Did you catch it ?

[Tarheelpilot]

I'm really surprised (and disappointed) by how we as a nation are handling this. Testing and information/informed discussions about immunity seem lacking.

Testing:

As bad as I thought the data was a couple of weeks ago, it's worse now, if anything. Some folks think the coronavirus deaths and cases are overcounted, some think they're undercounted. We can all agree the counts are wrong. (I strongly suspect there's a significant undercount of deaths, but the main thing is that the reporting is so inconsistent from state to state it's hard to tell.)

Consider the testing count and "confirmed cases" count. State governments now are under extreme pressure to show:

• Increasing testing rates
• Decreasing positive test rates (as a fraction of tests given)
• Decreasing new confirmed cases

Here's an example of what a state *could* do:

• With the new-ish availability of antibody tests, a state could combine the antibody test count and the viral test count to show an increasing test rate.
• At the same time, they could only report the positives from the viral tests (with the logic that that's the one that tells you about current cases, as opposed to how many have been infected in the past.)
• If the actual number of viral tests is decreasing (remember, this hypothetical state would be reporting the sum of the viral tests AND the antibody tests, so you wouldn't know if the viral test count was going down), then you'd even show the confirmed new case count going down.

And then "whoo hooo!" you'd be ready to reopen!!
​

Are states actually doing that? Who knows. Virginia did a piece of it, and it looks like Texas may be doing all of it. It's a nice way to pretend you're using data to drive your decisions (instead of the other way around.) The only real way to sort out what kind of shape we're in is how full the ICUs are - and in most places we're not in too bad shape, so maybe we'll be ok. Or maybe not. A lot of the states that have moved to reopen may not have even approached their peaks yet, and may actually cross that threshold. Hope not.​

Immunity:

I'm not a medical doctor or biologist, so am probably ill informed. But this is the interweb, so I'll post away. We've heard two things that may be important:

• People who have been infected (tested positive, recovered, tested negative) have been infected again. Either the tests are no good (making the data problem worse) or antibodies don't offer protection against reinfection.
• This type of virus is similar to the viruses that cause the common cold, and we've never been able to vaccinate against that.

Does this mean we won't be able to get a vaccine to work effectively, or that we'll never get to "herd immunity"? That'd be a crapper. This idea has come up on threads like this, but I haven't seen anything like a plan/backup plan for going to a "new normal" where we have years maybe of societal interactions conducted in a way where we throttle the spread of this thing enough not to overwhelm hospitals. And as folks have said - it's really the hospital Covid load-to-capacity ratio that matters, almost all this other stuff is noise.​

So, from my view, things may not look good for this summer and fall.

Then you have to deal with people like me that are of the opinion there is no guarantee in life and the government does not have the authority to shut down businesses and tell the whole population to shelter in place. So basically the data validity is irrelevant when it comes to opening up the economy. The government never had the legal authority to do what they have done and the court cases are starting to validate that position. We are opening this mother back up. If I die then so be it...

 

[RJM62]

As I understand it, the public-health purpose in prolonging the pandemic is to keep the peak of the cases-vs-time curve from exceeding the capability of the health-care system to cope with it. So far, it appears that most localities have achieved that goal, but some just barely.

So has Sweden, and without destroying their economy.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...million?tab=chart&country=FRA+ITA+SWE+GBR+USA

Of course, the real test will come in the fall.

Rich

 

[denverpilot]

As I understand it, the public-health purpose in prolonging the pandemic is to keep the peak of the cases-vs-time curve from exceeding the capability of the health-care system to cope with it. So far, it appears that most localities have achieved that goal, but some just barely.

On a hospital by hospital basis, that can also be expressed as thousands made it, tens barely.

Wife works for the third largest hospital operator and second largest by revenue. Not a single one went above 30% of capacity.

The prediction was a couple orders of magnitude off.

Emergency over. Legislators can handle it now. No need to have 46 people running the country anymore.

The medical folks have been saying they’re ready for roughly a month now. If the multiplier cranks back up, have a plan.

But it doesn’t need to be a single person in charge anywhere anymore.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

US people are too good to wear masks....and stop this.

 

[Palmpilot]

On a hospital by hospital basis, that can also be expressed as thousands made it, tens barely.

Wife works for the third largest hospital operator and second largest by revenue. Not a single one went above 30% of capacity.

