Coronavirus math

Quote: NBC News: The CDC is now changing tactics....." Frankly the CDC has been all over the place with their "tactics" and information. For me, there is a real lack of certainty and conformity. I understand the need to believe, but the constant back and forth is not helpful. Their "information" is, right now, inconclusive, and one might want to err on the side of caution which is never bad. The problem is their (the CDC) data base is huge with at least 164+M and counting vaccinated people in this country alone, and yet, they are changing their "tactics"? I don't think "tactics" is science. If all of these vaccinated people are transmitting Covid, why are the numbers so puny? Millions should be newly infected and yet the infection rates even with Delta are still extremely low for the vaccinated .08%. Are the vaccinated transmitting Covid to the unvaccinated? The article does not say it, and right now, they do not know.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: NBC News: The CDC is now changing tactics....." Frankly the CDC has been all over the place with their "tactics" and information. For me, there is a real lack of certainty and conformity. I understand the need to believe, but the constant back and forth is not helpful. Their "information" is, right now, inconclusive, and one might want to err on the side of caution which is never bad. The problem is their (the CDC) data base is huge with at least 164+M and counting vaccinated people in this country alone, and yet, they are changing their "tactics"? I don't think "tactics" is science. If all of these vaccinated people are transmitting Covid, why are the numbers so puny? Millions should be newly infected and yet the infection rates even with Delta are still extremely low for the vaccinated .08%. Are the vaccinated transmitting Covid to the unvaccinated? The article does not say it, and right now, they do not know.

tuttigym

I think ( CDC also seem to say) that Delta is a game changer. And for all the hundreds of millions in their database, they have yet to get decent data set on Delta variant breakthroughs or vaccine efficacy.

Quote: OnceDear

I think ( CDC also seem to say) that Delta is a game changer. And for all the hundreds of millions in their database, they have yet to get decent data set on Delta variant breakthroughs or vaccine efficacy.

I guess "wait and see" might be the best approach. They have a huge budget and thousands of staffers but somehow seem to lack real focus on the info they have in hand. We are not given the certainty of how covid is transmitted. "Social distancing" limits continue to change. Virus life expectancy on hard surfaces seems to be unsure. The CDC has had over a year and a half to give the general public some firm answers about the virus, and we now get a change of "tactics." Sorry, I personally, cannot condone the "confusion" (my words).

tuttigym

Quote: rxwine

I think it's close to time to offer virus exposure rooms to people who can get the vaccine but refuse to. If they think the disease is nonsense, and the vaccine is dangerous, and flooding the health system is just something we have to put up with while they runaround precaution-less, let's go ahead and get this all over with.

Sounds almost like gas chambers.
The problem with helping delta run riot through the antivaxxers is that they would completely clog up the health system, for the rest of society, and better incubate the next few variants, and disrupt society by being unfit to work.

We could really use more of them collecting Darwin awards, but that's not happening enough. It's also a bit heartless to suggest and doesn't sit well with us good guys.

Delta: Game changer till Epsilon and Gamma get into gear.

Quote: tuttigym

I guess "wait and see" might be the best approach. They have a huge budget and thousands of staffers but somehow seem to lack real focus on the info they have in hand. We are not given the certainty of how covid is transmitted. "Social distancing" limits continue to change. Virus life expectancy on hard surfaces seems to be unsure. The CDC has had over a year and a half to give the general public some firm answers about the virus, and we now get a change of "tactics." Sorry, I personally, cannot condone the "confusion" (my words).

tuttigym

They struggle to get good data from certain states that most ought to deliver it to them.

Quote: OnceDear

They struggle to get good data from certain states that most ought to deliver it to them.

I understand your perspective, but the data and current sample sizes are huge and should offer enough information to provide statistically accurate results. To put it another way, if one were to have 164M dice rolls on a particular wager, one could statistically and with great certainty determine all kinds of outcomes. The CDC data base needs to be exposed and vetted by any outside set of researchers to answer any postulated questions. I don't believe that is happening.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

I understand your perspective, but the data and current sample sizes are huge and should offer enough information to provide statistically accurate results. To put it another way, if one were to have 164M dice rolls on a particular wager, one could statistically and with great certainty determine all kinds of outcomes. The CDC data base needs to be exposed and vetted by any outside set of researchers to answer any postulated questions. I don't believe that is happening.

tuttigym

Just to be clear, I don't rate the CDC management ot PR team very highly. I expect their stats are truthfully compiled, but politically spun. Also, I acknowledge massive politicisation in anything that passes from them, through media and political channels. I think the use of older pre delta stats is deliberate spin to counter anti vax messaging.
As a brit and mostly european, I'll look to stats from my own more trusted sources from this side of the pond. They present Delta variant in a very grim light, albeit with low confidence levels. Anecdotally I know people who are vaccinated but have been infected by covid. If I want to consider the US situation, I'd mostly trust John Hopkins university, but we each pick our own source.

