IGX

Luke wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:31 am I spoke to my doctor this week. He's Chinese so I asked for his take on what's happening. I didn't know that he was practising over there in emergency units during SARS.

He said COVID is definitely not as deadly, but with SARS, it never escaped because people died so quickly. He told me he'd show up to work and nurses who were healthily working away with him the previous day weren't...they'd died at home overnight. Much younger, healthier etc. etc. than he was. It never escaped because they died before they could infect the public at a bar etc.

Like being in the army, leaving your post wasn't an option. He said he put up with it and wasn't going to lose face coming back here.

However with this, he said it's genuinely with God what's going to happen, because the mutation factor and chance for more virulency is going to be present for some time. He's not concerned with what's happening now per se, but what it could become. He appreciates the caution being shown by politicians, but at the same time seemed a bit nonchalant and dismissive about being masked up and locked up all the time.

Luke wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:31 am I spoke to my doctor this week. He's Chinese so I asked for his take on what's happening. I didn't know that he was practising over there in emergency units during SARS.

He said COVID is definitely not as deadly, but with SARS, it never escaped because people died so quickly. He told me he'd show up to work and nurses who were healthily working away with him the previous day weren't...they'd died at home overnight. Much younger, healthier etc. etc. than he was. It never escaped because they died before they could infect the public at a bar etc.

Like being in the army, leaving your post wasn't an option. He said he put up with it and wasn't going to lose face coming back here.

However with this, he said it's genuinely with God what's going to happen, because the mutation factor and chance for more virulency is going to be present for some time. He's not concerned with what's happening now per se, but what it could become. He appreciates the caution being shown by politicians, but at the same time seemed a bit nonchalant and dismissive about being masked up and locked up all the time.

The instantaneous risk (i.e. at any time point) for a vulnerable person to get infected with #COVID19 in a random mixing population is simply the prevalence of the virus in the population.
(1/9)

Though, if we assumed that a % of a population will get infected eventually before the epidemic recedes, the entire population social-distancing increases the proportion of 'at-risk' people getting infected, relative to a scenario where only at-risk people sheltered.
(2/9)
The risk of #COVID19 to different demographies is highly variable, with elderly being at >1,000x higher risk than young people. As such, a reduction in the number of infections, but leading to a higher proportion of elderly being infected can lead to a higher death toll.
(3/9)
Let us assume that 50% of the population could get infected by #COVID19 before a vaccine is available. We divide the population into a high-risk (10% >75 years old; IFR~10%), and low-risk group (90% <75 years; IFR~0.2%). Now consider two countries both with 10M inhabitants.
(4/9)
In country A, everyone social-distances, with considerable success. As a result only 10% of the population gets infected. Though, as everyone social distances, the risk of infection is similar for everyone. This leads to ~10,200 deaths.
(5/9)
In country B, no one outside those in the high-risk group takes precautions. As a result 50% of the population gets infected. Though, those in the low-risk group are 10x more likely to get infected. This leads to ~6,000 deaths, about 60% of the death toll of country A.
(6/9)
In this hypothetical toy example, country B is likely in a better situation not only because it experienced fewer deaths but also because a far larger proportion of the population has been immunised (50% vs. 10%).
(7/9)
This toy example is not particularly realistic nor carefully parametrised and does ignore several important considerations. There are also challenges to implement an effective strategy to protect the 'at-risk' population in a humane and effective way.
(8/9)
That said, the toy example illustrates that population-wide 'social distancing' and lockdowns are not necessarily the most effective strategies to minimise the death toll of #COVID19, even when ignoring the collateral damage of invasive public health interventions.
(9/9)

1/ INCREDIBLE STUDY:

615 adults in Tokyo were prospectively recruited to take Sars-Cov-2 antibody tests.

When the study began 6% had antibodies, indicating exposure.

By mid-summer 47% did. Half the population.