The prediction was a couple orders of magnitude off.

Emergency over. Legislators can handle it now. No need to have 46 people running the country anymore.

The medical folks have been saying they’re ready for roughly a month now. If the multiplier cranks back up, have a plan.

But it doesn’t need to be a single person in charge anywhere anymore.

I prefer not to get into the political aspects of it on this forum.

 

[denverpilot]

I prefer not to get into the political aspects of it on this forum.

That’s fine. But the lack of emergency and the initial statement that thousands never had one, only a handful have even come close, still solidly stands.

 

[bflynn]

I'm really surprised (and disappointed) by how we as a nation are handling this. Testing and information/informed discussions about immunity seem lacking.

Testing:

As bad as I thought the data was a couple of weeks ago, it's worse now, if anything. Some folks think the coronavirus deaths and cases are overcounted, some think they're undercounted. We can all agree the counts are wrong. (I strongly suspect there's a significant undercount of deaths, but the main thing is that the reporting is so inconsistent from state to state it's hard to tell.)

Consider the testing count and "confirmed cases" count. State governments now are under extreme pressure to show:

• Increasing testing rates
• Decreasing positive test rates (as a fraction of tests given)
• Decreasing new confirmed cases

Here's an example of what a state *could* do:

• With the new-ish availability of antibody tests, a state could combine the antibody test count and the viral test count to show an increasing test rate.
• At the same time, they could only report the positives from the viral tests (with the logic that that's the one that tells you about current cases, as opposed to how many have been infected in the past.)
• If the actual number of viral tests is decreasing (remember, this hypothetical state would be reporting the sum of the viral tests AND the antibody tests, so you wouldn't know if the viral test count was going down), then you'd even show the confirmed new case count going down.

And then "whoo hooo!" you'd be ready to reopen!!
​

Are states actually doing that? Who knows. Virginia did a piece of it, and it looks like Texas may be doing all of it. It's a nice way to pretend you're using data to drive your decisions (instead of the other way around.) The only real way to sort out what kind of shape we're in is how full the ICUs are - and in most places we're not in too bad shape, so maybe we'll be ok. Or maybe not. A lot of the states that have moved to reopen may not have even approached their peaks yet, and may actually cross that threshold. Hope not.​

Immunity:

I'm not a medical doctor or biologist, so am probably ill informed. But this is the interweb, so I'll post away. We've heard two things that may be important:

• People who have been infected (tested positive, recovered, tested negative) have been infected again. Either the tests are no good (making the data problem worse) or antibodies don't offer protection against reinfection.
• This type of virus is similar to the viruses that cause the common cold, and we've never been able to vaccinate against that.

Does this mean we won't be able to get a vaccine to work effectively, or that we'll never get to "herd immunity"? That'd be a crapper. This idea has come up on threads like this, but I haven't seen anything like a plan/backup plan for going to a "new normal" where we have years maybe of societal interactions conducted in a way where we throttle the spread of this thing enough not to overwhelm hospitals. And as folks have said - it's really the hospital Covid load-to-capacity ratio that matters, almost all this other stuff is noise.​

So, from my view, things may not look good for this summer and fall.

I'm really surprised (and disappointed) by how we as a nation are handling this. Testing and information/informed discussions about immunity seem lacking.

Testing:

As bad as I thought the data was a couple of weeks ago, it's worse now, if anything. Some folks think the coronavirus deaths and cases are overcounted, some think they're undercounted. We can all agree the counts are wrong. (I strongly suspect there's a significant undercount of deaths, but the main thing is that the reporting is so inconsistent from state to state it's hard to tell.)

Consider the testing count and "confirmed cases" count. State governments now are under extreme pressure to show:

• Increasing testing rates
• Decreasing positive test rates (as a fraction of tests given)
• Decreasing new confirmed cases

Here's an example of what a state *could* do:

• With the new-ish availability of antibody tests, a state could combine the antibody test count and the viral test count to show an increasing test rate.
• At the same time, they could only report the positives from the viral tests (with the logic that that's the one that tells you about current cases, as opposed to how many have been infected in the past.)
• If the actual number of viral tests is decreasing (remember, this hypothetical state would be reporting the sum of the viral tests AND the antibody tests, so you wouldn't know if the viral test count was going down), then you'd even show the confirmed new case count going down.

