Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

How many will die of Covid19 in the 2020s directly and indirectly

Less than 10,000
10 (14.7%)
10,000-100,000
9 (13.2%)
100,000-1,000,000
9 (13.2%)
One to ten million
13 (19.1%)
Ten to a hundred million
14 (20.6%)
Hundred million to one billion
9 (13.2%)
Over a billion
4 (5.9%)

Total Members Voted: 60

Voting closed: March 03, 2020, 12:39:52 AM

Author Topic: COVID-19  (Read 586005 times)

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 1203
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11200 on: March 02, 2021, 02:29:43 PM »
Quote
the big picture.

The big picture? What is that? What is the big picture of Covid 19 that we are missing?

I'll take a guess.

1 I did not quote your guess and the following mumbo jumbo which is your highly personal (and wrong) interpretation of it all. Posts have edit buttons.

The big picture is all the background in our societies. Shifting demographics, bad food, stripped healthcare , the ever depleted world etc.

It looks like a lot of people only want to focus on the virus.

We live on a planet where this is not the first nor the last virus which will get into the human population.

Maybe we should about forgetting classifying a virus as weak or strong because that detracts.

Basically we will get another one so in what way could we improve?
Demographics will fix themselves over time.

But what about the fact that so many people eat little fruit and often quite bad mixes of ready made highly palatable foods? What about the existence of food deserts?
So many people hardly getting exercise not even some leisurely strolling.
Lung damage from before any disease by pollution.

If we make the whole population better we will all be better off but the system is not geared towards that.   
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

harpy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11201 on: March 02, 2021, 02:38:01 PM »
Agreed, but I think the gvt is losing sway with parents at this point and healthy children are themselves at almost negligible risk. Anecdotally my partner says the number of parents attempting to falsely get their children into school hubs over Feb was much higher than last year

This is an assumption, because we literally have no idea what the long term chronic damage will be from a childhood coronavirus infection.

Parent's desperate to get their kids back to school...hmmm.  Desperate to take a chance with their long term health? 

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

Severe and fatal forms of COVID-19 in children

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929693X20301172

Quote

This study highlighted the large spectrum of clinical presentation and time course of disease progression as well as the non-negligible occurrence of pediatric life-threatening and fatal cases of COVID-19 mostly in patients with comorbidities. Additional laboratory investigations are needed to further analyze the mechanism underlying the variability of SARS-Cov-2 pathogenicity in children.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 02:49:45 PM by harpy »

SimonF92

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11202 on: March 02, 2021, 02:48:16 PM »
Agreed, but I think the gvt is losing sway with parents at this point and healthy children are themselves at almost negligible risk. Anecdotally my partner says the number of parents attempting to falsely get their children into school hubs over Feb was much higher than last year

This is an assumption, because we literally have no idea what the long term chronic damage will be from a childhood coronavirus infection.  The assumption is that it's perfectly harmless...but we simply do not know.


Parent's desperate to get their kids back to school...hmmm.  Desperate to take a chance with their long term health?

+1 agree, assumptions are never a good thing in health science.

If I may play devils advocate, we are assuming there are no long term effects from vaccination at this point too (I personally am 100% pro-vaccination)

PS that study was focussed on comorbid children. PSS actually I just read it and 3 were not comorbid
Bunch of small python Arctic Apps:
https://github.com/SimonF92/Arctic

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3144
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 1203
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11203 on: March 02, 2021, 03:10:56 PM »
Simple counterpoints:

The vaccine just uses a tiny part of virus to prime the immune system so there should be no knock on effects.

For the children we know that many of them actually had it with no real bad effects. Ending up in hospital is rare and death even rarer. If there is hardly any damage in the age bracket then there will be even less long term damage.

If you extend the ´don´t unless harmless´ protocol you should also stop using fossil fuels today?
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

SimonF92

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11204 on: March 02, 2021, 03:36:17 PM »
In some ways, after-effects (years later) could actually be worse than the infection in children.

I remember learning at undergrad about the HLAB27 locus and its association with Ankylosing Spondylitis- the lecturer suggested that numerous autoimmune conditions can be triggered by viral infections years earlier. I specifically remember him suggesting that common flu viruses are thought to prime arthritis in certain HLA genotypes. Of course, population level data on such a thing would be extremely hard to generate because most people dont remember/notice/record whenever they get the flu.

My point is that even if the immediate risk to the majority children is small its probably a bad idea to assume at this point that in children who brushed off covid like any other cold/flu virus there is no risk at all down-the-line. Something I hadnt considered until harpy pointed it out.

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/219/9/1418/5140125
Bunch of small python Arctic Apps:
https://github.com/SimonF92/Arctic

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11205 on: March 02, 2021, 03:40:09 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

I’m not sure what that graph is saying because it uses the phrase “per week or month”, but the pop-up numbers on the graph seem to be 'per week'?
-->https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

So it looks like at the peak of 2020 in the week of April 12th, there were roughly 80,000 excess deaths compared to same period in 2017, which had roughly 55,000. (I'm, just rounding off numbers, it won't make any difference to ratios I am going over)
That would amount to a difference between those two years - at the peak - of roughly one excess death per 150,000 population, per day. Or is it saying a difference of 7 per day? (per 150,000 people)

Roughly the same for first week of January 2021 as well. Barely out of a margin-of-error between 2020 and 2021, and the for-profit, dysfunctional, multi-state health system in America has big margins of errors.

At the trough in summer, the difference between the years 2020 and 2017 is about 1 death per 700,000 people, per day.

The peak lasted 3 or 4 weeks, and shorter this winter, deaths are going down. It may come back up, but the overall ratios are on the same levels.

It will be months before proper scientific analysis of excess deaths is published, as happens late every year, but is greatly delayed in this pandemic due to complexity of number of excess deaths caused by lockdown (not the virus), and poor counting in chaotic situations. In 2018, 80,000 flu deaths at the time (USA) was later revised down, in analysis, to 61,000 by the CDC. A drop of 25%.