Not one person was hospitalized or died...
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
2/ BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE:

Many IgM antibody tests rapidly reverted to negative after being positive. So point-in-time antibody testing almost certainly UNDERESTIMATES exposure (which may be why it is so hard to get over 20% antibody positives in broad population studies)...
3/ The researchers wrote:

"This suggests that serological testing may significantly
underestimate past COVID-19 infections, particularly when applied to an asymptomatic population."
4/ In other words, if you test broadly and rapidly during an outbreak, you will find that a huge fraction of the population has been exposed/infected and is asymptomatic (we have seen this from PCR testing in settings like aircraft carriers, prisons, etc)...
5/ AND AS THE RESEARCHERS WROTE:

"These findings should also take into context the epidemiological dynamics seen during this COVID-19 wave. Japan took the atypical step of not instituting a mandatory lockdown..."
6/ "During this time, businesses, restaurants, and transportation were kept open, and public life continued relatively unabated. Nevertheless, the second wave peaked and subsided on its own... the possibility of herd immunity
should be considered." [con't]...
7/ "If this [herd immunity] were true, then the remarkably low mortality related to COVID-19 should also be
examined. Much like our cohort which had no reported hospitalizations, clinical severity in Tokyo was low [31 deaths, 14 million people]."

JFC. It was Earth all along.
Seriously, it is impossible to overstate the importance of this paper. It and the 40-cycle testing put all the pieces together.

Luke wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:24 am I'm not saying the virus isn't real, or couldn't pose threats, but overdramatising it in this way is some 3D chess that is kinda impressive. A compelling reason for those deleted phone accounts none the less.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:58 am Supposedly this is the Covid survival rate from the CDC as of last Friday.
COVID-19 SURVIVAL RATES (per CDC):
Ages 0-19: 99.997%
Ages 20-49: 99.98%
Ages 50-69: 99.5%
Ages 70+: 94.6%

The survey question asked: “It is anticipated that in the next 12-18 months, a vaccine for coronavirus will be available. However, at least at first, there may not be enough to go around. Public health authorities must set guidelines about who gets the vaccine first. Please indicate the level of priority that should be given for each of the listed groups.” Respondents indicated which of 8 groups (based on age, health risk, and employment type) should receive high, medium, or low priority [...]

The survey participation rate was 14.4%, with a final sample of 1007 adults. Among these, 524 (51.4%) were women, 113 (18.1%) were aged 18 to 29 years, 375 (30.7%) were aged 60 years or older, 645 (62.6%) were White, and 170 (20.3%) reported fair or poor health (Table).

The Figure demonstrates respondents’ high willingness to allocate vaccine preferentially to front-line medical workers (937 respondents [91.6%] rated them high priority), high-risk children (807 respondents [81.0%] rated them high priority), and high-risk older adults (799 respondents [80.6%] rated them high priority). Respondents also reported priority for middle-aged people with higher risk (745 respondents [75.2%] rated them high priority) and for essential (nonmedical) workers (743 respondents [72.0%] rated them high priority). Fewer respondents reported high priority for pregnant people (627 respondents [64.0%] rated them high priority). While respondents ranked people with moderate mortality risk the lowest, they were more likely to give higher priority to children (348 respondents [39.2%] rated them high priority) than adults (242 respondents [29.0%] rated them high priority). A total of 142 respondents (17.7%) ranked all 8 groups as high priority [...]

This survey study found that respondents’ preferences were consistent with experts’ emergent recommendations for priority populations for vaccination, suggesting the public would support guidelines that offer vaccine priority to groups defined by age, risk of dying, and employment type.2-4 More than 90% of respondents identified medical workers as high priority. They also rated people at highest risk of dying as higher priority than people with lower risk.

The study has limitations. The prioritization question did not impose limits on the number of groups respondents could select as high priority. Also, groups assessed did not account explicitly for race/ethnicity or socioeconomic need, but a fuller framework for ethical decision-making should incorporate social justice considerations

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:52 am

Luke wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:24 am I'm not saying the virus isn't real, or couldn't pose threats, but overdramatising it in this way is some 3D chess that is kinda impressive. A compelling reason for those deleted phone accounts none the less.

Everything I've heard about Aus is the government has gone pretty full on Reichstag. Is that your impression?

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:21 am That’s great to hear and BTW, yes it was Victoria that I read about. Thanks for the reply.