And then "whoo hooo!" you'd be ready to reopen!!
​

Are states actually doing that? Who knows. Virginia did a piece of it, and it looks like Texas may be doing all of it. It's a nice way to pretend you're using data to drive your decisions (instead of the other way around.) The only real way to sort out what kind of shape we're in is how full the ICUs are - and in most places we're not in too bad shape, so maybe we'll be ok. Or maybe not. A lot of the states that have moved to reopen may not have even approached their peaks yet, and may actually cross that threshold. Hope not.​

Immunity:

I'm not a medical doctor or biologist, so am probably ill informed. But this is the interweb, so I'll post away. We've heard two things that may be important:

• People who have been infected (tested positive, recovered, tested negative) have been infected again. Either the tests are no good (making the data problem worse) or antibodies don't offer protection against reinfection.
• This type of virus is similar to the viruses that cause the common cold, and we've never been able to vaccinate against that.

Does this mean we won't be able to get a vaccine to work effectively, or that we'll never get to "herd immunity"? That'd be a crapper. This idea has come up on threads like this, but I haven't seen anything like a plan/backup plan for going to a "new normal" where we have years maybe of societal interactions conducted in a way where we throttle the spread of this thing enough not to overwhelm hospitals. And as folks have said - it's really the hospital Covid load-to-capacity ratio that matters, almost all this other stuff is noise.​

So, from my view, things may not look good for this summer and fall.

You also have to deal with people like me. I'm about 90% sure I've had it late Feb to early March - lows 100 temp, achy, felt like garbage for about 3 weeks, slight chest pain when breathing deep for a day or two.

So, assuming I have, the odds are very good that I can't get it again. You pointed out that some people have gotten it twice, but that rate is about the same as the false positive rate on the tests. On the other hand , there is excellent positive evidence that antibodies work in form of plasma transfers. Doctors are saying that a plasma transfer from some who has positive antibodies is nearly miraculous, with patients showing improvements in a matter of hours. It's pretty sure that anitbodies are developed and that they work.

So assuming I've had it - I can't get it. I can't give it. Why should I self-quarantine? Moreover, what is the government's authority to quarantine me? At least in NC, that law requires a reasonable knowledge that a person is sick before you can be quarantined. They don't know that about anyone without a test and it isn't reasonable to assume. The governor legally has no authority to tell everyone to stay home and to shut businesses.

It's time we opened again.

 

[Palmpilot]

That’s fine. But the lack of emergency and the initial statement that thousands never had one, only a handful have even come close, still solidly stands.

If you're saying things could have been handled better, I agree with you.

 

[RJM62]

As I understand it, the public-health purpose in prolonging the pandemic is to keep the peak of the cases-vs-time curve from exceeding the capability of the health-care system to cope with it. So far, it appears that most localities have achieved that goal, but some just barely.

All they're doing is spreading the deaths out over a longer period of time, while increasing the deaths from collateral damage to the economy. They're killing more people, not fewer. They're also setting us up to go through the exact same **** next winter. There is only one way to end a pandemic, and it's not by systematically preventing people from acquiring immunity.

Being a silly non-politician, I would suggest that beefing up the health-care system would be a better solution than flattening the economy along with the curve. In New York's case, I could even point out the best places to build field hospitals. Governor's Island, Floyd Bennett Field, some of the old warehouses in Bush Terminal... There are plenty of places.

Remember "Fifteen days to flatten the curve?" My family decided to cancel the Easter get-together until May. I laughed and told them there was no way that was happening. This isn't ending until election day -- and I'm not even sure about that because without herd immunity, there probably will be another actual outbreak by then. They said I was crazy. They're not saying that anymore.

Rich

 

[RJM62]

Besides, in New York, [REDACTED] already killed the old folks in the nursing homes; so we should be good to go.

Rich

 

[RJM62]

US people are too good to wear masks....and stop this.

Nobody cares about masks except the media and a few morons. Even the reddest of rednecks around here are wearing them. They're just bitching about it.

I think they're way over-hyped and basically useless unless people practice proper protection against surface transmission, as well. But I still wear one. If nothing else, it prevents a dozen cops from taking me down, cuffing me, and hauling me off to jail.

It also would be nice if some of the bazillion gallons of hand sanitizer our prisoners are supposedly making every day actually made its way to the people. No one I know has seen an ounce of it.