For this year, from the CDC, re. excess deaths 2020/2021:
"These deaths could represent misclassified COVID-19 deaths, or potentially could be indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., deaths from other causes occurring in the context of health care shortages or overburdened health care systems)."
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

FEB 2021 - study - 'American Journal of Public Health'. 
Article from Uni. Calif. SF:
"Under any circumstances, job losses can lead to excess deaths from suicide, substance abuse and the loss of access to medical care...The research team projected that the spring 2020 spike in unemployment in the United States would lead to 30,231 excess deaths among 25- to 64-year-olds in the ensuing 12 months. As with the deaths that were directly caused by the virus, those linked to unemployment have taken a disproportionate toll on Black people, men, older people (in the case of workers, those who were 45 and up), and especially those with the least education...Depending on the assumptions they put into their model, the number of deaths could be much higher or lower. If they assumed the April 2020 unemployment rate was just 10 percent, and that unemployment was half as harmful as has been seen in past recessions, their estimate fell to 8,315. 
But if they assumed that unemployment reached 26.5 percent, which would be the highest estimate using a different definition of who was participating in the labor force, and also that the effects of losing a job in the pandemic were three times as deadly, their estimate rose to 201,968."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/02/419866/study-estimates-excess-deaths-us-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment

I think the effects are more harmful than the low estimate. Also, add in heart attacks, suicides, rise in murders, drug abuse, a has been seen, not from loss of job or a small business, but just from the effects of lockdown - depression, rise in alcohol, lack of exercise, or even walking around the offices and work errands all day, stuck at home, family tensions, drug abuse rise, 5 or 8 people in an apartment, elderly not getting proper exercise, and also people not being treated for other health problems, also rise in murder-rates in the cities...and the final analysis of lockdown-related deaths will be far higher.

And there are millions facing starvation and malnutrition around the world now, because of lockdowns (not the virus).
“Combined with ongoing conflicts, spiraling inequality, and an escalating climate crisis, the pandemic has shaken an already broken food system to its foundations, leaving millions on the brink of starvation.”
https://www.oxfam.org/en/world-brink-hunger-pandemic-coronavirus-threatens-push-millions-starvation

It has set back the World Food Program decades, and 100s of millions will suffer malnutrition (in babies, children, young adults and older), and this leads to poor health, weakened immune systems, and vulnerability to death from all sorts of viruses (and in the young, not the mostly over-70s.) It has been a massive harm and a massive crime against humanity that has been committed by the bourgeoise in the rich countries.

Which I predicted all that back in March 2020 on Facebook, ranted, day in, day out, about those deadly harms that would be inflicted on the socially-vulnerable and the poor, and due to loss of decades in which people built up a small business...gone. Ambitions quashed. Homelessness, crime on the rise.

A difference of one death per 150,000 per day is not the end of the world. Nor even 7 deaths per 100,000 per day, which is more than what happened every day in America...for a whole month...in Spring 2020, in terms of difference in excess death between different years, and for about a month recently. And the excess deaths are not just covid-19, as has been seen.
The longterm harms of lockdowns will go on for years. Not to mention progress to a cleaner environment has been set back massively.

If we cannot extrapolate the effects of pollution, rising obesity, poor health habits, rising elderly population (also many with bad health habits), millions more people every year, of all ages, on some kind of life-support, and the other effects I mentioned - rising a lot every year - that this could lead to rises of 1 excess death per 2 or 300,000 people a year, year after year, then I think we will have to wait for in-depth scientific analysis later in the year, which I am 100% sure will describe something along the lines of what I have said.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 04:13:17 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1863
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11206 on: March 02, 2021, 03:50:16 PM »

The big picture is all the background in our societies. Shifting demographics, bad food, stripped healthcare , the ever depleted world etc.
....
But what about the fact that so many people eat little fruit and often quite bad mixes of ready made highly palatable foods? What about the existence of food deserts?
So many people hardly getting exercise not even some leisurely strolling.
Lung damage from before any disease by pollution.

If we make the whole population better we will all be better off but the system is not geared towards that.

This seems to be wishful thinking.  People here keep asserting that a healthy lifestyle is key to reducing risk of a bad outcome with this virus, with little or no evidence. 

We've already covered some of this.  Presence of diabetes in a person approximately doubles risk of a bad outcome.  Not trivial, but that's roughly the level of risk for being 7 - 10  years older.  The available evidence suggests you're better off being a 50 year-old diabetic than a fit, vigorous 60 year old.

It may well be that the risk of death for a person is mostly correlated with density of ACE2 receptors in vital tissues.  That's something none of us can control, or even measure.  It's uncomfortable to think we have limited control over our own risk of death in a pandemic, so many just refuse to believe it.   

Its much more comfortable to believe that our own virtuous decisions protect us.  I've seen zero evidence that a balanced diet, regular exercise, or breathing less-polluted air is of any particular importance.  The belief seems to have as much validity as carrying a lucky rabbit's foot.

Weakness or strength of a virus is a terribly dumb assertion.  Sure, the virus is less virulent than  smallpox or ebola.   But more virulent than influenza or zika. 

Just as important as virulence (the propensity to cause serious illness in the infected) is contagiousness.  On this metric, Covid is very severe indeed.  Thus, it spreads quickly around the world, to a significant percentage of the world's population in just a year.

This is a particularly absurd moment to be decrying shut-downs and restrictions.  We have several highly effective vaccines in mass production and mass administration.  For the immunized, the virus can be seen as less fearsome than influenza. 

What the world should be doing is what most of the world is currently doing -- continue public health measures to limit further spread of Covid and its varieants while vaccinating as many as possible as quickly as possible.

In six months, the "strength" or "weakness" of the virus will be utterly moot.  Much sooner in many nations, a bit later in some poor nations.  We just all need to stay alive and healthy until then,

Anybody heard from Terry lately?

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11207 on: March 02, 2021, 04:31:05 PM »
Leading causes of deaths in the US in 2017 and 2018 per 100k people.



As of March 1st the US has lost 155.6 people per 100k

Covic 19 is more dangerous than Cancer, but only with masking and shutdowns. With full open, we wouldn't be having this discussion as you would all know people that died of Covid.

That's the big picture.
 
Wanna talk UK? pffft
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6802
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2492
  • Likes Given: 2246
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11208 on: March 02, 2021, 04:31:49 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

I’m not sure what that graph is saying because it uses the phrase “per week or month”, but the pop-up numbers on the graph seem to be 'per week'?
-->https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

So it looks like at the peak of 2020 in the week of April 12th, there were roughly 80,000 excess deaths compared to same period in 2017, which had roughly 55,000. (I'm, just rounding off numbers, it won't make any difference to ratios I am going over)
That would amount to a difference between those two years - at the peak - of roughly one excess death per 150,000 population, per day. Or is it saying a difference of 7 per day? (per 150,000 people)

...

A difference of one death per 150,000 per day is not the end of the world. Nor even 7 deaths per 100,000 per day, which is more than what happened every day in America...for a whole month...in Spring 2020, in terms of difference in excess death between different years, and for about a month recently. And the excess deaths are not just covid-19, as has been seen.
The longterm harms of lockdowns will go on for years. Not to mention progress to a cleaner environment has been set back massively.

