The Unique US Failure to Control the Virus

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by CenterField, Aug 6, 2020.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Arkanis likes this.
  2. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    3,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not too long ago, same silly people have also labelled the Federal Reserve as “Enemy of the People”, and today, they’re labelling the FDA/CDC as a DEEP STATE.

    Why? Because several of Trump’s wishes were not granted.

    Myself, I’ve long been a conservative, Pentecostal conservative, fiscal conservative, and strong proponent of most Tea Party’s 15 Core Beliefs, and in reference to said Core beliefs, what a great disappointment.......”All talk no walk”.

    To tell you the truth, today, I don’t recognize who’s who anymore. Main reason; “Cultisim”
     
    CenterField likes this.
  3. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. That gets me up to speed on how things are being approached with C19. I’m conflicted I guess personally. In your shoes I probably couldn’t infect someone but as a subject knowing risks and methods I could be convinced to be infected.
    I’m not seeing a lot of good solid data, but there seems to be more and more support for the hypothesis a low initial dose of the virus results in asymptomatic infections or less severe symptoms in C19. The theory is being used to encourage mask usage by saying if you get infected wearing a mask you are very unlikely to die. Anyway, if the initial dose theory is true and could be demonstrated to be so, it would make me inclined to test it. :)

    Not surprising I guess mRNA are first to the table. In theory they are quick and relatively easy to produce. Looks like all target spike. What I’m not able to pin down is delivery method and use/no use of adjuvants in each vaccine. Frankly adjuvants are what concern me most about new vaccines. I know it’s been hard to get a good immune response in humans with mRNA vaccines historically so I’d want to know exactly how each company has solved that problem.
    That is interesting. I guess the only viral vaccine I’ve really researched is HIV and they fail in all phases. :)

    Every I’ve read so far says feeling unwell after initial dose is not uncommon from innate immune response. I didn’t come across problems with second dose. No big deal if lowering the booster works without the side effects. Do you know specifically what the “issues” were?
    Excellent.
    Just remember what people read here does influence them. Whether they know your name or not. LOL. :)

    I understand the delineation between inherent stupidity and irrational decisions you are making. That’s why I said I knew you weren’t calling my friends/acquaintances stupid. Thanks for making sure we all are on the same page though, it’s appreciated.
    I’m afraid I’ve failed to communicate my point well. You are preaching to the choir. I hate what media spin and anecdotal stories have done to the ability of those like yourself to communicate effector with patients.
    Yes I read that post. I don’t disagree with your math. Except for infection fatality rate. I think you are high but off topic so I’ll save that for another day. I did disagree with the conclusions of the source of the OP. It was garbage. I’ve hit character limit so continued below.
     
  4. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m open to all evidence you are correct but I’ve so far not seen hard evidence for 1 in ten. Especially considering actual numbers infected are not known with any certainty.
    Again I’ve communicated poorly. I’ve researched vaccine adverse reactions many times. I’m aware of the probabilities and I’d have to say those in my examples do as well. What I’m trying to gently point out is the mistrust already existing. Facts and figures are great. But showing someone Guillain-Barré Syndrome statistics only goes so far when the same person was told for years to avoid high protein/fat diets and eat all the whole grains they wanted. They got fatter, got celiac disease, and suffered from other effects of inflammation. They were told the causal relationship between high LDL’s and CVD was proven and lowering LDL’s is the mechanism of lowering mortality from CVD. They were initially led to believe influenza vaccination was much more efficacious than it is in reality.

    These people are smart enough to figure out mRNA vaccines in humans is new. They have been inundated with information about the possibility of antibody-dependent enhancement problems even from previous coronavirus infections. My fuel guy will find researchers discussing the possibility of mass vaccinating during a pandemic resulting in ADE events. He will wonder why the general population isn’t informed by professionals on these subjects.

    You have to remember all the other things people have been told. We are told we don’t know if production of antibodies and T cell activation confers long term immunity. In fact the narrative has been that neither will. We’ve been told because it’s a novel virus we absolutely can’t assume it’s going to initiate immune responses the same as other coronavirus. We’ve been told if long term immunity doesn’t result from natural infectious ADE might occur in reinfections. We have been told we can’t be confident of anything because it’s so new and needs much more study. Now, as soon as a vaccine is ready we will likely be told we have supreme confidence in our conclusions. We know everything we need to know about long term safety of a vaccine never used in humans for a virus we knew nothing about less than a year ago.