Rich

 

[Palmpilot]

Hey, I think one SGOTI opinion is worth ten carefully-constructed studies, any day of the week!

 

[RJM62]

Hey, I think one SGOTI opinion is worth ten carefully-constructed studies, any day of the week!

It is when the studies are myopic. Obsessing about masks to the exclusion of everything else is like doing a pre-flight where you only check the fuel level. To properly protect oneself, everything anyone else touches or may have touched has to be treated as a fomite, as does the mask itself. More pathogens are spread by touching surfaces than by respiration in all but the most crowded conditions.

But the mask is the most visible thing, and therefore the easiest for the media and others to obsess about -- even if in the big picture, it's the least-important part of preventing spread of the infection in most situations.

Rich

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Another potential path:

If 80% of Americans Wore Masks, COVID-19 Infections Would Plummet, New Study Says
There’s compelling evidence that Japan, Hong Kong, and other East Asian locales are doing it right and we should really, truly mask up—fast.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-covid-19-infections-would-plummet-new-study-says

The study:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.13553.pdf

I also posted the abstract in another thread:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/to-mask-or-not-to-mask.124591/page-8#post-2919359

A modeling study but not empirical evidence on the possible benefits of the public wearing cloth masks.

As we have been discussing in the masking thread, the reviews of the evidence regarding whether the public wearing cloth masks are at best mixed, and in my opinion, actually quite weak evidence that this will help slow the spread.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As I understand it, the public-health purpose in prolonging the pandemic is to keep the peak of the cases-vs-time curve from exceeding the capability of the health-care system to cope with it. So far, it appears that most localities have achieved that goal, but some just barely.

There is no good empirical evidence that the coercive lockdowns have decreased the number of cases or deaths in the US. There are two recent studies which claimed that cases were decreased, and though I have not yet reviewed them personally, collaborators tell me they are pretty badly constructed and likely would not count as good evidence. But I will have to review personally.

So leaving those aside for the moment, it is hard to see how if neither cases nor deaths have been affected one would show that the pandemic has even been prolonged by the coercive lockdowns.

More broadly, let’s assume the pandemic was prolonged, the so called “flattening of the curve”. If that doesn’t ultimately result in shortened duration of illnesses or deaths due to Covid 19, does it matter that the curve was flattened?

 

[IK04]

Definitely.

Ours were never closed by political mandate.

They reopened for fully separated services on their own, including outpatient. In a *week*. Took two for people to show up because they were unreasonably afraid. The ER Docs were gravely concerned, now they’re getting angry at the lack of messaging to the public here.

Because, they’re the damn experts on that.

Anybody allowing their local politicians to keep empty hospitals closed by edict instead of letting the hospital handle that, shouldn’t be.

It’s beyond stupidity.

Mayo is open next week. That’s no small feat.

The big scare about testing is the human curiosity about wanting to see the unknown enemy.

What good will widespread testing do? Nothing other than satisfy human nature. The fear of the unseen is often used to instill fear into the masses and capitalize on that mob mentality in order to perpetuate a massive fraud, such as climate change.

Waiting for a vaccine is just more unicorn farts...

 

[Palmpilot]

It is when the studies are myopic. Obsessing about masks to the exclusion of everything else is like doing a pre-flight where you only check the fuel level. To properly protect oneself, everything anyone else touches or may have touched has to be treated as a fomite, as does the mask itself. More pathogens are spread by touching surfaces than by respiration in all but the most crowded conditions.

But the mask is the most visible thing, and therefore the easiest for the media and others to obsess about -- even if in the big picture, it's the least-important part of preventing spread of the infection in most situations.

Rich

The paper is actually recommending masks in combination with other measures, so it's not "to the exclusion of everything else." For example, in the abstract, they state,

As governments plan how to exit
societal lockdowns, universal masking is emerging as one
of the key NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) for
containing or slowing the spread of the pandemic. Combined
with other NPIs including social distancing and
mass contact tracing, a “mouth-and-nose lockdown” is far
more sustainable than a “full body lockdown”, from economic,
social, and mental health standpoints. [emphasis added]
​

In the body of the paper, they also mention the inclusion of hand-washing, testing, and quarantine of infected individuals.

