, or whatever comes next, can be defeated.

[bluice]

The Swedish strategy was plain stupid, and many people said so from the very start. Other Nordic countries have returned to normal life, epidemic is virtually suppressed for the time being.  Loss of life is a fraction of Swedish figures and economic damage similar.

[greylib]

But just to show you how incredibly wrong you are, a small sample from NY. I'll leave to your imagination what happens to the death rate if the 5279 people that required hospitalization didn't get it. As would be the case with overwhelmed hospitals.

Of 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged.

You're quoting a percentage of a percentage of a percentage, and saying that this proves that the virus is very deadly. You could do the same by quoting particular postal districts, or apartment blocks, or churches.

Also, US hospitals have a reputation for over-treating patients. It might be that more treatments mean more billing, or it might be worries about being sued if they don't try everything they can. It's now fairly well accepted that over-use of ventilators made things worse rather than better in the early days of the pandemic.

To get the complete picture, you need to look at entire populations, not carefully-chosen subsets. These are the top six US states, by deaths per million:



New Jersey, at 0.175, looks to be the only candidate for going over 0.2% in the short term.
New York (0.128%) and Connecticut (0.122%) both have very flat curves. Unlikely to climb very much further.
Massachusetts (0.1206%) is climbing and may go past New York.
Rhode Island (0.0921%) and DC (0.0805%) are climbing slowly, but from a much lower base.
Which one of these do you think is the most likely to reach 1%? Any candidates for 5%? 10%?

[Neven]

Thanks, this is interesting.

Oren, the bald guy in this video explains that a lot of people needlessly died in NYC because Cuomo signed some order that sent infected people back to nursing homes so that hospitals would be empty in face of the approaching tsunami of death (same was done in Bergamo and the UK). That tsunami came all right, but not necessarily in the hospitals.

Huge mistakes were made because of unpreparedness (because of cost-cutting to increase concentrated wealth), but a vaccine will make everything all right. Stand together, everyone.

And what greylib said about intubations and the panic-based outcry for more ventilators. That also caused a lot of unnecessary deaths. But all doctors are perfect and all they care about is helping people, so let's not go into that. Unity, everyone. Don't listen to the loons.

[oren]

Assuming the COVID-hype had zero influence on the numbers, it might have to do with general population health, environmental factors, demographics (age, gender, ethnicity).

So the population of NYC is so unhealthy as to have a 5-14 higher death rate than the average/typical population? I guess the same applies to all the locations where total death rates were 0.3%?
Very convenient, but personally I find that hard to believe.

[etienne]

Assuming the COVID-hype had zero influence on the numbers, it might have to do with general population health, environmental factors, demographics (age, gender, ethnicity).

So the population of NYC is so unhealthy as to have a 5-14 higher death rate than the average/typical population? I guess the same applies to all the locations where total death rates were 0.3%?
Very convenient, but personally I find that hard to believe.

Well, one thing is sure, if air pollution is a risk factor, than NYC was not the place to be.

Bad news for Luxembourg, I wonder if the government will have a panic attack, if they will restrain our mobility or if they will just hope it will go. No chance for our holidays, we are now at 64,37 cases fro 100'000 inhabitants during the last 7 days. The government was hoping that people would go on holiday and that it would limit social contacts in the country, but if we are in lockout, that won't work.

[pietkuip]

And what greylib said about intubations and the panic-based outcry for more ventilators. That also caused a lot of unnecessary deaths. But all doctors are perfect and all they care about is helping people, so let's not go into that. Unity, everyone. Don't listen to the loons.

This is unfair.

How could doctors have known how to treat a new disease? They responded with standard treatment to symptoms.

It would have been nice if China had been a country where doctors could discuss easily and freely with colleagues from all over the world. That would have resulted in earlier improvements in treatment. But China is not really that kind of country and their medical people do not have that many international contacts.

[Neven]

So the population of NYC is so unhealthy as to have a 5-14 higher death rate than the average/typical population? I guess the same applies to all the locations where total death rates were 0.3%?
Very convenient, but personally I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps in New York, for some reason or other, it's not 1 in 5 people who actually get infected (ie the virus isn't fended off by antibodies in the mucous membrane), but 1 in 3, or 1 in 2. The rest might be explained by things like obesity, air pollution, demographics (age, race) and huge logistical mistakes.