If we cannot extrapolate the effects of pollution, rising obesity, poor health habits, rising elderly population (also many with bad health habits), millions more people of all ages on some kind of life-support care every year, and the other effects I mentioned - rising a lot every year - could lead to rises of 1 excess death per 2 or 500,000 people a year, year after year, then I think we will have to wait for in-depth scientific analuyis later in the year, which I am 100% sure will describe something along the lines of what I have said.
The graph shows weekly raw death counts from all causes, enabling the viewer to assess excess deaths by comparing to the death counts of previous years.
Indeed, at the two peaks death rate was ~80k vs. ~55k in all previous years shown. An increase of about 25k weekly deaths, almost 50%. this just doesn't happen randomly or as a result of a long term rise in obesity or smoking or whatever. Something came along and finished off these people, whether they were primed for it or not. Otherwise statistics show that only 55k would have died, and 25k lived on another week despite their healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.

Of course, there are ways to minimize this number. If you calculate deaths per microsecond per billion people, it will be even lower than your number of 1 in 150000 per day. BTW, I believe it is actually 1.6 per 150000 per day (assuming 330M total US population) but whatever.
If half a million dead persons in the US - that would not have died this year statistically if Covid wasn't around - seems like a small number to you, we shall have to disagree.

Note that the better calculation is to sum deaths over the whole year, rather than focus on single weeks (a more accurate method to examine whether the virus is responsible would be to sum March 20-Feb 21 and compare to previous similar periods). But just eyeballing the graph on a weekly basis can easily show the uniqueness of this year.

You should note that there is very little variation between the years. For the peak April week the range of 2015-2019 varies by less than 3k, while 2020 was 24.5k above the average. I can't calculate how many SDs above the norm the 2020 result is, but it's surely not random chance that brought the result.

You should also note that assignment of causes can be trickier, which is why the CDC might revise flu deaths by 25%. But death from all causes circumvents this issue completely, and it does not vary by 25% or is revised by 25%.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11209 on: March 02, 2021, 04:36:02 PM »
Apropos of nothing in particular, does anybody have any graphs of "XS Long Covid"?


10% of COVID-19 patients become “long-covid”.
(which happens with flu by the way)

“Researchers estimate about 10% of COVID-19 patients become long haulers, according to a recent article from The Journal of the American Medical Association and a study done by British scientists. That’s in line with what UC Davis Health is seeing.”
UC Davis: https://health.ucdavis.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-information/covid-19-long-haulers.html
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 05:05:22 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11210 on: March 02, 2021, 04:54:03 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

I’m not sure what that graph is saying because it uses the phrase “per week or month”, but the pop-up numbers on the graph seem to be 'per week'?
-->https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

So it looks like at the peak of 2020 in the week of April 12th, there were roughly 80,000 excess deaths compared to same period in 2017, which had roughly 55,000. (I'm, just rounding off numbers, it won't make any difference to ratios I am going over)
That would amount to a difference between those two years - at the peak - of roughly one excess death per 150,000 population, per day. Or is it saying a difference of 7 per day? (per 150,000 people)
...
If we cannot extrapolate the effects of pollution, rising obesity, poor health habits, rising elderly population (also many with bad health habits), millions more people of all ages on some kind of life-support care every year, and the other effects I mentioned - rising a lot every year - could lead to rises of 1 excess death per 2 or 500,000 people a year, year after year, then I think we will have to wait for in-depth scientific analysis later in the year, which I am 100% sure will describe something along the lines of what I have said.

Quote
The graph shows weekly raw death counts from all causes, enabling the viewer to assess excess deaths by comparing to the death counts of previous years.
Indeed, at the two peaks death rate was ~80k vs. ~55k in all previous years shown. An increase of about 25k weekly deaths, almost 50%. this just doesn't happen randomly or as a result of a long term rise in obesity or smoking or whatever. Something came along and finished off these people, whether they were primed for it or not. Otherwise statistics show that only 55k would have died, and 25k lived on another week despite their healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.

Using "50% increase" is not a valuable observation, especially in a population which is about 327 million people...or maybe 329 million. No-one is really sure. Literally.

These big changes in demographics are yearly, across the board, and such deaths from flus and coronaviruses don't just rise in a constant straight line, it comes in waves, and get bigger and bigger death numbers, taking out "dry-tinder" every few years. They were shocked and horrified in 2018 when hospitals were overloaded in USA from flu, and they had a vaccine for that. But no vaccine for covid in 2020. The focus on excess deaths before in-depth scientific analysis takes place, as I explained, is not remotely scientific. So we will have to wait. But the deaths per capita population are tiny for this virus. The ongoing excess deaths caused by lockdown policy, are (will be) significant, and among the young and healthy.
And by the way, due to the large rising elderly population every year, a large number of excess deaths are noted as being from Alzheimers, as the growing older group shuffles off this mortal coil.
I am not being rude, but re-read my post because you missed a lot of science and rational in there regarding excess deaths from other causes. Take the time to think about it. Read it again.

See my reply to Jim Hunt above to make the other comparisons you are talking about.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 05:02:05 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6802
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2492
  • Likes Given: 2246
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11211 on: March 02, 2021, 05:16:32 PM »
All your hand waving and philosophizing cannot explain away the radically different behavior of deaths this year compared to previous years.
Pollution, smoking, cancer, all were present in years past and took lives in years past. Random noise does not look like this.

I’m not sure what that graph is saying because it uses the phrase “per week or month”, but the pop-up numbers on the graph seem to be 'per week'?
-->https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

So it looks like at the peak of 2020 in the week of April 12th, there were roughly 80,000 excess deaths compared to same period in 2017, which had roughly 55,000. (I'm, just rounding off numbers, it won't make any difference to ratios I am going over)
That would amount to a difference between those two years - at the peak - of roughly one excess death per 150,000 population, per day. Or is it saying a difference of 7 per day? (per 150,000 people)
...
If we cannot extrapolate the effects of pollution, rising obesity, poor health habits, rising elderly population (also many with bad health habits), millions more people of all ages on some kind of life-support care every year, and the other effects I mentioned - rising a lot every year - could lead to rises of 1 excess death per 2 or 500,000 people a year, year after year, then I think we will have to wait for in-depth scientific analysis later in the year, which I am 100% sure will describe something along the lines of what I have said.