    One reason I’m concerned about how this will play out is my experience with genetically modified organisms. My industry failed to approach their rollout correctly and will never recover from the consequences. We pushed and advertised traits that didn’t directly benefit the consumer first. We made it look like GMO’s were all about profit when we could have made the case they are one of the greatest advancements in environmental protection ever conceived because they are. In fact we continue to make blunders every few years analogous to the things I’ve mentioned above. Things like approving a trait in the US and planting a crop before China approves the trait. All that adds up to mistrust in the consumer of an advancement in science shown to be as safe or safer than vaccinations. And with as much potential to save lives.

    I’m not arguing the safety of vaccines. Hell, I owe my livelihood to vaccines. I’m trying to show how to avoid having 50% of the population refuse a vaccine. I’m trying to explain why intelligent people question industries that market their product incorrectly even if it’s a good product. I’m trying to explain just pointing to low prevalence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome after vaccination doesn’t negate all the baggage the media spin and politicalization has burdened you the doctor with.
    The way to reach someone like my examples is to go beyond Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Address the things I’ve pointed to above. Because they are intelligent people they don’t want half the story. They don’t care about appeal to authority or herd mentality. They don’t want candy coating. They are more likely to accept vaccination after being told about ADE and having a discussion about it than if it’s ignored. That said I’m not criticizing your approach. I like it. I’m just hoping there is a way around the obstacles placed between you and your patients by third parties.

    If you want to vent, let me have it! Get it out because you are going to need a lot of patience going forward if only half of people are receptive.

    I hope whoever is in charge of the public service announcement spots and ads isn’t a moron. The ads could easily make things worse.
     
  5. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Asia which saw this first has achieved herd immunity. Europe which saw it second has achieved herd immunity. Thank god I was exposed!!

    Now the US needs to achieve herd immunity which it will. Ready or not!

    Time to be grown ups and let a natural force test our amazing immune system!

    Time to be strong and not stop hidings like we are 4 years old! And even my four year old is mature enough to not be afraid.

    The adults who should know better are the problem!!
     
  6. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't. This virus is too unpredictable. My brother had an asymptomatic case and then a stroke. There are by now several hints that even asymptomatic cases can still have serious consequences (obviously less often than severe cases, but still).
    I don't know much about these, either.
    Reportedly immongenicity has been good.
    That I don't know either, as I'm not a virologist/immunologist. I don't know exactly how they do it. I suppose they design various different mRNA sequences and put them to test.
    IIRC, High fever in one case, urticaria in another one. The others were minor, like little temperature, little soreness in site of application, etc.
    True, but this isn't such a nationally known medium, is it? Maybe I'm underestimating this website. But you are right, I should change my tune and not imply that people are stupid.
    You're welcome.
    You made a good point. I need to be more careful in how I express myself.
    In another of my posts today I explained why I think that the idea that we are missing 9 out of 10 cases is exaggerated, due to some data we've seen from other countries and due to how we (falsely in my opinion) got to this idea. If we're not missing that many, then the IFR is higher than people assume.
    I haven't either. I was speculating. The one study we have, showing VERY widespread heart injury (78% of patients including two thirds of those having had mild infection), studied only 100 patients so it is premature to reach such a conclusion. My speculation is that when we fully understand the sequelae of this infection, we may be surprised to see numbers as high as 1 in 10, especially if that study with 100 patients ends up being accurate. But you are right, we aren't there yet; I don't have hard data to substantiate my speculation, as of now it's just a gut feeling and I may be wrong.
    Yes, but see a little above what I was saying about overestimated idea that we're missing 9 out of 10 cases. Maybe we're only missing 2 out of 3 or something (another speculation, to be honest). When we see how we've been getting a relatively low percentage of positive tests even now that we've tested a significant number of people - 64.4 million tests already, only 5.1 million positive), when we see that Sweden without a lockdown and betting on herd immunity did a serology survey and only found 7% of positives among their population, when the UAE have tested more than half of their population of 9.9 million people (tested 5.4 million already) and only found some 60,000 positive, when we see that serology surveys used in the USA to estimate this 9 out of 10 number were actually incredibly flawed with a biased sample + false positives, we start to think that all this idea that we're missing 9 out of 10 is kind of... just an idea. Just speculation. Maybe the reality is that we're missing far fewer. Which, if it's the case, will push up the IFR. Sure, the CFR will always be higher than the true IFR, but is the true IFR that small? Maybe not, especially when we look at the ONE population for which we have a true IFR, not merely a CFR: the 4,000 people confined on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, and what was found was an IFR of 1.4%. Probably a little slanted due to older age of the average cruise ship tourist, but remember, the crew was also tested in these 4,000 and they were much younger.
    I was using GBS as an example. It's not the only risk as you've correctly ascertained. But hopefully phase 3 will give us a snapshot of other risks too. Once phase 3 is over and the vaccine gets approved, the FDA will hopefully have a monograph and we'll be able to present a complete picture to patients, when asking for informed consent.
    This is a true concern. See here, for example:
    http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/174389
    And here:
    https://bmcproc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1753-6561-5-S1-P80
    I don't know how the three mRNA frontrunning companies are planning to look into this. Phase 3 *can* look into it. But yes, maybe if Phase 3 is a bit rushed and the frontrunners are in such a race for this multi-billion dollar market, they won't look at it as eagerly... I hope they will. It is a concern and I guess I didn't mention it before either because I'm in denial, so hopeful I am for a vaccine, or because subconsciously I don't want to alarm possible vaccine candidates. But sure, in real life I'll have to take this into consideration when engaging in informed consent with a patient.
    There's been papers also showing that there may be robust cell-mediated immunity. But yes, I've seen alarmist articles in lay newspapers, using the Spanish study showing short-term life of IgG, implying that it won't be possible to be immune to the disease... and NOT ONCE mentioning cell-mediated immunity. That's disingenuous.
    I will, once the full set of data is available.
    Haha, but now you've made me paranoid about saying too much and this being a wider platform than I thought, and turning off people.
    Me too. And the companies and the FDA need to be transparent. When markets this size (multi-billion dollars) are concerned, there may be misinformation going around to try to win the race and to get a boost in stock prices.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2020
    ronv likes this.
  7. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody has achieved herd immunity yet. Not a single country. If you think otherwise please produce the evidence, and may that evidence not be some arrogant blogger who thinks he/she knows these things, but true epidemiological surveys and studies by national health agencies from the proposed countries.