But if you find it more convenient, we can just keep it simple and say it's due to an invisible mass murdering virus that jumped out of a Chinese bowl of bat soup, and it will cause tens of millions of deaths unless we listen to mainstream media and do X (fill in whatever is good for wealth concentration).

[Neven]

This is unfair.

How could doctors have known how to treat a new disease? They responded with standard treatment to symptoms.

I don't know whether it's unfair or not, nor what I should think about it, because this is one of these things that aren't allowed to be discussed. Context is not wanted.

The only thing one is allowed to do, is endlessly repeat how horrible and terrifiyingly dangerous this virus is, watch the news all day, and pray for the advent of a vaccine. As soon as one crosses one of these narrow limits, one is immediately castigated.

[Archimid]

You all overwhelm with misinformation. Sadly for all of us, that won't matter. No amount of wishful thinking about IFR's or imaginary immunity will stop the virus. We do not know its limits yet because human intervention held the tide back.

No amount of misinformation will stop this wave:

Florida reports over 15,000 COVID-19 cases in single-day record

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/health/1127125-florida-reports-over-15000-covid-19-cases-in-single-day-record

Florida reported a record increase of more than 15,000 new cases of COVID-19 in a single day on Sunday as the growing outbreak forces state authorities to close some businesses and beaches.

Florida is obviously following Greylib and Neven's advice. They are handling it like Italy. They keep closing piecemeal while the numbers keep getting out of control. Next thing you know, it was all over Europe and the US.

Florida must shut down the hot zones and wait 3-6 weeks. It's too late for sanitary measures. The same for Texas.

[vox_mundi]

My Patient Caught Covid-19 Twice. So Long to Herd Immunity Hopes
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity

“Wait. I can catch Covid twice?” my 50-year-old patient asked in disbelief. It was the beginning of July, and he had just tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, for a second time — three months after a previous infection

... Covid-19 may also be much worse the second time around. During his first infection, my patient experienced a mild cough and sore throat. His second infection, in contrast, was marked by a high fever, shortness of breath, and hypoxia, resulting in multiple trips to the hospital.

Recent reports and conversations with physician colleagues suggest my patient is not alone. Two patients in New Jersey, for instance, appear to have contracted Covid-19 a second time almost two months after fully recovering from their first infection.

https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/monmouth/news/central-jersey-doctor-reports-patients-reinfected-with-coronavirus/790555/

... repeat infections in a short time period are a feature of many viruses, including other coronaviruses. So if some Covid-19 patients are getting reinfected after a second exposure, it would not be particularly unusual.

[vox_mundi]

The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in Stockholm – Technical Report
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/53c0dc391be54f5d959ead9131edb771/infection-fatality-rate-covid-19-stockholm-technical-report.pdf

The infection fatality rate of Covid-19 in Sweden has been around 0.6 percent, but with sharp variations between age groups, according to a new Public Health Agency of Sweden report.

... Our point estimate of the infection fatality rate is 0.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4–1.1%. For the age group 0–69 years, we get an estimate of 0.1% (c.i. 0.1–0.2%), and for those of age 70 years or older our estimate is 4.3% (c.i. 2.7–7.7%)

Most of the uncertainty in our estimations concerns the relationship between the total number of infections and confirmed cases. We assess how the estimate of this relationship, and thus the infection fatality rate, varies with alternative assumptions about the time window during which an ongoing or previous infection can be detected with Polymerase Chain Reaction testing. Additional analysis of excess mortality in the Stockholm region during the period studied suggests that our estimate is likely to be conservative.

[greylib]

No amount of misinformation will stop this wave:

Florida reports over 15,000 COVID-19 cases in single-day record
https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/health/1127125-florida-reports-over-15000-covid-19-cases-in-single-day-record

Florida reported a record increase of more than 15,000 new cases of COVID-19 in a single day on Sunday as the growing outbreak forces state authorities to close some businesses and beaches.

Florida is obviously following Greylib and Neven's advice. They are handling it like Italy. They keep closing piecemeal while the numbers keep getting out of control. Next thing you know, it was all over Europe and the US.

Exactly what "misinformation" have I posted? Everything I've said has been backed up with evidence. You're the one with the unsupported opinions.

As for my "advice", Florida certainly hasn't been following it. I agree with you that the virus is out of control there. It doesn't help that the state authorities have been pushing Trump's propaganda, and a huge chunk of the population seem to believe that anti-virus precautions (self-distancing, masks, no indoor crowds) is somehow un-American. Hard to believe, but that's how it comes across to us in Europe.