Quote
The graph shows weekly raw death counts from all causes, enabling the viewer to assess excess deaths by comparing to the death counts of previous years.
Indeed, at the two peaks death rate was ~80k vs. ~55k in all previous years shown. An increase of about 25k weekly deaths, almost 50%. this just doesn't happen randomly or as a result of a long term rise in obesity or smoking or whatever. Something came along and finished off these people, whether they were primed for it or not. Otherwise statistics show that only 55k would have died, and 25k lived on another week despite their healthy or unhealthy lifestyle.

Using "50% increase" is not a valuable observation, especially in a population which is about 327 million people...or maybe 329 million. No-one is really sure. Literally.

These big changes in demographics are yearly, across the board, and such deaths from flus and coronaviruses don't just rise in a constant straight line, it comes in waves, and get bigger and bigger death numbers, taking out "dry-tinder" every few years. They were shocked and horrified in 2018 when hospitals were overloaded in USA from flu, and they had a vaccine for that. But no vaccine for covid in 2020. The focus on excess deaths before in-depth scientific analysis takes place, as I explained, is not remotely scientific. So we will have to wait. But the deaths per capita population are tiny for this virus. The ongoing excess deaths caused by lockdown policy, are (will be) significant, and among the young and healthy.
And by the way, due to the large rising elderly population every year, a large number of excess deaths are noted as being from Alzheimers, as the growing older group shuffles off this mortal coil.
I am not being rude, but re-read my post because you missed a lot of science and rational in there regarding excess deaths from other causes. Take the time to think about it. Read it again.

See my reply to Jim Hunt above to make the other comparisons you are talking about.
The bolded part is what I call hand waving. I bring you a graph that shows total deaths from all causes are quite stable across years and quite unique in 2020, and yet you claim big waves every few years. Where are they? Show me big waves in numbers please.

Maybe you do not intend it, maybe you do, but the italicized part does come across as rude, especially as it is being repeated in your posts. Implying others miss so much and need time to think and re-read the words of wisdom.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11212 on: March 02, 2021, 05:37:11 PM »
Oren
Quote
The bolded part is what I call hand waving. I bring you a graph that shows total deaths from all causes are quite stable across years and quite unique in 2020, and yet you claim big waves every few years. Where are they? Show me big waves in numbers please.

I explained it all above.
Please wait until a proper scientific analysis is done, several of them, before you talk about "excess deaths". The assumptions about them are just that.

(edited out the graph with a typo)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 06:06:38 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

colchonero

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11213 on: March 02, 2021, 06:00:58 PM »
What is this stupid chart "annual US deaths 28 milion". Please don't post such a thing, it is firat grade math. I am not getting into your discussion at all, just saying chart is completely wrong and fake. Almost 10% of population does not die in a year (luckily haha). It is more like 1-1,5%. Life span is almost 80 years not 10 or 11.


And to all of you guys, from both sides, follow the evidence wherever it leads you, even if it shows your assumption is not right. No matter how anyone likes or fears his theory if it is wrong it is wrong (over and understimate). Both sides pushing, and no one will move an inch, we all can see that.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 06:06:53 PM by colchonero »

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11214 on: March 02, 2021, 06:05:45 PM »
Sorry, you are right. I get cross-eyed trying to do all this obvious perspective about numbers that I have to do, because scientists, experts, and the media will not do it.
(fixed it)

Perspective is very important.
If they had told people in 2019 that about, what is it?...150 in every 100,000 people in USA?...could die from a virus over a full year, everyone would have shrugged and gone back to talking about something else. Pretty much similar (less) in every major developed country, no matter what the policy.

The longterm effects of lockdowns will kill far more people than this weak virus (already started).
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 06:20:58 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11215 on: March 02, 2021, 06:35:40 PM »
Quote
If they had told people in 2019 that about, what is it?...150 in every 100,000 people in USA?...could die from a virus over a full year, everyone would have shrugged and gone back to talking about something else.

One thing is getting the future wrong. But getting history wrong...

Remember when the US shut down back in April 2020? What was the estimated coronavirus death count then?

Let me show you:

March 29, 2020

Fauci Estimates That 100,000 To 200,000 Americans Could Die From The Coronavirus

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/29/823517467/fauci-estimates-that-100-000-to-200-000-americans-could-die-from-the-coronavirus
100,000-200,000


Or you can go back around that date in this thread and read for yourself.

I challenge anyone interested in the truth to check for themselves.

527,683 is the number today.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11216 on: March 02, 2021, 06:54:32 PM »
Quote
If they had told people in 2019 that about, what is it?...150 in every 100,000 people in USA?...could die from a virus over a full year, everyone would have shrugged and gone back to talking about something else.

One thing is getting the future wrong. But getting history wrong...

Remember when the US shut down back in April 2020? What was the estimated coronavirus death count then?

Let me show you:

March 29, 2020

Fauci Estimates That 100,000 To 200,000 Americans Could Die From The Coronavirus

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/29/823517467/fauci-estimates-that-100-000-to-200-000-americans-could-die-from-the-coronavirus
100,000-200,000


Or you can go back around that date in this thread and read for yourself.

I challenge anyone interested in the truth to check for themselves.

527,683 is the number today.

That was the lower figure from the Imperial College paper he was quoting. He estimated it could possibly be millions (I believe the Imperial paper was 2 million in USA).
MARCH 2020:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected a worst-case scenario...200,000 to 1.7 million could die by the end of the year."
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/03/15/sotu-fauci-millions.cnn

"die by the end of the year" = <10 months, and does not include January & February of 2021, which, resurgence, as predicted, due to seasonality, has come (and may be on the way out, in a country with hard, to near-zero, lockdown policies depending which state)

But here is the difference you are referring to:
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 07:03:35 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

blu_ice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11217 on: March 02, 2021, 06:58:55 PM »
Inaction was never a real policy option.

Remember how some countries wanted to go for herd immunity from the very beginning? For some reason Sweden, the UK and USA all decided to change course.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11218 on: March 02, 2021, 07:08:08 PM »
Inaction was never a real policy option.

Remember how some countries wanted to go for herd immunity from the very beginning? For some reason Sweden, the UK and USA all decided to change course.

Sweden didn't really change course. That was all other countries' (especially UK and USA), media-hype to justify their massive, past blunderous months, of hugely incompetent reporting (as Neven indicated happens). Most of the USA didn't do much, and not hugely different death per-population than other developed countries that did hard lockdowns (all of which can be shown in past research & data to have healthier populations than USA), nor between radically different policies between different US states.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 09:10:03 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

harpy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11219 on: March 02, 2021, 07:15:23 PM »
All social luxury and sporting events return to normal, all cruises, festivals, bars, night clubs, all 100% return no restrictions.  No masks.