    I'm curious, what do you know about herd immunity? How is it achieved? How is it calculated? Do you know what Herd Immunity Threshold is? Do you know how to calculate it for various infectious agents with different reproduction numbers? Do you know what else is needed for herd immunity beyond just the number of people infected?

    I don't want to appear nasty or arrogant, but frankly, what is going on is that lay people with little or no epidemiological knowledge have heard this cute term and now run with it, assuming that this is the solution and we should just allow the virus to run its course. Nothing could be more misguided than this, for several reasons I can explain, but before I do (if you're interested) I am curious to know what you actually know about herd immunity.

    I also would like to ask you what would be the death toll and disability consequences and damage to the economy if we were to go to a herd immunity approach. Do you have an idea, in numbers, of how many people would have to die for us to achieve herd immunity, and how many would have to be maimed with life-long severe health consequences (such as pulmonary fibrosis, the consequences of strokes, kidney insufficiency with need for dialysis, heart problems including heart failure? Do you have an idea of the HUGE economic impact that this would have (easily bigger than the damage to the economy we've seen with the lockdown) in terms of costs of treatment, lost productivity, premature death?

    Hint:

    ONE country among 215 tried to go for the herd immunity approach, Sweden. Many there regret it now and are very angry at the government, because:
    1. They failed to achieve heard immunity, anyway.
    2. Whiel trying, they collected a much higher death per capita rate than their neighbors that didn't share their boneheaded approach.
    3. They took an economic hit anyway, not at all smaller than their neighbors'.

    So, instead of a win-win situation (immune population, little economic impact) Sweden ended up with a loss-loss-loss situation (no herd immunity, more deaths, no economic benefit).

    Now, do you think that the health officials of this ONE country were the smart ones and all the other 214 were dumb? Or might it be the other way around, and only the Swedish health officials were dumb? Because the numbers are showing that they were the ones who screwed up.