We really need to find ways of getting out of having to choose between dealing effectively with the pandemic, or having a viable economy. There are other countries that seem to have done a better job of that than we have. Even if this study's methodology and conclusions get shot down by other scientists, at least these folks are looking for constructive solutions to that problem.

 

[bflynn]

There is no good empirical evidence that the coercive lockdowns have decreased the number of cases or deaths in the US. There are two recent studies which claimed that cases were decreased, and though I have not yet reviewed them personally, collaborators tell me they are pretty badly constructed and likely would not count as good evidence. But I will have to review personally.

So leaving those aside for the moment, it is hard to see how if neither cases nor deaths have been affected one would show that the pandemic has even been prolonged by the coercive lockdowns.

More broadly, let’s assume the pandemic was prolonged, the so called “flattening of the curve”. If that doesn’t ultimately result in shortened duration of illnesses or deaths due to Covid 19, does it matter that the curve was flattened?

Still watching Georgia, but two weeks later the number of cases has not increased.

The reason to flatten the curve was to not overrun hospitals. We did that so well that doctors had their hours cut. If hospitals were packed, there would have been people dying for lack of treatment.

 

[chemgeek]

All they're doing is spreading the deaths out over a longer period of time, while increasing the deaths from collateral damage to the economy.

This is actually not accurate. Interventions that reduce viral transmission not only reduce the peak caseload, but also the absolute numbers during an infection wave. It is a fallacy that "flattening the curve" affects the same number of individuals over a longer period of time.

Of course, if you reduce the impact in total numbers by transmission interventions, you do delay natural herd immunity, but natural herd immunity is not the goal. It is to buy time to develop artificial herd immunity through deployment of one or more vaccines. At any rate, based on ramdom serology studies (the NY study was a relatively well constructed one, conducted with a well validated test kit) the total exposure rate nationwide is not likely to exceed 5-10% almost anywhere except NYC, and that is a far cry from the 70% or so that will be required for herd immunity.

 

[MuseChaser]

..It is a fallacy that "flattening the curve" affects the same number of individuals over a longer period of time....

I don't have the expertise to agree or disagree with that statement, but it runs counter to what I've heard and read most other places. "Flattening the curve," at least how it's been depicted, seemed to mean lessening the steepness of entry and exit to the apex of the curve, and lowering the absolute value of the apex (highest number of simultaneous infections), which would, on the surface, be a desirable goal. However, it also elongates the time frame of the entire event. If the total area under the curve remains the same regardless of shape, as is typically depicted, then where is the fallacy? Is the ultimate success of "flattening the curve" dependent upon the assumption that we will develop an effective vaccine before the curve peters out naturally? I understand that "flattening the curve" was more about making sure we did not overwhelm our healthcare systems than it was preventing a specific number of total cases in the long run, but perhaps our efforts would better have been spent shoring up and increasing our healthcare facilities.

It's an honest question. I appreciate your expertise and have learned a great deal from your posts.

 

[chemgeek]

Some good news on the vaccine development front. The Moderna mRNA-based vaccine looks pretty good in Phase I trials. Two 25-100 ug doses elicit antibodies equivalent to that of convalescent plasma. Side effects (local redness and swelling) occurred only at the 100 ug level, and systemic side effects only at the 250 ug level. Phase II and III will focus on 50 and 100 ug doses. Phase III is anticipated to start in July. mRNA vaccines have a significant edge in manufacturing and scale up. This would be the first mRNA vaccine bought to market if successful.

The Oxford vaccine is also showing well in initial trials. Primate testing has shown effectiveness in vaccination-challenge testing in macaques. The Oxford vaccine is based on an genetically engineered adenovirus vector which delivers a DNA payload that codes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This technology has been successfully used for several commercial vaccines, so it may have a regulatory compliance advantage. AstraZeneca has teamed up with Oxford to move forward.

Long-term safety is the prime concern, and that will require vaccinating populations in Phase III that have significant exposure to the virus, in order to evaluate immune-challenge responses. The principal concern is a possibility that vaccination could "overprime" the immune response, something that has been observed in some prior attempts with coronavirus vaccine development.