 Crowded cruise ships, trains, busses, subways, and airplanes, no masks.  100% removal of coronavirus rules.

What would happen within 6 months? 

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11220 on: March 02, 2021, 07:18:46 PM »
I dont even understand what this discussion is about any longer.

Thomas came out of nowhere, proclaiming that the virus is "weak", which is basically a meaningless statement and we have been chewing over that statement which is by nature subjective and is an opinion. Discussing opinions, subjective impressions is quite pointless in my view. Discussing data and facts instead could lead somewhere...

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11221 on: March 02, 2021, 07:35:42 PM »
OK, so lift all restrictions.  Weekly big crowded stadium events and big parties.  All sporting events return to normal, all cruises, festivals, bars, night clubs, all 100% return no restrictions.  No masks.

 Crowded cruise ships, and airplanes, no masks.  100% removal of coronavirus rules.

What would happen within 6 months?

Not much. A lot of the world is already doing that.
It's the scientific law called "Farr's Law", still valid today. All pandemics fade away naturally.
But if people don't follow science on how to improve their immune systems (and not just by covid vaccines), then you could get another significant blip, or god-forbid an actual slightly-strong virus comes along in a very weak human species.

Cheer up folks.
The birthing rate has not abated. Only increased over the last year.
Something we can all celebrate !  !  !
...(at least on face value, don't think about it in terms of the current collapse of the ecosytem and the biosphere)

Outta here...
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11222 on: March 02, 2021, 08:58:00 PM »
It seems I have one thing in common with ex-PM David Cameron. We both got jabbed today.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1863
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11223 on: March 02, 2021, 11:32:31 PM »
...
It's the scientific law called "Farr's Law", still valid today. All pandemics fade away naturally.
Note that Farr's Law was an observation of the natural history of epidemics.   That is, epidemics in which there are no public health measures,  treatments, or vaccines available.  Farr's initial observations were in relation to smallpox, I believe.

Farr's law is inapplicable for diseases where public health measures, therapeutics, or vaccines are available. It has zero applicability to the Covid pandemic.

Similarly, body counts as a percent of susceptible people are also meaningless.  These are deaths happening as public health measures and incrementally improving treatments are being implemented.  One could just as validly state that the ratio reflects the importance and efficacy of strong public health measures.

BBR used to go on about Farr's Law also.  Any relation?

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11224 on: March 03, 2021, 01:37:37 AM »
We are getting a better idea of the CFR for covid after 14 months since the start of the Pandemic.

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

It started around 15% CFR at the start of the Pandemic dropped to around 1.6% CFR late last year, but has since been rising to around 2.9% CFR. Germany dropped to a low of 1.6% CFR on 7th of December, but on the 1st March this year is at 2.9%. UK dropped to 2.6%, 15 th Jan but rose to 2.9% CFR by March 1st.

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

CFR for 18 to 29 year olds is around 0.2%, Flu is 0.1%. Over 60,s it ranges from 3% to 15%.

If you overrun a countries health system CFR can double, if a hospital runs out of oxygen even patients not in an ICU unit will more likely die, increasing CFR way higher.

Similar mortality of the spanish flu, but influenza flu pandemics offer 30 months immunity, cold viruses like covid-19 offer 6 to 12 months immunity. making this virus harder to vaccinate before it mutates into other variants and escape vaccine efficacy. It is more dangerous than the spanish flu due to reduced immunity time, 30 months vs 12 months.

Where as the spanish flu could infect x amount every 30 months, Covid can infect people each 6 to 12 months over and over. If you kill 2% of your population every 12 months without Lockdowns and then the population loses immunity it starts all over again, not to mention the increased CFR as hospitals become overrun and run out of beds or oxygen.

Hopefully vaccines will help us out of these lockdowns by summer and autumn. Then we just have to hope it does not mutate too much this winter and avoid vaccine efficacy, then we can get back to partial normality.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 03:21:57 AM by glennbuck »

Shared Humanity

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11225 on: March 03, 2021, 03:34:30 AM »


It looks like a lot of people only want to focus on the virus.



This is the COVID-19 thread, right?

Shared Humanity

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11226 on: March 03, 2021, 03:41:51 AM »
Ooooooohhhhhh! Thomas has discovered bar charts!

I was born in 1955. When I got to late grade school and high school, I fell in love with history. My Dad shared his experiences in WW II and I was always convinced that this was a devastating war with disastrous impacts across the planet. I thought I would take a closer look.

It would seem WW II was a pretty minor affair if you ask me.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 04:04:41 AM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11227 on: March 03, 2021, 04:26:20 AM »
One of the reasons dad and I talked is our family was being affected by the Vietnam War. As a 14 year old, it seemed like a pretty big deal. My older brother had just registered for the draft in 1969.

Looking at this chart, I'm wondering why the hippies were so upset. I mean, Hell, the numbers of wounded, dead and MIA are so low the bars don't even appear on the chart.

Shared Humanity

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11228 on: March 03, 2021, 04:46:59 AM »
I think we all can agree that sexual assault is horrific, having long lasting impacts on the victim. One rape is one too many. Given that, could we be exaggerating the problem a bit?

OK. I am done. This last has made me sick to my stomach. My point is that bar charts can be used to make serious problems seem of little consequence.  :'(

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6802
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2492
  • Likes Given: 2246
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11229 on: March 03, 2021, 05:44:47 AM »
Good point SH. My thought was on WW2 casualties, it should be obvious that the bar chart minimization isn't contributing anything.
I would remove the second chart you posted though, it makes me uncomfortable.

zufall

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11230 on: March 03, 2021, 08:34:27 AM »
Apropos of nothing in particular, does anybody have any graphs of "XS Long Covid"?

I did not find graphs, but many tables in this study from Feb 26, 2021 (not peer-reviewed):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.24.21252329v1.full-text

Quote
Standardized neuropsychological, psychiatric, neurological and olfactory tests were administered to 45 patients (categorized according to the severity of their respiratory symptoms during the acute phase) 236.51 ± 22.54 days post-discharge following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And this one from Dec 27, I thought it had been posted here but could not find a reference:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.24.20248802v2.full-text

Quote
Participants 3,762 respondents from 56 countries completed the survey. 1166 (33.7%) were 40-49 years old, 937 (27.1%) were 50-59 years old, and 905 (26.1%) were 30-39 years old. 2961 (78.9%) were women, 718 (19.1%) were men, and 63 (1.7%) were nonbinary. 8.4% reported being hospitalized. 27% reported receiving a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. 96% reported symptoms beyond 90 days.

nadir

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11231 on: March 03, 2021, 10:11:37 AM »
@glennbuck I doubt sars-cov-2 variants drift away faster or immunological response decays faster when compared to the flu. Let’s say this first year the coronavirus has had many more chances to mutate than it usually will have in the future.