    FYI: the "let's let the virus run its course for herd immunity" approach WAS considered by the White House... and thankfully discarded, when everybody including President Trump realized that it would be a bad, bad, bad idea. It still is.
     
    crank likes this.
  8. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    <Reply to Deleted>
    How many people in a population need to be immune to have herd immunity? Imagine that a disease has a basic reproduction number (that is, how many people get infected by one carrier, called [​IMG]), which is greater than 1 so an epidemic threatens (meaning that the contagion will keep exponentially growing). If the effective reproduction number [​IMG] is less than 1 (that is, after containment measures, vaccination, etc., a carrier infects less than one person), then the disease will eventually fizzle out. So to achieve herd immunity we need to somehow get the effective reproduction number [​IMG] to be under 1. Since [​IMG], where [​IMG] is the proportion of the population that is susceptible, we need

    [​IMG] How many people need to be immune to achieve this? If the proportion of susceptible people is [​IMG], then the proportion of people who are not susceptible, in other words immune, is [​IMG]. Now:

    [​IMG]

    So, to achieve herd immunity we need to make sure that at least a proportion of [​IMG] of the population is immune. For an [​IMG] of 2.5, a popular estimate for COVID-19, this means that we need to get at least a proportion of [​IMG] of the population immune. This translates to at least 60%.

    Since the estimate for the basic reproduction number for COVID-19 goes as high as 5.7, this number would give us a result of 82.5%.

    So the Herd Immunity Threshold for COVID-19 sits around 60% to 82.5% of the population being infected, in order to achieve it. But it's not just that. You also need neutralizing antibodies, not just an initial immune response, or else the contagion continues (cell immunity alone can protect an individual but won't help with herd immunity). You need these antibodies to be lasting, or else they fade and the contagion continues. A recent Spanish study showed the IgG antibodies fading after as little as two weeks. So it may be that COVID-19 will just never induce herd immunity.

    But let's suppose it does, and let's suppose we allow it to run its course until it gets to the more generous number of the above range: 60%.

    So, 60% of the US population is 198,600,000 people. Now, get the Infection Fatality Rate as it's been best estimated by the CDC: 0.65% (not the Case Fatality Rate which is way higher, but the IFR which is what we do need to use for this calculation, which ALREADY takes into account the asymptomatic cases).

    So, 0.65% of 198,600,000 is 1,290,900 people. So that's the price to pay for herd immunity, if we use the most generous number of 60%. If we use 82.5%, then it is 1,775,000 people.

    The alternative is to just keep being prudent, waiting 5 more months for a vaccine, and then avoiding, with the vaccine, this surplus in death.

    Say that until the vaccine is here, we lose a total of 215,000 people (say, 50,000 more than we've lost so far). The smallest number would mean that by NOT going for Herd Immunity, we'd spare the lives of at least 1,075,900 Americans, if not (the higher number), 1,550,000 people.

    If you think that trying to save the lives of between 1,075,900 to 1,550,000 Americans is for whiny little bitches, sure, buddy, go for it, and I'll gladly accept your label of whiny little bitch if in the process I can avoid these deaths.

    Thankfully, people like you who don't understand these things and run around saying HERD IMMUNITY without knowing what it is and how it's achieved, are NOT in charge, so thankfully your approach is not what was adopted by the White House and the governors, therefore we're not likely to get to the above numbers. Instead, we've adopted some containment measures (not doing so well on that) but also invested heavily in the Warp Speed Initiative to accelerate the development and distribution of vaccines, which is a MUCH better strategy than herd immunity.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2020
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe the federal government should do what states can’t. Just like the country was set up. The federal government should have slammed our borders shut and repatriated citizens under quarantine. The government failed at this simple task. Why trust them with more?
    Again, the states relied on the federal government to be prepared with resources. The federal government failed on every level. If states had known the feds weren’t going to actually be prepared they could have prepared better at the state level. Hopefully states will learn they need to prepare themselves and not depend on the feds. There would be no crisis in the Rio Grand Valley if the federal government had prepared us to be able to close the border. It turns out open borders have consequences. Who knew? Lol. :)

    Here is the stockpile mission statement from the Dept. Of Health and Human Services.
    So it isn’t the role of the feds to supply everything. And they failed in this limited role.
    Was it really a couple months? I never watched. That sounds like an eternity! I suppose he’s an attention whore like almost all other politicians. :)
    That all depends on who you elected to state and local offices. Did your state and localities invest in hospitals and research centers over the last decades? Did your state governor and health department send infected individuals to rest homes? Did they disinfect and manage public transportation to minimize infections? Did they maximize the testing resources they had available?

    Do you really want Trump or someone even less competent mandating actions to your state when they know nothing about needs at state and local levels? I don’t.
     
  10. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look at the grim statistics for cancer and cvd and compare those to the vanishingly small proportions of death from this virus (7 or 8 of ten thousand) which are likely padded as presumed cases and deaths are for some reason allowed to be included.
    HIV still kills more as does starvation and other communicable diseases same with smoking, alcohol and auto accidents world wide.

    I understand that math can be hard but simple proportions are amongst the easiest concepts to grasp so I don’t understand why this virus has become the darling of media and government unless there is a political motive behind it.
     
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The American people themselves are to blame. We by and large refuse to social distance. Parties, riots, protest and thousands of bikers are flooding Sturgis as we speak.
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not everything is political. All Americans of both stripes have an independent streak and a devil may care attitude.
     
  13. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Americans tend to have an attitude of not running and hiding. We meet life head on and at times that can be to our detriment.
    My wife and I are in the high risk group of well over sixty but yesterday we took a 25 mile bike ride on the centennial trail and stopped for pizza and beer in Spokane before heading back. They had outside seating and we wore mask while ordering inside the restaurant.
    Sure we'd be safer if we stayed home but we chose to go on with life taking reasonable precautions.
    That's the American spirit.
     
    cirdellin likes this.
  14. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I had every single symptom of covid back in March and was in close contract with a large number of Italian coughers before the Italians closed their borders and they all left Amsterdam and I had a miserable hacking cough for 5 weeks.

    I believe and hope I was exposed cause I don’t want to run away from anything.
     
  15. Montegriffo

    Montegriffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    10,673
    Likes Received:
    8,941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hear this about auto accidents a lot.
    ''worldwide'' is the only way you can make this comparison work.
    If you compare the deaths in most developed countries covid death rates are much higher,
    https://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/traffic_deaths_rates/en/
     
  16. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmm. Herd immunity huh?
    Europe has it but the US doesn't.

    Germany - 2.6k cases per million
    110 deaths per million

    US - 15K cases per million.
    499 deaths per million.

    Americans must have a different immune system, I guess. :)
     
  17. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, absolutely. I actually started a thread about the Sturgis thing. 250,000 people reportedly coming from all over the world... incredible.
     
  18. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it is a cultural trait that I otherwise like and share (to a certain degree), but in the case of a pandemic, it's backfiring on us.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  19. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cmon guy.
    The US has been exposed much more recently.
    Look at Belgium or Italy or Spain, not just countries whose numbers you like.
    The Netherlands response was completely dependent on herd immunity and look how well it worked! Compare it to Belgium or Italy or Spain or the UK!
    People get sick and some die.
    But this virus kills so few in proportion to total population. I’m sure I got it and it sucked but it never kept me from doing anything.
    Cancer or heart disease or age related organ failure is what’s going to kill you and not this nonsense panic driven virus!
     
  20. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Regarding causes of death: COVID-19 back on May 1st was already the 3rd cause of death, only behind cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

    https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ng-cause-of-death-stat-analysis-suggests.html

    There are three problems with minimizing it because other diseases kill more.

    One, it's not instead of. It's on top of. So the deaths from COVID-19 are *added* to those, thus the excessive Deaths By All Causes the CDC has been reporting, which debunks the idea that deaths by COVID-19 are being cooked up or over-reported.

    Two, COVID-19 easily has the potential to go above the causes #1 and #2 if we don't contain it. Here, from the source above:

    1. Heart disease: 269,583 deaths
    2. Cancer: 252,500 deaths (based on 2019 data)
    3. COVID-19 pandemic: 88,217 to 293,381 projected deaths
    4. Stroke: 60,833 deaths
    5. Alzheimer's disease: 50,417 deaths
    6. Drug overdoses: 29,265 deaths
    7. Suicide: 19,583 deaths

    I mean, that was on May 1st. We know already that we are way passed their best case scenario of 88,217 deaths. Report to my post above about herd immunity and the death toll it would entail if we were to allow the virus to run its course, unchecked, and we were to see a likely fairly accurate Infection-Fatality Rate of 0.65%. It actually has the potention to become the biggest killer among the upper respiratory viruses of all time - remember, this is not over yet, and also remember, the 1918 flu pandemic had 3 waves, and the second and third were worse than the first one, so we don't know yet where the SARS-CoV-2 will take us (especially if we continue to act stupidly, like with the gathering of 250,000 bikers in South Dakota that is going on as we speak).