I remain optimistic, that one of these two, or perhaps one of the other approaches, which include the old-fashioned killed live-virus approach, will be safe and effective. With the impact of the pandemic on the entire world community, science is rushing as fast as practical to get this done. And maybe, just maybe, we will learn something about how to better manage the next time. There WILL be a next time. VIruses are "smart" in their own, insidious way. It's hard to comperhend how a little bag of a couple dozen genes can be so destructive, but that's molecular biology for you.

 

[chemgeek]

I don't have the expertise to agree or disagree with that statement, but it runs counter to what I've heard and read most other places. "Flattening the curve," at least how it's been depicted, seemed to mean lessening the steepness of entry and exit to the apex of the curve, and lowering the absolute value of the apex (highest number of simultaneous infections), which would, on the surface, be a desirable goal. However, it also elongates the time frame of the entire event. If the total area under the curve remains the same regardless of shape, as is typically depicted, then where is the fallacy? Is the ultimate success of "flattening the curve" dependent upon the assumption that we will develop an effective vaccine before the curve peters out naturally? I understand that "flattening the curve" was more about making sure we did not overwhelm our healthcare systems than it was preventing a specific number of total cases in the long run, but perhaps our efforts would better have been spent shoring up and increasing our healthcare facilities.

It's an honest question. I appreciate your expertise and have learned a great deal from your posts.

The total area under the curve is NOT constant when viral transmission rate is changed. Both the peak and the total numbers are affected by the reduction of transmission. It's just math. (Differential equations, to be precise.) If you don't interrupt transmission, the epidemic follows a limited exponential growth curve that caps when herd immunity is reached, which depends on the intrinsic R0 value. If you interrupt the transmission, you reduce total numbers as well as the peak by artificially reducing the R0 value. The total numbers affected do not reach herd immunity before the infection wave is extinguished.

NY state is a good real-life example. Our initial infection wave has passed and is declining to close to the emergent levels. At this point we have achieved only about 15% exposure according to random serology, far short of herd immunity, which would be around 70% for an R0 value of 2-3. However, we are still at risk for additional waves of infection, until that 70% is reached, either naturally or by vaccination program.

 

[chemgeek]

On a separate note, a recent publication in Cell reports that convalescent COVID-19 patients have significant titers of killer T-cells that recognize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This is good news for longer-term immunity to COVID-19, raises confidence that vaccines are likely to be highly protective. Interestingly, 40-60% of individuals who have never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (taken from blood samples prior to the emergence of COVID-19) also had T-cells that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, probably as a consequence of prior exposure to Coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Apparently, some of these common Coronaviruses have enough similarity to SARS-CoV-2 to generate immune cells and antibodies that are protective against COVID-19. So maybe if you had enough of the right kinds of "colds" you have have accidentially acquired resistance to COVID-19. If colds are "protective", I will likely have lifetime immunity!

This cross-reactivity is something I mentioned in a previous post here regarding the accuracy of certain ELISA (antibody) tests. This publication reinforces the concept that there may be significant cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and certain common cold antibodies.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

On a separate note, a recent publication in Cell reports that convalescent COVID-19 patients have significant titers of killer T-cells that recognize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This is good news for longer-term immunity to COVID-19, raises confidence that vaccines are likely to be highly protective. Interestingly, 40-60% of individuals who have never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (taken from blood samples prior to the emergence of COVID-19) also had T-cells that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, probably as a consequence of prior exposure to Coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Apparently, some of these common Coronaviruses have enough similarity to SARS-CoV-2 to generate immune cells and antibodies that are protective against COVID-19. So maybe if you had enough of the right kinds of "colds" you have have accidentially acquired resistance to COVID-19. If colds are "protective", I will likely have lifetime immunity!

This cross-reactivity is something I mentioned in a previous post here regarding the accuracy of certain ELISA (antibody) tests. This publication reinforces the concept that there may be significant cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and certain common cold antibodies.

I don't get colds, so I'm either immune, or wide-open for infection.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

A projected 1.2 million child deaths due to effects of Covid-19 on healthcare - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576549 . Preprint with The Lancet.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Another interesting article on the lockdown idea - https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Another interesting article on the lockdown idea - https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/

Ya know, this article states "It was adopted not by experienced doctors – they warned ferociously against it – but by politicians." But I hear doctors screaming that we are 'opening up' too soon.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

A projected 1.2 million child deaths due to Covid-19 lockdowns - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576549 . Preprint with The Lancet.