Otherwise flu viruses are known for mutating much faster. As for immunological response everything points to humans acquiring a robust lasting response, reinfections remaining low. Someone with hard data confirm this or rebut it.

Edit. Found this abstract randomly
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064680/
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 10:24:31 AM by nadir »

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11232 on: March 03, 2021, 10:23:06 AM »
Sadly, robust immunity may only last a year or less. We are going to find out over the next couple of months as the first outbreaks turn a year old.

Resurgence of COVID-19 in Manaus, Brazil, despite high seroprevalence

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00183-5/fulltext

Quote
In this context, the abrupt increase in the number of COVID-19 hospital admissions in Manaus during January, 2021 (3431 in Jan 1–19, 2021, vs 552 in Dec 1–19, 2020) is unexpected and of concern (figure).5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10 After a large epidemic that peaked in late April, 2020, COVID-19 hospitalisations in Manaus remained stable and fairly low for 7 months from May to November, despite the relaxation of COVID-19 control measures during that period (figure).
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

nadir

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11233 on: March 03, 2021, 10:26:02 AM »
I hope not. The key is to abate the infections and so the number of viruses, then further emergence of strains will become very rare. But if we leave the contagions in complete out of control, like in denialist Bolsonaro’s Brazil...

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4020
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11234 on: March 03, 2021, 11:40:04 AM »
One of the reasons dad and I talked is our family was being affected by the Vietnam War. As a 14 year old, it seemed like a pretty big deal. My older brother had just registered for the draft in 1969.

Looking at this chart, I'm wondering why the hippies were so upset. I mean, Hell, the numbers of wounded, dead and MIA are so low the bars don't even appear on the chart.
The Vietnamese have a different graph.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11235 on: March 03, 2021, 11:50:01 AM »
The Vietnamese have a different graph.

Totally! They controlled COVID just like the Chinese (once again shame on our governments!):

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11236 on: March 03, 2021, 11:54:55 AM »


Otherwise flu viruses are known for mutating much faster. As for immunological response everything points to humans acquiring a robust lasting response, reinfections remaining low. Someone with hard data confirm this or rebut it.



According to one preprint study from Public Health England (PHE) released in January, which looked at hospital staff, the median interval between the first infection and reinfection was more than 160 days – about five months. Meanwhile, a study from Qatar suggests protection by natural immunity of about 95% efficacy lasts about seven months.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/12/what-we-know-about-covid-reinfection-immunity-and-vaccines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coronavirus
« Last Edit: March 03, 2021, 12:24:44 PM by glennbuck »

El Cid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 606
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11237 on: March 03, 2021, 11:56:22 AM »
Sadly, robust immunity may only last a year or less. We are going to find out over the next couple of months as the first outbreaks turn a year old.

Resurgence of COVID-19 in Manaus, Brazil, despite high seroprevalence

I wrote about Manaus upthread and I think real seroprevalance was much lower:

"...
We calculated 3,457 excess deaths in Manaus, Brazil, between 19 March and 24 June 2020 representing 0.16% of the city’s population.

And :

"In Manaus, a lower seroprevalence (14%, in June) was found in a random household sample of 250 people"

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6526/288

BTW the 14% number is likely not far from the truth as that would mean that 0,14*2,2 Million = 308 000 were infected. Part of the 3457 excess deaths is very likely not COVID as healthcare collapsed, so we could say that 2500 deaths for 308 thousand infected = 0,8% IFR.

All in all, Manaus likely was not above 20-30% infected, no wonder there was a next wave"

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4863
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 530
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11238 on: March 03, 2021, 02:21:12 PM »
And this one from Dec 27

Thanks Zufall:

Quote
Prevalence of 205 symptoms in 10 organ systems was estimated in this cohort, with 66 symptoms traced over seven months. Respondents experienced symptoms in an average of 9.08 (95% confidence interval 9.04 to 9.13) organ systems. The most frequent symptoms reported after month 6 were: fatigue (77.7%, 74.9% to 80.3%), post-exertional malaise (72.2%, 69.3% to 75.0%), and cognitive dysfunction (55.4%, 52.4% to 58.8%).

Conclusions Patients with Long COVID report prolonged multisystem involvement and significant disability. Most had not returned to previous levels of work by 6 months. Many patients are not recovered by 7 months, and continue to experience significant symptom burden.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6802
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2492
  • Likes Given: 2246
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11239 on: March 03, 2021, 03:04:55 PM »
It appears recovering persons are currently at risk from the new variants (UK, SA etc.), while vaccinated persons are apparently more protected, at least according to some information published locally here. Haven't found any quantitative data.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11240 on: March 03, 2021, 03:51:01 PM »
Ooooooohhhhhh! Thomas has discovered bar charts!

I was born in 1955. When I got to late grade school and high school, I fell in love with history. My Dad shared his experiences in WW II and I was always convinced that this was a devastating war with disastrous impacts across the planet. I thought I would take a closer look.

It would seem WW II was a pretty minor affair if you ask me.

As you point out, those war-deaths were a tiny percent of the world's population, but they were wars. There was no choice but to go to war. You don't want jackboots all over hobbitland.
Sweden made a choice in 2020 and has done fine (despite all the lies about changing policies later, or what the King actually said).
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

be cause

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11241 on: March 03, 2021, 04:11:18 PM »
' Sweden .. has done fine ' ..indeed , if 19th worst in the world and far , far worse than it's neighbours counts as 'doing fine ' .
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 + 2 = 2021 + 1 =  ' if only we could have seen it coming ' ...

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11242 on: March 03, 2021, 04:14:20 PM »
Sweden? Really? Have you compared Sweden and Norway?

Let's make it easy.

1.)  632

2.)  12,964

Which one is the total covid death count of Sweden and which one of Norway?

Ah but population! A person trained in elementary math would say...  I will leave that to the "skeptics"
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11243 on: March 03, 2021, 04:34:24 PM »
Sweden? Really? Have you compared Sweden and Norway?

Let's make it easy.

1.)  632

2.)  12,964

Which one is the total covid death count of Sweden and which one of Norway?