    1. 1918 flu pandemic: 675,000 deaths
    2. COVID-19 pandemic: 88,217 to 293,381 projected deaths
    3. 2017-18 flu season: 61,000 deaths
    4. 2018-19 flu season: 34,200 deaths
    5. 2009 swine flu pandemic: 12,469 deaths

    Someone here said HIV kills more. Not true. In 2018, for example, there were 15,820 deaths of people who also had HIV, but this is deaths by all causes, not necessarily caused by HIV and probably not since HIV is no longer a fatal illness if treated, for the vast majority of patients, given that current treatment cocktails keep the virus in check and keep people alive forever until they die of some other cause. But even if we were to attribute all 15,820 of the above deaths to HIV itself (which is frankly absurd and would be an impossible statistical anomaly) it still pales in comparison to the death toll we're seeing from COVID-19.

    What explains the strong reaction from public health officials all over the world to COVID-19 is not some sort of weird political issue. I mean, governments of all stripes have reacted the same way, from extreme left wing in Venezuela to extreme right wing in the Philippines. There is no vast conspiracy against Trump involving 214 other countries.

    The reason public health officials reacted strongly is very simple: it's the characteristics of the virus.

    See, if you have a virus that is so aggressive to the host that it kills the host in large proportions (like MERS and Ebola), the contagion tends to be self-contained because the virus runs out of hosts. If you have a virus that is so mild that it doesn't cause any consequences, it tends to spread and spread and hit everybody like the common cold (an average of 5 episodes per year per American, every American), but who cares?

    Now, when you have a virus like the SARS-CoV-2 that kills maybe 0.65% to 1% of people, but also causes severe health consequences in maybe 5% more (lung fibrosis with chronic shortness of breath, heart myocarditis that can lead to heart failure down the road, hypercoagulation with strokes, renal insufficiency in need of dialysis, neuro-cognitive issues, chronic fatigue, etc.), has airborne transmission human-to-human, has no vaccine and no efficient treatment for it (unlike the flu, unlike HIV), has a period during which asymptomatic carriers can spread it, and is pretty darn contagious... THAT's when you worry.

    The worry and the containment measures are justified. People who are not used to thinking in terms of public health may not see it. They see the small death rate and feel reassured. However 0.65% to 1% plotted against a huge population of 331 million people like ours, is a LOT of people, and 5% of the infected developing severe consequences is a SERIOUS economic hit, in terms of costs for subsequent treatment, loss of productivity, and curtailed lifespan.

    So, yes, it is a big deal, and that's why health officials everywhere in the world have reacted strongly against it. No conspiracy theory necessary.
     
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that manifested itself how exactly?
     
  22. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry to take so long to respond. I thought maybe you would explain how different countries could have different percentage to obtain herd immunity.
    But speaking of Spain....
    This doesn't look like herd immunity to me.
    upload_2020-8-9_9-59-36.png

    Speaking of France we just zoomed right past them. :)
    But to make it more fun we could compare the US to all of the EU and according to you we should have already achieved herd immunity. Alas, we are still running up the scale.
     
  23. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
  24. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My point is that one would expect lower cases and deaths if lockdown was the answer but the statistics don’t support this. The Netherlands was a success story and Japan was a success story the latter even in the total absence of lockdowns.
    It’s a virus and it’s gonna gotcha one way or another.
    We desperately want to believe that science and legislation can keep micro organisms at bay but that assumption is childish.
    Better to face them and build up immunity for an actually serious virus which will come soon enough.
    But this isn’t it!
     
  25. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The article left out the part where we're counting Cvirus deaths in a manner that maximizes them while other countires are counting in a way that minimizes them. We count all infected that die as 'Covid deaths' while other countries will count them as any other serious condition they also had. So we don't even really know how we're doing compared to anyone else because we're not counting the same things they are. Given that we're also testing more than anyone else and thus are sure to find more case4s than anyone else, this entire comparison is junk. We have no idea how we're doing compared to anyone else until we start comparing the same things (deaths from Covid vs deaths from Covid or deaths with Covid vs deaths with Covid, not one vs the other which is a meaningless comparison) and testing at similar rates.

    This entire thread, and indeed any of our current virus response policy based on other nations 'progress' is based of comparing apples and pumpkins.

    pumpkin_apple.png
     

Share This Page