You're showing your bias here by misrepresenting what this paper/model represents. The model they use also accounts for reallocation of medical resources needed to address COVID19, not just under utilization of medical resources. Also, you are conflating "lockdown" with voluntary individual decisions to not seek medical care due to (often wrongly) perceived risk.

 

[RJM62]

Ya know, this article states "It was adopted not by experienced doctors – they warned ferociously against it – but by politicians." But I hear doctors screaming that we are 'opening up' too soon.

Doctors want to save every life they can, which is their job.

Politicians are supposed to balance out all the factors to come up with the least-bad policy inn view of the overall well-being of society. That may mean putting a value on lives or balancing some lives against other lives. That's not an enviable job if gone about properly. But that's their job.

Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly obvious that politicians on both sides are inserting altogether too much partisanship into the equation.

Rich

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Politicians are supposed to balance out all the factors to come up with the least-bad policy inn view of the overall well-being of society. That may mean putting a value on lives or balancing some lives against other lives. That's not an enviable job if gone about properly. But that's their job.

Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly obvious that politicians on both sides are inserting altogether too much partisanship into the equation.

The root of this problem is that there are very few politicians who are trained or experienced at truly solving complex problems or making and explaining difficult risk management decisions. While I was in generally in favor of California's initial response, it has progressed into something that is not founded on sound science or rational socio-economic risk-management strategies.

 

[MuseChaser]

The total area under the curve is NOT constant when viral transmission rate is changed. Both the peak and the total numbers are affected by the reduction of transmission. It's just math. (Differential equations, to be precise.) If you don't interrupt transmission, the epidemic follows a limited exponential growth curve that caps when herd immunity is reached, which depends on the intrinsic R0 value. If you interrupt the transmission, you reduce total numbers as well as the peak by artificially reducing the R0 value. The total numbers affected do not reach herd immunity before the infection wave is extinguished.

NY state is a good real-life example. Our initial infection wave has passed and is declining to close to the emergent levels. At this point we have achieved only about 15% exposure according to random serology, far short of herd immunity, which would be around 70% for an R0 value of 2-3. However, we are still at risk for additional waves of infection, until that 70% is reached, either naturally or by vaccination program.

Thanks for the response... makes sense. However, thinking further since, as you say, we here in NY have only achieved 15% exposure and are still at risk for additional waves that we would not be at risk for had we simply not "flattened the curve" and reached 70%, would not we have to take into account the area under the second (and third) waves until we reach 70% anyway? 70% is still 70%, no matter how long it takes to get there..... notwithstanding the great news and possibilities of vaccines you've shared, and the already stipulated benefits of making sure our healthcare system is not overwhelmed.

 

[RJM62]

The root of this problem is that there are very few politicians who are trained or experienced at truly solving complex problems or making and explaining difficult risk management decisions. While I was in generally in favor of California's initial response, it has progressed into something that is not founded on sound science or rational socio-economic risk-management strategies.

Very nicely stated. I usually just say that they're idiots.

Rich

 

[Palmpilot]

The root of this problem is that there are very few politicians who are trained or experienced at truly solving complex problems or making and explaining difficult risk management decisions. While I was in generally in favor of California's initial response, it has progressed into something that is not founded on sound science or rational socio-economic risk-management strategies.

At least the governor has recently shown some flexibility in allowing counties to tailor things to their local situations. Let's hope that trend continues.

 

[Everskyward]

At least the governor has recently shown some flexibility in allowing counties to tailor things to their local situations. Let's hope that trend continues.

I agree. I haven't been paying much attention to other states, but it seems as if in California, local jurisdictions were able to make their own decisions within a state framework. Even when they were not within the state framework, it seems as if the state gave in in the end.

 

[Jim K]

On a separate note, a recent publication in Cell reports that convalescent COVID-19 patients have significant titers of killer T-cells that recognize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This is good news for longer-term immunity to COVID-19, raises confidence that vaccines are likely to be highly protective. Interestingly, 40-60% of individuals who have never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (taken from blood samples prior to the emergence of COVID-19) also had T-cells that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, probably as a consequence of prior exposure to Coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Apparently, some of these common Coronaviruses have enough similarity to SARS-CoV-2 to generate immune cells and antibodies that are protective against COVID-19. So maybe if you had enough of the right kinds of "colds" you have have accidentially acquired resistance to COVID-19. If colds are "protective", I will likely have lifetime immunity!