Quote: OnceDear

Sounds almost like gas chambers.
The problem with helping delta run riot through the antivaxxers is that they would completely clog up the health system, for the rest of society, and better incubate the next few variants, and disrupt society by being unfit to work.

We could really use more of them collecting Darwin awards, but that's not happening enough. It's also a bit heartless to suggest and doesn't sit well with us good guys.

Delta: Game changer till Epsilon and Gamma get into gear.

Sounds more like last Saturday night in Bisbee. Any pretense of social distancing is in the past.

Quote: OnceDear

Just to be clear, I don't rate the CDC management ot PR team very highly. I expect their stats are truthfully compiled, but politically spun. Also, I acknowledge massive politicisation in anything that passes from them, through media and political channels. I think the use of older pre delta stats is deliberate spin to counter anti vax messaging.
As a brit and mostly european, I'll look to stats from my own more trusted sources from this side of the pond. They present Delta variant in a very grim light, albeit with low confidence levels. Anecdotally I know people who are vaccinated but have been infected by covid. If I want to consider the US situation, I'd mostly trust John Hopkins university, but we each pick our own source.

I absolutely agree with the assessment regarding the politicisation. When I talked about the data, I was negligent in not noting the millions of people who have recovered and what might be unique in their physiology or immune systems. Those who died would provide a different type of data which should be beneficial to those researching cause and effect. Those who contracted the virus who were asymptomatic have a different "story." I also have followed the professionals from John Hopkins University and believe them to be the most credible. The suppressing of real information due to a perceived political advantage is most troubling and sad.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

I understand your perspective, but the data and current sample sizes are huge and should offer enough information to provide statistically accurate results. To put it another way, if one were to have 164M dice rolls on a particular wager, one could statistically and with great certainty determine all kinds of outcomes. The CDC data base needs to be exposed and vetted by any outside set of researchers to answer any postulated questions. I don't believe that is happening.

tuttigym

164M dice rolls are clean data. Lot of collection bias in what CDC has given differences in collection and reporting. Apples and oranges.

Most COVID cases (59%) are likely caused by people without symptoms. (JAMA)

Viral load in symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers is similar. (JAMA)

Percentage of COVID-positive tests that are asymptomatic:
* 50% (4/20) (CNN)
* 77% (10/20) (Clinical Epidemiology) (seems to include presymptomatic carriers)
* 40% (10/20) (JAMA)
* 40% (11/20) (Oxford Health, children age 6/13)

Percentage of asymptomatic COVID infections (including those not tested):
(couldn't find any research for which it's clear that this is what they're measuring)

Not clear to me which of the above two was analyzed:
* 30% (7/20) (CDC)
* 25% (3/21) (PLoS One, meta analysis)
* ≥33% (5/21) (Annals of Internal Medicine, meta analysis)

There are only 10 ICU beds left in the greater Austin metro area, which comprises 2.3 million people.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Most COVID cases (59%) are likely caused by people without symptoms. (JAMA)

Viral load in symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers is similar. (JAMA)
...
There are only 10 ICU beds left in the greater Austin metro area, which comprises 2.3 million people.

Good stats, thanks. But most predate delta.

I had cause to visit our UK A&E ( You call it ER) on Friday Night with an elderly stroke victim. It was like a war-zone. Only extreme injuries were being treated and we were sent home after a few hours waiting. Normally that would have been at least a one day stay, but they are restricting admissions ruthlessly. Ambulance wait time, usually 10 minutes or so was 90 minutes before arrival. A very long time to wait when you've had a stroke. So you might understand why I object to those who recklessly invite infection.

I reckon that with Delta, we are now seeing a very different pandemic, where it spreads massively easier, but kills proportionally less. Because it's so new we could almost throw away all preconceptions and previous data prior to ,say, May.

There's a certain irony that since vaccinated folk can carry and spread this easily without suffering at all, that we now have an almost one way street of deadliness. The unvaccinated should fear the vaccinated majority almost more than they should fear each-other, as the vaccinated might now be happily superspreading, unrestricted and relaxed. A bit like my reverse zombie apocalypse metaphor where we the vaccinated are the zombies. Zombies don't harm zombies. $:o)

Quote: OnceDear

They struggle to get good data from certain states that most ought to deliver it to them.

Perhaps, but state populations are not necessarily homogeneous. The data from the reporting states is diverse enough to get a relatively clear picture of what is needed to draw firm conclusions. For example, the overall death rate from all sources is about 2+% to date. So any additional date not received from "certain states" would not necessarily create any differences or changes in the totality of statistical references.