Ah but population! A person trained in elementary math would say...  I will leave that to the "skeptics"

Well, you clearly haven't compared them. You'll need more time to do that.
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11244 on: March 03, 2021, 04:39:32 PM »
...
It's the scientific law called "Farr's Law", still valid today. All pandemics fade away naturally.
Note that Farr's Law was an observation of the natural history of epidemics.   That is, epidemics in which there are no public health measures,  treatments, or vaccines available.  Farr's initial observations were in relation to smallpox, I believe.

Farr's law is inapplicable for diseases where public health measures, therapeutics, or vaccines are available. It has zero applicability to the Covid pandemic.

Similarly, body counts as a percent of susceptible people are also meaningless.  These are deaths happening as public health measures and incrementally improving treatments are being implemented.  One could just as validly state that the ratio reflects the importance and efficacy of strong public health measures.

BBR used to go on about Farr's Law also.  Any relation?


Yes, as you stated "epidemics in which there are no public health measures,  treatments, or vaccines available”, fade away naturally.

"Farr's law is inapplicable for diseases where public health measures, therapeutics, or vaccines are available. It has zero applicability to the Covid pandemic."

Nope. Nature is still at work.

"Similarly, body counts as a percent of susceptible people are also meaningless.  These are deaths happening as public health measures and incrementally improving treatments are being implemented."

Most countries aren't doing much. Also, compare different strategies in sprawling, chaotic, poorly-compliant, numerous competing for-profit health companies, in USA.
(also note, the polio epidemic of the 20th century started by over-sanitising maternity wards in the 1890s. Be careful what you over-sanitise. I’ll post references if anyone asks. Also note, the smallpox epidemics were mostly due to extreme unhygienic living conditions, pollution, polluted water, etc. - refs. available if anyone wants. TB was reduced by hygiene education worldwide, and clean water acts - refs. available if anyone wants.)

The improvements in treatments for covid-19 have had little documented significant effect (except less use of intubated ventilators, which I pointed out in March 2020, the research from previous years showed ventilators kill 10% of patients - and would be MUCH higher in a crisis - and kill nurses because the most dangerous time to catch a virus is when applying them, extracting them. And cause permanent long-term problems. While society was screaming for more ventilators, not knowing the harm they were doing). The vaccine might make a difference to what was about 2 deaths per 100,000 people per day at its peak in UK, but the death-rates seem to have been already falling in most places. Only future published analyses will tell.

The reason there cannot be significant improvement from other measures is because there is no cure for being one bad illness from death’s door, which most people who died were. Sad but true. Anyone can easily, hugely improve their immune system naturally (against all viruses and disease), no matter where they start from (100s of peer-reviewed studies which are off-topic here). There is no cure at a hospital. (And very frail elderly - and others - can’t take the vaccine as far as I understand it)

IFR, T-Cell-immunity.
If anyone here wants to try this, please do, and post it here:

1. First, from these studies on pre-existing T-cell immunity, decide what % of the total population you think these studies show (average/approx). I suggest 30%, but I personally think it is higher.

FEB. 2021
"44% of healthy unexposed healthy controls, all IgG-RBD seronegative, had a strong virus-specific T-cell response with the COVID-19 IGRA, probably because of prior exposure to common cold-causing coronaviruses or other viral or microbial antigens.”…”80% of the convalescent COVID-19 patients, all IgG-RBD seropositive, had a strong T-cell response."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33582369/

FEB 2021
"we demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 elicits antibodies that cross-recognize pandemic and endemic CoV antigens at two Spike S2 subunit epitopes. We further show that these cross-reactive antibodies preferentially bind endemic homologs. Our findings highlight sites at which the SARS-CoV-2 response appears to be shaped by previous CoV exposures and which have the potential to raise broadly neutralizing responses."
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(20)30244-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2666379120302445%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

NOV. 2020
"our findings raise the expectation that a significant majority of the global population is likely to have SARS-CoV-2 reactive T-cells because of prior exposure to flu and CMV viruses, in addition to common cold-causing coronaviruses."
"In conclusion, our study demonstrates strong pre-existing CD8 T-cell immunity in many unexposed donors contributed by the engagement of cross-reactive TCRs against common CMV and flu antigens. The presence of high-quality cross-reactive TCRs can protect individuals by mounting an early CD8 T-cell response and clearing the virus."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.03.367375v1

SEPT. 2020
“At least six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

AUGUST 2020
"The researchers generated T cell lines from the memory cells that recognized SARS-CoV-2 fragments. They then tested them for cross-reactivity against a peptide pool from other coronaviruses. They found that of the SARS-CoV-2 and “common cold” coronavirus fragments that were most similar (at least 67% genetic similarity) 57% showed cross-reactivity by memory T cells...“We have now proven that, in some people, pre-existing T cell memory against common cold coronaviruses can cross-recognize SARS-CoV-2, down to the exact molecular structures,"
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32753554/

JULY 2020
"In conclusion, it is now established that SARS-CoV-2 pre-existing immune reactivity exists to some degree in the general population."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z

2. Then subtract 30% of the total population of a country. I suggest UK.

3. To do this properly, you’d have to subtract a percentage of people who were going to die anyway in this year or two (eg. very elderly cancer patients, frail, and fading fast. Or other very sick people.), but you can ignore that demographic if you want to.

4. From these studies below, take a rough average of infection fatality-rate. I’d say 0.3% to 0.6% for the worst hit countries.

FEB. 2021
“The infection fatality rate for both the Bureau of Prisons and U.S. was 0.7%. Among institutions that tested ≥85% of inmates, the combined infection fatality rate was 0.8%”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905372/

FEB.2021
Specific to New York City. (This study is an outlier in the list, and I suggest caution in using their 1.39% figure, but do so if you think it is right).
“We estimated an overall infection-fatality risk of 1·39%“
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30769-6/fulltext

JAN 2021
“The overall non-institutionalized IFR was 0.26%.”
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-5352

DEC 2020
“This rate varied from place to place, with a lower range of 0.17% and a highest estimate of 1.7%.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809

DEC. 2020
“Results show a fatality ratio of about 0.9%, which is lower than previous findings.”
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9290/pdf

NOV. 2020
“The overall infection fatality risk was 0.8%”
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509

NOV 2020
“In the United States, COVID-19 now kills about 0.6% of people infected with the virus, compared with around 0.9% early in the pandemic, IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray told Reuters.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fatality/covid-19-fatality-rate-down-30-since-april-study-finds-idUSKBN27S39D

NOV. 2020
“The estimated IFR was 0.36% (95% CI:[0.29%; 0.45%]) for the community and 0.35% [0.28%; 0.45%] when age-standardized to the population of the community.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19509-y#MOESM3