Nor does it help that Florida's population has around 17% over 65, compared with just under 13% for New York. Their only hope is that maybe medical knowledge has moved on since March.

Talking of which: hospitalisation. It looks as if total viral load has a big impact on whether a patient dies, or how quickly they recover. It seems to me, then, that the very worst place to put a COVID-19 patient is on a COVID-19 ward. If I come down with it, I'll fight as hard as I can to stay out of the slaughterhouse.

[vox_mundi]

Immunity to Covid-19 Could Be Lost in Months, UK Study Suggests
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests

People who have recovered from Covid-19 may lose their immunity to the disease within months, according to research suggesting the virus could reinfect people year after year, like common colds.

In the first longitudinal study of its kind, scientists analysed the immune response of more than 90 patients and healthcare workers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS foundation trust and found levels of antibodies that can destroy the virus peaked about three weeks after the onset of symptoms then swiftly declined.

Blood tests revealed that while 60% of people marshalled a “potent” antibody response at the height of their battle with the virus, only 17% retained the same potency three months later. Antibody levels fell as much as 23-fold over the period. In some cases, they became undetectable.

“People are producing a reasonable antibody response to the virus, but it’s waning over a short period of time and depending on how high your peak is, that determines how long the antibodies are staying around,” said Dr Katie Doores, lead author on the study at King’s College London.

The study has implications for the development of a vaccine, and for the pursuit of “herd immunity” in the community over time.

The immune system has multiple ways to fight the coronavirus but if antibodies are the main line of defence, the findings suggested people could become reinfected in seasonal waves and that vaccines may not protect them for long.

“Infection tends to give you the best-case scenario for an antibody response, so if your infection is giving you antibody levels that wane in two to three months, the vaccine will potentially do the same thing,” said Doores. “People may need boosting and one shot might not be sufficient.”

... The King’s College study is the first to have monitored antibody levels in patients and hospital workers for three months after symptoms emerged. The scientists drew on test results from 65 patients and six healthcare workers who tested positive for the virus, and a further 31 staff who volunteered to have regular antibody tests between March and June.

Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1

------------------------------------------

[bbr2315]

NYC has recorded its first day since the start of the pandemic with 0 COVID deaths.

[SteveMDFP]

https://www....youtube.com/watch?v=LYo9oK-Giso

Thanks for presenting this.  The guest virologist from Mt. Sinai was very informative.  Her lab has an ELISA test for Covid antibodies.  By this assay, she said 99 percent of PCR-positive infections produce antibodies, and levels fall very slowly.  This is what we'd expect for the vast majority of virus infections.  This is in contrast to stories presented elsewhere that raise questions of antibody-negative past infections and rapid fall in antibody levels.  I now find those assertions very hard to believe.

We here (earlier in the video) hear of a couple of cases of clear-cut infection and recovery, followed by the individual falling ill again.  Without sequencing virus obtained from the first and second illnesses, it's not possible to distinguish between a true second infection and a relapse (or "recrudescence") of the initial infection.  I'm somewhat relieved that there seem to be only a relative handful of such cases.

[Archimid]

Talking of which: hospitalisation. It looks as if total viral load has a big impact on whether a patient dies, or how quickly they recover. It seems to me, then, that the very worst place to put a COVID-19 patient is on a COVID-19 ward. If I come down with it, I'll fight as hard as I can to stay out of the slaughterhouse.

Correct. A COVID ward that doesn't replace the air continuously reinforces the infection.

[oren]

The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in Stockholm – Technical Report
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/53c0dc391be54f5d959ead9131edb771/infection-fatality-rate-covid-19-stockholm-technical-report.pdf

The infection fatality rate of Covid-19 in Sweden has been around 0.6 percent, but with sharp variations between age groups, according to a new Public Health Agency of Sweden report.

... Our point estimate of the infection fatality rate is 0.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4–1.1%. For the age group 0–69 years, we get an estimate of 0.1% (c.i. 0.1–0.2%), and for those of age 70 years or older our estimate is 4.3% (c.i. 2.7–7.7%)

Most of the uncertainty in our estimations concerns the relationship between the total number of infections and confirmed cases. We assess how the estimate of this relationship, and thus the infection fatality rate, varies with alternative assumptions about the time window during which an ongoing or previous infection can be detected with Polymerase Chain Reaction testing. Additional analysis of excess mortality in the Stockholm region during the period studied suggests that our estimate is likely to be conservative.

A well constructed and well-explained study that covers all the bases. Some images from the PDF are attached.
It is interesting, even quite shocking, that they used a ratio of 44 actual infections to each confirmed infection, and still calculated 0.6% IFR even without taking into account excess unconfirmed mortality.

Whoever thinks IFR is 0.05% needs to read this study in detail and find any weak spots. This is science, not CNN, not Fox News, not websites with hidden agendas, science.

Abstract
We estimate the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the Stockholm region in Sweden, for cases with symptom onset 21–30 March. We estimate the number of deaths, i.e. the numerator, prospectively, using data from an individual-level database of all confirmed cases in Sweden. The number of infections in the denominator is based on an estimate of the total number of infections (including unreported) per confirmed case. This estimate is based on a survey in which a random sample of the population in the Stockholm region was tested for SARSCoV-2 by means of a Polymerase Chain Reaction test.

4.2 Excess mortality
Our IFR estimate is based on deaths of confirmed cases only. Yet, most countries, including Sweden, have been reporting excess all-cause mortality not accounted for by confirmed COVID-19 cases. An overview of all-cause mortality in Sweden from 2016 is shown in Figure A.2 in Appendix A, from which it can be seen that the level of excess mortality during the pandemic so far has been exceptionally high, and clearly exceeding the mortality levels associated with past years’ seasonal influenza and the heat wave during the summer of 2018.
Figure 4 shows the weekly deaths of all confirmed cases in Stockholm during weeks 12–19 (16 March to 10 May), grouped by our estimation sample and remaining cases. The orange over-plotted line shows weekly excess mortality in Stockholm during the same period, defined as the actual total number of deaths minus a baseline estimated using the European Mortality Monitoring model (MOMO).9 We see that “unexplained” excess mortality—i.e. the part not accounted for by confirmed COVID deaths—peaked in absolute terms during week 15, the same week that confirmed deaths peaked, including deaths in our estimation sample. Thereafter, the gap has closed gradually, presumably due to more extensive testing.
During weeks 13–17, when 97% of the deaths in our estimation sample occurred, the ratio of excess mortality to confirmed deaths in Stockholm was 1.24. When we weight this ratio by the weekly shares of deaths in the estimation sample, we get a factor of 1.28. Taken at face value, our IFR estimate should be adjusted upward with the same factor. We can’t incorporate the excess mortality numbers formally into our current estimation framework, however, since we cannot link the deaths to any cases and hence not to any onset dates. In light of this, we’re therefore inclined to view our original IFR estimates as conservative, rather than presenting adjusted numbers. Future studies should analyze excess mortality more comprehensively, perhaps combined with seroprevalence data, when available.

6. Discussion
We’ve estimated the IFR of COVID-19 to 0.6%, for persons in Stockholm with symptom onset around the end of March, based on deaths of confirmed cases. We find a clear age-gradient in the IFR, with persons of age 70 years or older having a 46-fold risk of dying compared to those younger than 70 years, according to our estimates. Moreover, a sizeable share of the deaths can be attributed to cases from nursing homes—38.0% of the deaths in our estimation sample and 41.2% of the total number of deaths in Sweden as of 25 May.
Our results are similar to a handful of existing published results up to this point. Russell et al. (2020) estimate an IFR of 0.6% for China (95% c.i. 0.2–1.3%), based on re-scaling age-conditional IFR estimates from the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship to the age-distribution of Chinese cases. Verity et al. (2020) estimate an IFR of 0.7% for China (95% c.i. 0.4–1.3%). They assume an equal attack rate across ages, and their estimate of the total share of infected is based on the share of PCRconfirmed cases among international residents repatriated from Wuhan. Salje et al. (2020) incorporate estimates from the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship in a modelling framework and estimate an IFR of 0.7% for France (95% c.i. 0.4–1.0%).
There is substantial uncertainty in our estimations, due to the uncertainty in the total number of infections. Yet, we believe that our estimates are more likely than not to be conservative, due to the fact that we don’t account for unreported COVID-19 deaths. Moreover, we argue that the results plausibly generalize to the rest of Stockholm and to Sweden as a whole, but this should be assessed more carefully in future studies. If seroprevalence data from a random population sample becomes available in the future, this should help reducing the uncertainty about the total number of infections.

[Pmt111500]

List of countries Finnish Government considers safe (removal of quarantine measures) for travel:
Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Greece, Malta, Germany, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Cyprus, Ireland, Andorra, San Marino, Vatican.

Hopefully it's clear to the travellers that regulations of local governments are to be followed exactly.

Work-related travel is now allowed to and from Algeria, Australia, Georgia, Japan, New Zealand, Rwanda, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay and China.

This probably means the people doing contact tracing need more work. I'd be interested who are the few new cases in my home city, are they finnish expats returning from Sweden or what, a friend cancelled a family meeting on the finnish-swedish ferry, but i believe there have been such meetings regularly during the first phase of the pandemic.

[blumenkraft]

Thanks for presenting this.

Welcome, Steve. Tom made me aware of this podcast. It has since always made the top position in my podcast queue.

[aperson]

If we put as much effort in greening the economy and creating healthier societies as we put in fighting COVID, the payoffs would be much bigger. So why don't we do it? Why do we focus solely on COVID?

Because the media is running a full-on propaganda operation, without any context or perspective, and that's enough to make people think there is nothing else in the world but this. Social media has compounded the problem. It's the latest chapter in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Today it's COVID-19, tomorrow it will be some other hyped-up crisis that allows for a rapid advancement of bad stuff, enforced by the people itself. That's why I have hardly any hope left for humanity.

But the Austrian TV news yesterday, after its regular daily dose of Twenty Minutes Corona, had a segment on the Arctic. That was awesome.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that shock doctrine / disaster capitalism style crisis profiteering requires that the disasters are manufactured. This is not the case, they are glad to profit off of actual disasters as well, as is the case with COVID-19.

[blumenkraft]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that shock doctrine / disaster capitalism style crisis profiteering requires that the disasters are manufactured. This is not the case, they are glad to profit off of actual disasters as well, as is the case with COVID-19.

Sums it up perfectly! Well said, Aperson.

[Neven]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that shock doctrine / disaster capitalism style crisis profiteering requires that the disasters are manufactured. This is not the case, they are glad to profit off of actual disasters as well, as is the case with COVID-19.

Perhaps the disaster isn't manufactured, but the reaction to it certainly is. This is Muslim terrorism on steroids.

[Tom_Mazanec]

If the Powers That Be are manufacturing an extreme reaction to disasters like C-19, why aren't they manufacturing extreme reactions to disasters like AGW?

[blumenkraft]

Tom, stop it with the logical thinking already, would you?

[Neven]

If the Powers That Be are manufacturing an extreme reaction to disasters like C-19, why aren't they manufacturing extreme reactions to disasters like AGW?

Because AGW is a long-term problem, and profits need to be maximized short-term (to increase concentrated wealth). Nevertheless, the reaction to AGW is also co-opted in many ways, as can be seen on this Forum alone, where some cheer on the idea of Green BAU, and others say that BAU is still BAU, and greenifying it will not be a sustainable solution.

[Neven]

Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods:

Capak: 2.4% of people tested in Croatia have coronavirus antibodies

ZAGREB, July 13 (Hina) – Serological tests have shown that 2.4% of the people tested in Croatia have antibodies to the COVID-19 coronavirus, the director of the Croatian Institute of Public Health and member of the national COVID-19 response team, Krunoslav Capak, said in an interview with RTL television on Sunday evening.

“2.4% of the people tested, or 1,054, have developed antibodies, which proves that they were in contact with the coronavirus. This is a lot more than the recorded number of cases. That means that among us there are a lot more people who came into contact with the infection than we know. Only a few of them have neutralising antibodies, which means they are not protected from reinfection,” Capak said, adding that only 2% of those with igG (immunoglobulin G) antibodies had coronavirus-neutralising antibodies.

He said that the results of the serological testing would be made public in the coming days.

I've seen some extrapolations. Population: 4.076 million x 2.4% = 97,824. COVID-19 deaths: 119. IFR: 0.12% ?

[Neven]

It is interesting, even quite shocking, that they used a ratio of 44 actual infections to each confirmed infection, and still calculated 0.6% IFR even without taking into account excess unconfirmed mortality.

Whoever thinks IFR is 0.05% needs to read this study in detail and find any weak spots. This is science, not CNN, not Fox News, not websites with hidden agendas, science.