This cross-reactivity is something I mentioned in a previous post here regarding the accuracy of certain ELISA (antibody) tests. This publication reinforces the concept that there may be significant cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and certain common cold antibodies.

That's fascinating and I hadn't seen it anywhere else. I assume this is why so many who contract it have no or mild symptoms?

I am convinced our modern germophobic culture is weakening us as a species. My kids are in the back yard playing in the overflow from the flooded creek and catching toads as we speak....

 

[bdtaz]

Thanks for the response... makes sense. However, thinking further since, as you say, we here in NY have only achieved 15% exposure and are still at risk for additional waves that we would not be at risk for had we simply not "flattened the curve" and reached 70%, would not we have to take into account the area under the second (and third) waves until we reach 70% anyway? 70% is still 70%, no matter how long it takes to get there..... notwithstanding the great news and possibilities of vaccines you've shared, and the already stipulated benefits of making sure our healthcare system is not overwhelmed.

Without a vaccine, if immunity is not for life, further "peaks" could be at least as large as the initial peak....

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You're showing your bias here by misrepresenting what this paper/model represents. The model they use also accounts for reallocation of medical resources needed to address COVID19, not just under utilization of medical resources. Also, you are conflating "lockdown" with voluntary individual decisions to not seek medical care due to (often wrongly) perceived risk.

You are correct that the article does not separate the effects of coercive lockdowns versus voluntary actions of individuals. Thanks and sorry for any confusion. I modified my original post to more closely reflect the title and abstract from the original article.

This article has been interpreted by the mainstream media as saying something about lockdowns, see for example The Telegraph with the headline "Unicef warns lockdown could kill more than Covid-19 as model predicts 1.2 million child deaths" but I agree that is not precise. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-...ckdown-could-kill-covid-19-model-predicts-12/)

I don’t think most people make a strict distinction between voluntary social distancing and the coercive lockdowns undertaken by governments. It is a subject of great interest to me and perhaps others here, but I think many people think of all actions which happened as part of the responses to Covid-19 as “the lockdown”.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I don’t think most people make a strict distinction between voluntary social distancing and the coercive lockdowns undertaken by governments. It is a subject of great interest to me and perhaps others here, but I think many people think of all actions which happened as part of the responses to Covid-19 as “the lockdown”.

Really? You think people don't distinguish between a voluntary action and being told to do something by the government? No one used seat belts or motorcycle helmets before they were required?

Since you are a scientist, I would expect you to at least skim a publicly available manuscript to verify the content before quoting a headline from the Telegraph, or any general news source. Particularly so when that headline presents as a rather extreme case. Even the abstract of that paper isn't fully descriptive of the assumptions made in their model.

It isn't a matter of "confusion". You are posting under your real name and as a scientist you should hold yourself to a higher standard. I am rather careful what I post on this board, since the content is open to the internet.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Since you are a scientist, I would expect you to at least skim a publicly available manuscript to verify the content before quoting a headline from the Telegraph, or any general news source.

Jeff, I am sorry if it caused a mis-perception of the contents of the article and have modified my post to correct it. Thank you again for correcting my error. In general I do verify the content before quoting an article or making a major point based on the contents. In this case, I was simply trying to post the article for the interest of the group and did not perform adequate checking and was mostly trying to simply provide something rather than a raw link. Would you have been happier if I had simply linked to the Telegraph story? I guess then people would have assumed it was just a Telegraph story rather than a pre-print of a scientific article. I agree with you that a greater degree of care is needed by those of us who are professional scientists.

In any case, yes, I do not think most people distinguish carefully enough between what the government does coercively and what is perhaps the result of voluntary action. I imagine the reporter at the Telegraph is one such individual who just introduced the notion of lockdowns being involved into their headline.

In the specific instance of Covid-19, for example, I imagine most people are unaware that the majority of social distancing that occurred was apparently voluntary prior to government lockdowns, which followed a few weeks later in most states after the mobility data has a sharp downturn. Many people I have discussed this with just assume that the slowing of the rate of growth of cases which has occurred was the result of the coercive lockdowns in cases where it occurred.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Without a vaccine, if immunity is not for life, further "peaks" could be at least as large as the initial peak....

Kinda makes what we have done even more idiotic.