Your instincts are correct in drawing conclusions.

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

164M dice rolls are clean data. Lot of collection bias in what CDC has given differences in collection and reporting. Apples and oranges.

Absolutely agree. My point was an over-generalization of sample size. However, there is clean data available, but specificity seems to be lacking because the CDC might be catering to outside forces as noted by OD.

tuttigym

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Most COVID cases (59%) are likely caused by people without symptoms. (JAMA)

Viral load in symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers is similar. (JAMA)

Percent of COVID cases that are asymptomatic:
* 50% (4/20) (CNN)
* 40% (7/20) (Baptist Health, referencing CDC)
* 86% (10/20) (Clinical Epidemiology) (seems to include presymptomatic carriers)
* 40% (10/20) (JAMA)
* 40% (11/20) (Oxford Health)
* 25% (3/21) (PLoS One
* ≥33% (5/21) (Annals of Internal Medicine)

There are only 10 ICU beds left in the greater Austin metro area, which comprises 2.3 million people.

While these stats are "interesting," they are all over the map (25%-86%) which indicates to me a guessing game which is understandable since no symptoms equal a true unknown unless accurate testing is performed. There is no symmetry in the data presented and two references are almost polar opposites on the same date. The data apparently became more refined as the more current it was revealed to show that there was actually far less asymptomatic incidents.

What percentage of ICU beds in Austin are being occupied by covid patients would be a more relevant figure.

tuttigym

Quote: OnceDear

I had cause to visit our UK A&E ( You call it ER) on Friday Night with an elderly stroke victim. It was like a war-zone. Only extreme injuries were being treated and we were sent home after a few hours waiting. Normally that would have been at least a one day stay, but they are restricting admissions ruthlessly. Ambulance wait time, usually 10 minutes or so was 90 minutes before arrival. A very long time to wait when you've had a stroke. So you might understand why I object to those who recklessly invite infection.

I am truly sorry for your emotional distress and hope your friend fully recovers.

Can one infer that the British Health Service (do not know the actual name) and the associated "socialized medicine" practices are totally overburdened beyond what we here are experiencing. Also, how do the vaccination rates in the UK compare with what we here have, if you know?

Quote: OnceDear

I reckon that with Delta, we are now seeing a very different pandemic, where it spreads massively easier, but kills proportionally less. Because it's so new we could almost throw away all preconceptions and previous data prior to ,say, May.

True, so vaccination rates have to increase. Is there the same kind of resistance to the vaccine there as we are seeing here? Is the politics there as volatile and divisive there as here?

Quote: OnceDear

There's a certain irony that since vaccinated folk can carry and spread this easily without suffering at all, that we now have an almost one way street of deadliness. The unvaccinated should fear the vaccinated majority almost more than they should fear each-other, as the vaccinated might now be happily superspreading, unrestricted and relaxed. A bit like my reverse zombie apocalypse metaphor where we the vaccinated are the zombies. Zombies don't harm zombies. $:o)

You paint a grim picture with a future of emotional instability. Somehow there should be relayed the positive messages of the actuality of very low death and hospitalization rates rather than fear.

tuttigym

"Some things in life are bad They can really make you mad

Other things just make you swear and curse

When you're chewing on life's gristle Don't grumble, give a whistle

And this'll help things turn out for the best And

Always look on the bright side of life

Always look on the light side of life"

~Monty Python

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Most COVID cases (59%) are likely caused by people without symptoms.

I still don't think that anyone who gets Covid is truly asymptomatic. At best, symptoms so mild that they barely notice it. At worst, so out of tune with their health that they wouldn't know if they were off one day versus the next.

I can see someone surprised that he tested positive because he didn't feel much, but as far as feeling exactly the same during a Covid infection versus prior to one, I don't buy it.

Quote: MDawg

Whenever I've been tested I have given them my insurance card, but I think at CVS they will test anyone free with or without insurance. I am not a Las Vegas resident per my driver license and yet I believe CVS in Vegas would have tested free even without insurance - the lady seemed to be asking if we had insurance versus saying that she would not test us without it.

Would this free testing that is extended to an out of state resident extend to a non-U.S. national?

COVID-19 testing is performed at no cost to you. Health insurance companies are required to cover 100% of the cost. If you have insurance, we will ask for those details. If not, we may ask for identifying information in order to bill the federal program for the uninsured. In either case, you will owe nothing out of pocket.

FYI the tests we took, and I took another one yesterday, were of the PCR variety which is not "instant" - however, we took the tests one day, and the very next morning had results - negative.

I've taken lots of coronavirus tests, and this would be the third one I took in Vegas.

So if you ever need to get tests before getting on a flight, at least our experience has been that CVS provides PCR test results the very next day - less than 24 hours.

However, I understand that CVS provides free testing only for those with U.S. insurance (insurance company is obligated to pay), or uninsured who are U.S. nationals or residents with a social security number (or maybe a tax ID number (TIN)). I don't think it's right for anyone to fudge those requirements or to give an invalid social security number - besides just not being right, imagine if someone gave the SSN of a real person and now that SSN is tied to someone else's health record.

Quote: tuttigym

I am truly sorry for your emotional distress and hope your friend fully recovers.

thx. Elderly family member.

Quote:

Can one infer that the British Health Service (do not know the actual name) and the associated "socialized medicine" practices are totally overburdened beyond what we here are experiencing. Also, how do the vaccination rates in the UK compare with what we here have, if you know?

Our National Health Service (NHS) is currently coping quite well. BUT it is deferring much routine treatments and our Accident and Emergency ( A&E) equivalent of ER is being pretty brutal in triaging. It used to be that you got prompt treatment for, say a broken finger, or an angina attack, but now, their first instinct is to send the patient away for treatment the next few days at local walk in centres. For context, the waiting time at A&E on Saturday night was 5 to 6 hours for patients who made their own way there. Ambulance arrival time, normally ten minutes was more like 90 minutes. Prescribed medication is still easily available. Routine doctor visits are restricted with most basic treatment done by phone and photo consultation

Quote:

True, so vaccination rates have to increase. Is there the same kind of resistance to the vaccine there as we are seeing here? Is the politics there as volatile and divisive there as here?

Very much NOT the case. 89% of eligible adults have had at least one dose. There is no partisan split and very little cultural split on vaccine take up. We are quite compliant with restrictions. Currently we have had all masking mandates lifted, but still >75% voluntary compliance as I wander around the shops.
Our national stats in a nutshell...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274 Let me know if its geo restricted.
(Adult Population about 60 Million)

Quote:

You paint a grim picture with a future of emotional instability. Somehow there should be relayed the positive messages of the actuality of very low death and hospitalization rates rather than fear.

tuttigym

Some of that may be down to my personality. Our Excess Over Normal death rate is all but gone. Very few ordinary acute respiratory infections. Flu and colds seem to have been held down alongside covid precautions.

Quote: OnceDear

Some of that may be down to my personality. Our Excess Over Normal death rate is all but gone. Very few ordinary acute respiratory infections. Flu and colds seem to have been held down alongside covid precautions.

Sounds like some normalcy and good news in general.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Sounds like some normalcy and good news in general.

tuttigym

Remarkably, yes it is. Myself and immediate family do not feel at any risk going about day to day life. We TEND to dine out less often, or at quieter venues and we were never big on crowded venues. We might feel edgy on a busy train or in a cinema, but that's an infrequent event anyway. Since we live in the suburbs, we rarely find ourselves in crowds. Overseas holidays are all that we have really deferred. It's just a new normal where we almost unconsciously respect social distance. Some of our younger adults are a bit reckless, but that seems understandable. Many bars, hotels and restaurants have gone bust.

Quote: tuttigym

While these stats are "interesting," they are all over the map (25%-86%) which indicates to me a guessing game...

Of course you missed that I noted that the 86% seems to include presymptomatic cases, or you simply didn't understand what that meant. You also missed that 71.4% of the studies are in a tight range of ≥33% to 50% (and 85.7% of the studies are in the range of 25-50%). So, it's not really a guessing game, but I'm certainly not surprised that you would see it as one.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Of course you missed that I noted that the 86% seems to include presymptomatic cases, or you simply didn't understand what that meant. You also missed that 71.4% of the studies are in a tight range of ≥33% to 50% (and 85.7% of the studies are in the range of 25-50%). So, it's not really a guessing game, but I'm certainly not surprised that you would see it as one.

What is interesting is that 17% -25% deviations for you is a "tight range." So I am not "surprised" you would believe that.

tuttigym

The testing of the various vaccines showed an overall effective rate of about 95% give or take a couple of points. The FDA gave emergency approval and vaccinating the public began at a rather rapid pace. Today, about 170M people have been vaccinated, almost half the population. 5% of that number is about 8.5M who should have NOT had a successful outcome yet the breakthrough numbers being reported is only about 130,000 which should include some Delta infections (.0008%). Why is there such a "panic" on the "break through" infections when those numbers don't even come close to the projected negative outcomes? I understand that Delta is a problem, but, I believe, most of us would agree that vaccinating the vast majority of the remainder of the population would greatly reduce overall infections and the possibility of future threats of mass infections.

tuttigym

1. At the beginning of this pandemic the Covid virus was an unknown. The scientific method requires keeping an open mind about the unknown.

2. Fauci and the CDC initially emphasized washing hands and sanitizing surfaces because that is how most flu viruses are transmitted. And they discouraged the public from wearing masks because most flu viruses are not air transmissible. They were wrong. The discovery that covid is primarily transmissible by air means that washing hands is relatively unimportant and wearing masks is critical. At that juncture, scientists with backgrounds in aerosol physics understood the transmission issues much better that Fauci and the CDC -but they were not the media-anointed "expert community," So delays in providing the right guidance contributed to more deaths than we otherwise would have had.

- some exhaled water particles are so small that they will stay suspended in the air for hours, When indoors, they can travel through the ventilation ducts and pass through the non-hepa filters. Thus, separating people by six feet is not sufficient and large gatherings indoors have the potential to be super-spreader events. This was instantly clear to aerosol physicists, but not to the CDC.

- however, a single small water particle is only capable of carrying a small amount amount of virus, so the initial dose load is small. This means that Covid testing after exposure and infection will yield a negative result for a longer amount of time- because it takes more days for the initial dose load to build up in the body such that it can detected by the tests. (Again, the "scientists" didn't know this, so Covid testing yielded more false negatives for this reason.)

3. Vaccinated people who are exposed to the covid virus can indeed be infected and have the covid virus in their systems. However the vaccination slows (and usually prevents) the virus from building up to high levels in their bodies. This usually prevents transmission and re-infection of other people

4. However, the Delta-variant is once again surprising the so-called experts - it is not only more highly transmissible but it has shown that it does not need to build up to high levels in the body in order to be transmitted and re-infect other people. Specifically, a vaccinated person can be infected by the Delta-variant and can then transmit the Delta-variant virus to other people - but, reportedly, with a lower probability than if the person had not been vaccinated,
- how much lower is the probability? I don't know. For all the insistence on science, the governmental spokesmen never seem to quantify anything and never make their supporting data available to the public.

Again, when the scientific experts were confronted with completely novel and unknown virus they puffed their chests out and act in ways to inflate their reputations and their future funding - because scientists love to be important. And they were slow to acknowledge new information and change their guidance because they didn't want to be recognized as having given wrong advice.

The critical issues now are:

- how effective are the various vaccinations against the delta-variant, and how fast does the effectiveness of the vaccination decline with time? The Pfizer vaccine has been announced to decline to from 95% to 85% after 6 months, what will it be after 9 months?

If everybody were to get vaccinated, the threat of covid would be greatly diminished, as would the opportunities for it to continue mutating.

My house has never been on fire, but if it was, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be worried about what my lawn will look like in few months.

Quote: gordonm888

1. At the beginning of this pandemic the Covid virus was an unknown. The scientific method requires keeping an open mind about the unknown.

2. Fauci and the CDC initially emphasized washing hands and sanitizing surfaces because that is how most flu viruses are transmitted. And they discouraged the public from wearing masks because most flu viruses are not air transmissible. They were wrong. The discovery that covid is primarily transmissible by air means that washing hands is relatively unimportant and wearing masks is critical. At that juncture, scientists with backgrounds in aerosol physics understood the transmission issues much better that Fauci and the CDC -but they were not the media-anointed "expert community," So delays in providing the right guidance contributed to more deaths than we otherwise would have had.

- some exhaled water particles are so small that they will stay suspended in the air for hours, When indoors, they can travel through the ventilation ducts and pass through the non-hepa filters. Thus, separating people by six feet is not sufficient and large gatherings indoors have the potential to be super-spreader events. This was instantly clear to aerosol physicists, but not to the CDC.

- however, a single small water particle is only capable of carrying a small amount amount of virus, so the initial dose load is small. This means that Covid testing after exposure and infection will yield a negative result for a longer amount of time- because it takes more days for the initial dose load to build up in the body such that it can detected by the tests. (Again, the "scientists" didn't know this, so Covid testing yielded more false negatives for this reason.)

3. Vaccinated people who are exposed to the covid virus can indeed be infected and have the covid virus in their systems. However the vaccination slows (and usually prevents) the virus from building up to high levels in their bodies. This usually prevents transmission and re-infection of other people

4. However, the Delta-variant is once again surprising the so-called experts - it is not only more highly transmissible but it has shown that it does not need to build up to high levels in the body in order to be transmitted and re-infect other people. Specifically, a vaccinated person can be infected by the Delta-variant and can then transmit the Delta-variant virus to other people - but, reportedly, with a lower probability than if the person had not been vaccinated,
- how much lower is the probability? I don't know. For all the insistence on science, the governmental spokesmen never seem to quantify anything and never make their supporting data available to the public.

Again, when the scientific experts were confronted with completely novel and unknown virus they puffed their chests out and act in ways to inflate their reputations and their future funding - because scientists love to be important. And they were slow to acknowledge new information and change their guidance because they didn't want to be recognized as having given wrong advice.

The critical issues now are:

- how effective are the various vaccinations against the delta-variant, and how fast does the effectiveness of the vaccination decline with time? The Pfizer vaccine has been announced to decline to from 95% to 85% after 6 months, what will it be after 9 months?

Good post, but I tend to disagree a little on technicalities.

Quote:

- however, a single small water particle is only capable of carrying a small amount amount of virus, so the initial dose load is small. This means that Covid testing after exposure and infection will yield a negative result for a longer amount of time- because it takes more days for the initial dose load to build up in the body such that it can detected by the tests.

I think the low dose effect is more a probabalistic thing, like sowing a few seeds and none taking root, (Low exposure: probably no infection) but sow a few more seeds and you get the probability of a nice crop.(High exposure: higher risk of it taking hold)
and point 4.

Quote:

However, the Delta-variant ... has shown that it does not need to build up to high levels in the body in order to be transmitted and re-infect other people.

AIUI, on those occasions where a vaccinated person catches covid, they seem to have the same huge viral load as the unvaccinated.

I look forward to you correcting my understanding.
This Delta variant certainly presents lots of new unknowns.
Stay safe.

7,800,000,000

4,250,000

yet people act as if COVID is a death sentence

Quote: Gundy

7,800,000,000

4,250,000

yet people act as if COVID is a death sentence

It was for the 4,250,000
Would have been far more if we hadn't globally thrown resources and precautions at it.

It was also not evenly distributed, tearing through older folk and poorer regions.

Oh and let's not consider other reasons to avoid it.

4,250,000

Old. Sick. Fat.

Quote: Gundy

4,250,000

Old. Sick. Fat.

I am, but there's no need to rub it in.
$:o)

Anyway Gundy, your apparent stance makes me expect that you are launching into emotive and controversial discussion of the rights and wrongs of letting the old, sick and fat just die.

Rule 19:
Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19).

Quote: OnceDear

Anyway Gundy, your apparent stance makes me expect that you are launching into emotive and controversial discussion of the rights and wrongs of letting the old, sick and fat just die.

If it's euthanasia we're going for, it's horribly mismanaged and expensive. So, no reason to be for this method.

Quote: rxwine

If it's euthanasia we're going for, it's horribly mismanaged and expensive. So, no reason to be for this method.

Rule 19
Euthanasia is somewhat controversial. Let's not go there

Well, I was just being snarky, not serious.

Quote: OnceDear

Rule 19
Euthanasia is somewhat controversial. Let's not go there

A lot of my brothers spent a year of their youth in asia and even now, some 50 years later, it is still subject they don't easily discuss with outsiders.

Quote: billryan

,,, youth in asia ...

GRROAaaan

Here are some stats about vaccine efficacy. The doctor says there's a 25-fold reduction in hospital incidence and death among vaccinated people vs. unvaccinated. That seems correct if you're talking about people who don't already have COVID, but once you do, it seems like:

Unvaccinated: 2.52 hospital incidence ÷ 178.6 cases = 1.4% chance of being hospitalized if you get COVID

Vaccinated: 0.1 hospital incidence ÷ 21.4 cases = 0.5% chance of being hospitalized if you get COVID

That's like a three-fold difference, not 25.

Similarly, for risk of death:

Unvaccinated: 0.96 death incidence ÷ 178.6 cases = 0.54% chance of dying if you get COVID

Vaccinated: 0.04 hospital incidence ÷ 21.4 cases = 0.19% chance of dying if you get COVID

Again, like a three-fold difference, not 25.

Am I missing something? Discuss.

One of my favorite Japanese comics involved the Japanese battle ship Yamato being transformed into a galactic war wagon.
It's original English title was going to be My Youth In Asia, but they changed it to My Youth in Arcadia

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here are some stats about vaccine efficacy. The doctor says there's a 25-fold reduction in hospital incidence and death among vaccinated people vs. unvaccinated. That seems correct if you're talking about people who don't already have COVID, but once you do, it seems like:

Unvaccinated: 2.52 hospital incidence ÷ 178.6 cases = 1.4% chance of being hospitalized if you get COVID

Vaccinated: 0.1 hospital incidence ÷ 21.4 cases = 0.5% chance of being hospitalized if you get COVID

That's like a three-fold difference, not 25.

Similarly, for risk of death:

Unvaccinated: 0.96 death incidence ÷ 178.6 cases = 0.54% chance of dying if you get COVID

Vaccinated: 0.04 hospital incidence ÷ 21.4 cases = 0.19% chance of dying if you get COVID

Again, like a three-fold difference, not 25.

Am I missing something? Discuss.

I'd suggest you read the chart better.

Quote: gordonm888

1. At the beginning of this pandemic the Covid virus was an unknown. The scientific method requires keeping an open mind about the unknown.

2. Fauci and the CDC initially emphasized washing hands and sanitizing surfaces because that is how most flu viruses are transmitted. And they discouraged the public from wearing masks because most flu viruses are not air transmissible. They were wrong. The discovery that covid is primarily transmissible by air means that washing hands is relatively unimportant and wearing masks is critical. At that juncture, scientists with backgrounds in aerosol physics understood the transmission issues much better that Fauci and the CDC -but they were not the media-anointed "expert community," So delays in providing the right guidance contributed to more deaths than we otherwise would have had.

- some exhaled water particles are so small that they will stay suspended in the air for hours, When indoors, they can travel through the ventilation ducts and pass through the non-hepa filters. Thus, separating people by six feet is not sufficient and large gatherings indoors have the potential to be super-spreader events. This was instantly clear to aerosol physicists, but not to the CDC.

- however, a single small water particle is only capable of carrying a small amount amount of virus, so the initial dose load is small. This means that Covid testing after exposure and infection will yield a negative result for a longer amount of time- because it takes more days for the initial dose load to build up in the body such that it can detected by the tests. (Again, the "scientists" didn't know this, so Covid testing yielded more false negatives for this reason.)

3. Vaccinated people who are exposed to the covid virus can indeed be infected and have the covid virus in their systems. However the vaccination slows (and usually prevents) the virus from building up to high levels in their bodies. This usually prevents transmission and re-infection of other people

4. However, the Delta-variant is once again surprising the so-called experts - it is not only more highly transmissible but it has shown that it does not need to build up to high levels in the body in order to be transmitted and re-infect other people. Specifically, a vaccinated person can be infected by the Delta-variant and can then transmit the Delta-variant virus to other people - but, reportedly, with a lower probability than if the person had not been vaccinated,
- how much lower is the probability? I don't know. For all the insistence on science, the governmental spokesmen never seem to quantify anything and never make their supporting data available to the public.

Again, when the scientific experts were confronted with completely novel and unknown virus they puffed their chests out and act in ways to inflate their reputations and their future funding - because scientists love to be important. And they were slow to acknowledge new information and change their guidance because they didn't want to be recognized as having given wrong advice.

The critical issues now are:

- how effective are the various vaccinations against the delta-variant, and how fast does the effectiveness of the vaccination decline with time? The Pfizer vaccine has been announced to decline to from 95% to 85% after 6 months, what will it be after 9 months?

A really outstanding synopsis and relevant treatise. It is clear, on point, and well written. Congrats,

tuttigym

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Again, like a three-fold difference, not 25.

Am I missing something? Discuss.

8 fold reduction in catching it multiplied by 3 fold reduction of being hospitalised if you do catch it. 8x3 ~=25

Quote: OnceDear

8 fold reduction in catching it multiplied by 3 fold reduction of being hospitalised if you do catch it. 8x3 ~=25

Yeah, I think that's what I said: Prior to any infection, a 25-fold reduction in hospitalization or death. But among people who have COVID, the reduction in hospitalization or death looks like only a 3-fold reduction.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Yeah, I think that's what I said: Prior to any infection, a 25-fold reduction in hospitalization or death. But among people who have COVID, the reduction in hospitalization or death looks like only a 3-fold reduction.

You imply there's some contradiction, but I don't see what you are alluding to.

Step 1. Don't be infected
Step2. Get vaccinated

It's not like the ideal route is get infected first

session begins.
place your bets
prior to infection.... get vaccinated. 8x less likely to get infected.
let it ride
post vaccinated.... 3 x less likely to die.
collect your winnings

Perhaps this should be in the Pet Peeves thread, but why does the CDC say fully "vaccinated" (meaning all doses have been received) when they really mean fully "immunized" (meaning the vaccine has taken full effect)?

Their own website contradicts itself. On this page, they define terms:

Quote: CDC

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination.

Based on these definitions, you would be considered fully vaccinated the moment you got your 2nd dose (or 1st in the case of J&J). You are considered fully immunized 2 weeks after said dose.

But on this page, they state:

Quote: CDC

In general, people are considered fully vaccinated:
2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or
2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
If you don’t meet these requirements, regardless of your age, you are NOT fully vaccinated.

Quote: Joeman

Perhaps this should be in the Pet Peeves thread, but why does the CDC say fully "vaccinated" (meaning all doses have been received) when they really mean fully "immunized" (meaning the vaccine has taken full effect)?

Their own website contradicts itself. On this page, they define terms:

Quote: CDC

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination.

Based on these definitions, you would be considered fully vaccinated the moment you got your 2nd dose (or 1st in the case of J&J). You are considered fully immunized 2 weeks after said dose.

But on this page, they state:

Yes. It looks like very poor communications, which is what they NEED to be Great at,
Even worse when they bandy about words like vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated. Our UK chief scientific advisor totally screwed up in a press conference where he referred to 60% unvaccinated and then badly clarified by talking about 60% vaccinated and we all, with one voice said "What, fully or partially?"

https://twitter.com/uksciencechief/status/1417204235356213252?lang=en

Quote: OnceDear

GRROAaaan

That was so bad I didn't even get it till your post.

Quote: OnceDear

You imply there's some contradiction, but I don't see what you are alluding to.

I'm not, I'm just not making myself clear. My point is that there are two different questions, and they're answering only one of them, the first one:

(1) What are the chances of getting COVID and then becoming hospitalized or dying, for a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated person?

(2) For someone who HAS COVID, what are the chances of becoming hospitalized or dying, for a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated person?

If I get COVID, I'm gonna wonder, "Does the vaccine still afford me some protection, and if so, how much?" The answer is yes, it affords some protection, but not nearly as much as the protection it gave me for not developing COVID in the first place.

It's like the Gambler's Fallacy, where the odds are different whether something has already happened or not. The odds of getting four heads in a row on a coin toss are 1/16. But once you've tossed and *already* got three heads, the odds of getting a fourth head are only 1/2,

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: gordonm888

1. At the beginning of this pandemic the Covid virus was an unknown. The scientific method requires keeping an open mind about the unknown.

2. Fauci and the CDC initially emphasized washing hands and sanitizing surfaces because that is how most flu viruses are transmitted. And they discouraged the public from wearing masks because most flu viruses are not air transmissible. They were wrong. The discovery that covid is primarily transmissible by air means that washing hands is relatively unimportant and wearing masks is critical. At that juncture, scientists with backgrounds in aerosol physics understood the transmission issues much better that Fauci and the CDC -but they were not the media-anointed "expert community," So delays in providing the right guidance contributed to more deaths than we otherwise would have had.

- some exhaled water particles are so small that they will stay suspended in the air for hours, When indoors, they can travel through the ventilation ducts and pass through the non-hepa filters. Thus, separating people by six feet is not sufficient and large gatherings indoors have the potential to be super-spreader events. This was instantly clear to aerosol physicists, but not to the CDC.

- however, a single small water particle is only capable of carrying a small amount amount of virus, so the initial dose load is small. This means that Covid testing after exposure and infection will yield a negative result for a longer amount of time- because it takes more days for the initial dose load to build up in the body such that it can detected by the tests. (Again, the "scientists" didn't know this, so Covid testing yielded more false negatives for this reason.)

3. Vaccinated people who are exposed to the covid virus can indeed be infected and have the covid virus in their systems. However the vaccination slows (and usually prevents) the virus from building up to high levels in their bodies. This usually prevents transmission and re-infection of other people

4. However, the Delta-variant is once again surprising the so-called experts - it is not only more highly transmissible but it has shown that it does not need to build up to high levels in the body in order to be transmitted and re-infect other people. Specifically, a vaccinated person can be infected by the Delta-variant and can then transmit the Delta-variant virus to other people - but, reportedly, with a lower probability than if the person had not been vaccinated,
- how much lower is the probability? I don't know. For all the insistence on science, the governmental spokesmen never seem to quantify anything and never make their supporting data available to the public.

Again, when the scientific experts were confronted with completely novel and unknown virus they puffed their chests out and act in ways to inflate their reputations and their future funding - because scientists love to be important. And they were slow to acknowledge new information and change their guidance because they didn't want to be recognized as having given wrong advice.

The critical issues now are:

- how effective are the various vaccinations against the delta-variant, and how fast does the effectiveness of the vaccination decline with time? The Pfizer vaccine has been announced to decline to from 95% to 85% after 6 months, what will it be after 9 months?

Good post, but I tend to disagree a little on technicalities. I think the low dose effect is more a probabalistic thing, like sowing a few seeds and none taking root, (Low exposure: probably no infection) but sow a few more seeds and you get the probability of a nice crop.(High exposure: higher risk of it taking hold)
and point 4. AIUI, on those occasions where a vaccinated person catches covid, they seem to have the same huge viral load as the unvaccinated.

I look forward to you correcting my understanding.
This Delta variant certainly presents lots of new unknowns.
Stay safe.

Well initial dose load is not well understood. I've read that the progression of the disease (and the mortality rate) is worse when the initial dose load is high -but I've seen no quantitative discussion on that. There are a lot of unknowns.

And nowhere am I advocating that people shouldn't get vaccinated. But for those of us who took the vaccine six months ago, we would appreciate some updates on whether the effectiveness of our specific vaccine is now declining, and by how much. And what kind of decline to expect in the near future.

Did you get the Pfizer vaccine?