Do you also have a message to those who think IFR is at least 1.0%, which seems to be the consensus around here?

And you clearly don't think that only 1 in 5 persons who come into contact with SARS-CoV-2 develop anti-bodies (the rest have some form of T-Cell immunity or anti-bodies in their mucous membrane). Could it be 1 in 4, 1 in 3, 1 in 2? If it's 1 in 2, how does that change the IFR story? I guess this science is disregarded/debunked/deligitimized because it doesn't get as much media attention.

[Rodius]

Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods:

Capak: 2.4% of people tested in Croatia have coronavirus antibodies

ZAGREB, July 13 (Hina) – Serological tests have shown that 2.4% of the people tested in Croatia have antibodies to the COVID-19 coronavirus, the director of the Croatian Institute of Public Health and member of the national COVID-19 response team, Krunoslav Capak, said in an interview with RTL television on Sunday evening.

“2.4% of the people tested, or 1,054, have developed antibodies, which proves that they were in contact with the coronavirus. This is a lot more than the recorded number of cases. That means that among us there are a lot more people who came into contact with the infection than we know. Only a few of them have neutralising antibodies, which means they are not protected from reinfection,” Capak said, adding that only 2% of those with igG (immunoglobulin G) antibodies had coronavirus-neutralising antibodies.

He said that the results of the serological testing would be made public in the coming days.

I've seen some extrapolations. Population: 4.076 million x 2.4% = 97,824. COVID-19 deaths: 119. IFR: 0.12% ?

Cherry picking is lovely.... it is like comparing the weather to the climate.

Global numbers as per Worldometer
13 million
570K dead

You would have to quadruple the cases just to get it to 1% and we all know there are more deaths than are reflected in the numbers.

[Neven]

You would have to quadruple the cases just to get it to 1% and we all know there are more deaths than are reflected in the numbers.

This is not known, but rather surmised/suspected/assumed. It could well be that the number of deaths is correct as it is or even lower, because there might be overcounting at play as well. In many places the rules for filling in death certitifcates were altered, and given the hype, people may have felt a (subconscious) need to maximize COVID deaths. We simply don't know.

Cherry picking is lovely.... it is like comparing the weather to the climate.

Global numbers as per Worldometer
13 million
570K dead

Thanks for the accusation, confirming what I've said before about the way people are treated who do not subscribe to every single aspect of the official narrative (conspiracy loons, all of them, including scientists and experts who dare question anything).

I was just reporting news from one country and extrapolating the numbers, as the number of cases don't tell us much and are mostly used to mislead people through omission of context. It is your comparison that is like comparing the weather to the climate, as you don't post the amount of people that aren't counted as active cases, but have antibodies nonetheless (as shown by serological studies). In short, you are comparing global CFR to Croatia's potential IFR.

You say cases would have to be quadrupled to get global CFR to 1%. If one extrapolates the results from the serological study in Croatia, 97,824 people in the population have antibodies. Number of cases so far is 3,722. That's 26 times more.

But it's not possible to make such comparisons, as we don't have complete data (compounded by the fact that there's a mass media-fueled hype), and not enough is known about the serological study done in Croatia.

However, if it had shown the IFR to be 1% or higher, it would already have been quoted by someone here. We can be sure of that.

[El Cid]

Neven, as it has often been noted here, very low percentages of antibody test results within a population are always suspect due to accuracy. If you measure 1% or 2% that can very easily be 0% as there are very many false positives.

We need to concentrate on those measurements that have a fairly high percentage of positives in the population. Also, if you have many data points then you should probably consider the outliers false. If almost all data point to the same direction and some are outliers then the outliers are likely false.

I am still waiting for your explanation though to the excess dead/serology data for the UK, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Italy, NYC and numerous others which all point to cca 1%. How can you disregard those?

also, how can you believe that only 1 in 5 people have antibodies when there are many places where serology shows 25-60% of people have antibodies???

[Archimid]

Neven help us understand your point. What should Florida do right now?

Florida has a record number of new cases with the number of deaths climbing, a positivity rate of 19%, and not reporting hospitalization levels since it hit almost 100%.

C'mon Neven stop concern trolling, misinforming and cherry-picking, and take a stand.

What should Florida do?

Should they enslave people with a shutdown?

Should they terrify their people with sanitary measures?

Should they be brave and just go for "herd immunity"?

If you are honest, allow us to understand you, because right now you are coming across as a dishonest troll.