OCT 2020
“We know that antibody tests are not perfect, and there may be a considerable number of people who do not mount a detectable antibody response to SARS-CoV-2. However, even when this uncertainty is taken into account, we still find that COVID-19 has a high fatality rate - on the order of 1% for a typical high-income country.”
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/

SEPT 2020
The W.H.O. posted a heavily peer-reviewed & critiqued study from May 2020, showing the deaths per cases are 0.23% overall, and going up to 0.5% in the worst hit cities. 0.05% for under 70s - The W.H.O. reviewed it again, then published it in September:
- https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dxXTwhdtH1-BqCWvZVheVZco2LJ9ZovT6DQ9hjW4TOaxI1K6olyO6j1M

AUG 2020
The medical journal 'Nature' did an analysis and stated that:
"This result was used to calculate an overall IFR for England of 0.9%”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2?fbclid=IwAR1X2BFFLLm_YyVyxSAR9UkE7eZZ9i2PATOeM78kjhrpj665rRP0qYUs5qY

I’ll take any of these out if I made a mistake (it’s a lot of work) or add any others, that are peer-reviewed.

5. So, with the IFR you come up with, apply it to 70% of the UK population (>30% have pre-existing immunity)

What is the number of deaths per-annum you arrive at? (If there was no vaccine and no significant lockdowns. These are IFRs.)

6. Now from the IFR you arrived at, calculate what difference a vaccine that gives 90% immunity can make.

What is the IFR after that calculation?

7. Now calculate, of the 70% of the UK population (or the % of the population you think can catch covid19), how many people that the vaccine will save in a year?
 
I get a very good result in my calculations for the value of the vaccine in saving lives, and adding to the large herd-immunity (>30% of immunity by default already existed prior to year 2020, plus a large % of population who already fought it off in 2020, built immunity), but the vaccine is not exactly saviour of the world, that we needed to lockdown (it was very short, and pretty relaxed here in Vermont, USA. I’ve had a great time, work from home anyway. Worked on house, skiing all winter. 99.5% of deaths in Vermont were from elder-care homes)… and cause massive harm and far more death in the short and longterm, in my opinion.

Incidentally, my final IFR and resultant number of deaths predicted, after doing all that, more or less matches the number of people who died in most badly hit countries, no matter what the policy (and no, I don’t believe lockdowns work - except on remote islands - nor are they scientific).

PS. Countering strongly held views is a lot of work, so I am sure there are mistakes above.
I'l make any changes to this in response to reasoned respectful criticisms.


« Last Edit: March 04, 2021, 09:33:26 PM by Thomas Barlow »
My YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfk66dfLTAsZIVYbh7bqcoA/videos - talks about climate-change, environmental destruction, BLM, lockdown-hysteria, vampire-capitalism.

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11245 on: March 03, 2021, 07:44:38 PM »
The Brazil coronavirus variant now found in the UK appears more contagious and may evade immunity provided by past infection, scientists say.

Experiences from Manaus - the Amazonian city hit hard by the P.1 variant - suggest it could be up to twice as transmissible as earlier Covid there, the first detailed study suggests.

The preliminary work puts the chance of reinfection at between 25% and 60%.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-56252779

https://github.com/CADDE-CENTRE/Novel-SARS-CoV-2-P1-Lineage-in-Brazil/blob/main/manuscript/FINAL_P1_MANUSCRIPT_25-02-2021_combined.pdf

Researchers at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation published a preprint genomic epidemiology study of 250 collected genomes from different places in Amazonas (Brazilian state) and found that P.1 infections can produce nearly 10 times more viral load than in other COVID-19-infected persons involving B.1.1.28 and B.1.195 lineages. The variant also showed 2.2 times higher transmissibility with the same ability to infect both adults (18–59 years old) and older persons (60 years old and higher), suggesting P.1 lineages are more successful at infecting younger humans with no gender differential

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineage_P.1

« Last Edit: March 04, 2021, 12:24:19 AM by glennbuck »

harpy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11246 on: March 03, 2021, 09:30:56 PM »
It appears recovering persons are currently at risk from the new variants (UK, SA etc.), while vaccinated persons are apparently more protected, at least according to some information published locally here. Haven't found any quantitative data.

The next logical question is what would happen if someone got infected with the coronavirus, recovered, took the vaccine, and then got exposed to one of the variants?

Sadly, so many unknowns.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5856
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 815
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11247 on: March 04, 2021, 03:31:45 AM »
Might have to take a new vaccine every year ? or more often ?

Pharma loves this.

sidd

zufall

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11248 on: March 04, 2021, 07:32:11 AM »
Mising receptor in the immune system is associated with severe courses of Covid-19

https://www.meduniwien.ac.at/web/ueber-uns/news/neews-im-februar-2021/fehlen-eines-rezeptors-im-immunsystem-ist-mit-schweren-verlaeufen-von-covid-19-assoziiert/

Quote
The interaction between the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the human immune system has a decisive influence on the course and severity of the COVID-19 disease in individual patients. The antiviral immune response by natural killer cells (NK cells) is usually an important step in fighting virus replication in the initial phase of the infection. These killer cells have specific activating receptors on their surface, including the NKG2C receptor, which communicates with an infected cell via one of their specific surface structures, the HLA-E. This interaction leads to the destruction of the virus-infected cells. However, the activating receptor NKG2C is naturally absent in around 4% of the population due to a gene variation, and the receptor is only partially present in around 30 percent of the population.

A research group from the Center for Virology at the Medical University of Vienna under the direction of Elisabeth Puchhammer-Stöckl has now shown, in cooperation with doctors from the Favoriten Clinic, that especially people with a partial or complete absence of the NKG2C receptor develop severe cases of COVID -19.

In their study, which was recently published in the journal “Genetics in Medicine”, the authors show that people who had to be hospitalized with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to have the gene variation underlying the lack of the receptor than people with mild courses. Puchhammer-Stöckl: “The lack of the receptor was particularly common in patients who had to be treated with COVID-19 in intensive care units, regardless of age or gender. Genetic variations in the HLA-E of the infected cell were also associated with the severity of the disease, albeit to a lesser extent. "

The current study therefore shows the great importance of the NK cell response in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 infection: “This part of the immune response could therefore also be an important target for drugs that could help treat severe COVID-19 -Prevent diseases, ”explains the MedUni Vienna expert.

Original article in Springer Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41436-020-01077-7.pdf


Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4863
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 530
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: COVID-19
« Reply #11249 on: March 04, 2021, 10:01:03 AM »
Pharma loves this.

And here in the UK at least the chums of the powers that be (allegedly!) get rich by failing to provide PPE.

Back to the science?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein