Random thoughts/comments

(Nov 21, 2020 12:12 PM)confused2 Wrote: Writing in August 2020 when cases in Sweden were declining there was (naturally) a search for an explanation. Looking at the figures for Sweden now  ( Nov 2020  https://epidemic-stats.com/coronavirus/sweden ) they're having a 'second wave' comparable to the first. The options would seem to be either a mutated virus or they were actually distancing perhaps not well but at least well enough.  There are many things that nobody knows but the current evidence suggests the hoped for herd immunity hasn't been achieved. Conclusions based on incomplete evidence can simply be wrong no matter how good they look at the time.

Quote:Buggert’s home country [Sweden] has been at the forefront of the herd immunity debate, with Sweden’s light touch strategy against the virus resulting in much scrutiny and scepticism.26 The epidemic in Sweden does seem to be declining, Buggert said in August. “We have much fewer cases right now. We have around 50 people hospitalised with covid-19 in a city of two million people.” At the peak of the epidemic there were thousands of cases. Something must have happened, said Buggert, particularly considering that social distancing was “always poorly followed, and it’s only become worse.”

^^^ from  BMJ  of 17th Sept 2020    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Sweden's second wave has many more daily cases than the first but also many fewer daily deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronaviru...ry/sweden/
So no, the second wave is not really comparable to the first. If anything, it both shows that they continue to do better than other countries and that, to some degree, Covid moves through all countries, regardless of lock down measures, similarly.

The much higher number of cases and much lower number of deaths would suggest that a much better immune response is, in fact, happening in Sweden.

Quote:Measles is highly infectious and the WHO suggest 95% vaccination to achieve herd immunity. In fairness vaccination doesn't give 100% immunity which will probably also be true of a Corvid 19 vaccination.

Measles affects the young and the death rate is very low (0.1 - 0.2%). Unlike the susceptible of Covid, children are not usually kept together, like nursing homes, and are typically kept fairly isolated when symptomatic (high viral load likely to spread). And unlike coronaviruses that people come in contact with regularly (often mistaken for the flu) and thus some people already have an effective immunity to Covid, only those born in 1957 are thought to have a natural measles immunity.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:I value the human lives I know, for a fact, are being lost due to our actions. You're basically arguing that those lives are worth less than some hypothetical predictions.

I'm suggesting we should look at what is most likely to be true rather than what we would most like to be true - no matter how attractive the latter may seem.

"Most likely" is a guess, and very many of the guesses about Covid have proven completely mistaken.
The effects of lock downs are known facts.

It is difficult to keep track of all the available information.
Looking at
Norway with a population of 5 million - 300 deaths
Sweden with a population of 10 million 6,000 deaths
So death rate from C19 in Sweden seems to be a factor of 10 higher than Norway.
Scource
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105...in-norway/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105...in-sweden/

30 years ago I worked in the traffic industry. Looking back I'd say the value of a life was about £100,000 - that is to say if there were 10 deaths on a stretch of road the authority might consider spending £1 million on changes/improvements to that stretch of road. Allowing for inflation $1 million per life seems a sensible guess. On that basis Norway has saved around $2.7 billion by not copying Sweden's approach (6,000/-2,300=2,700), alternatively Sweden's approach has cost $5.4 billion compared to Norway's way of doing things. Sweden's GDP is around $600 billion so losing roughly 1% ($5.4 billion) isn't going to hurt much. Whatever Noway did is likely to have had a far greater effect on their GDP than 1% so I'd say Sweden have chosen the best path. In fairness nobody knew how this would pan out - Sweden could have lost 6% of the population which would have been more noticeable. On the basis of (what I hope are) reasonably reliable figures I'm with Syne on this - forget lockdowns - let the virus run through the population - but don't moan afterwards about what happens.

Just have to take into account the deaths due to lack of economic, social, and healthcare activity, the fact that even countries instituting lock downs, masks, and social distancing mandates have fared no better than others that haven't...demonstrating the lack of efficacy in those attempts, and that lock downs obviously haven't worked...proven by the need for more lock downs. IOW, we know we are shortening people's lives and contributing to more deaths with lock downs, but we do not know that those lock downs are saving any lives. We should have just isolated the most at-risk, to both save those lives and allow the economy to continue apace.

I think the lockdowns have slowed the spread. 

Did anyone buy stocks in Moderna?

(Nov 22, 2020 05:05 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the lockdowns have slowed the spread. 

Did anyone buy stocks in Moderna?

I didn’t. I wish my parents had invested $1200 or the equivalent of 100 shares of BRK (Berkshire Hathaway) in 1964 hiowever. Only worth $345,000/share today. 

Moderna only 90% whereas Pfizer’s 95%. I think we’ll see a few more as many companies were looking for the holy grail of vaccines. My feeling is that there’s better vaccines to come.

(Nov 21, 2020 12:12 PM)confused2 Wrote: [...] There are many things that nobody knows but the current evidence suggests the hoped for herd immunity hasn't been achieved. Conclusions based on incomplete evidence can simply be wrong no matter how good they look at the time.

Was going to post this Friday night, but decided it was already redundant. But Sunday belatedly feel an urge to kick a dead horse once. Now that the vaccines have arrived, "herd immunity" is at least no longer disparaged at the level of Musk talk about domed cities on Mars.

Pune may have even reached it "naturally" without vaccination, but that could be more speculation running away with itself as with Sweden earlier in the year. A "study" hints that 85% of those infected in the population have developed immune-significant status, but what does that mean in this era where the human-science research is as reliable as these characters?
- - -

Herd immunity via vaccination

Can first COVID-19 vaccines bring herd immunity? Experts have doubts
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...SKBN27Y124

EXCERPTS: Governments and officials are voicing hopes that COVID-19 vaccines could bring "herd immunity”, with some calculating that immunising just two-thirds of a population could halt the pandemic disease and help protect whole communities or nations.

But the concept comes with caveats and big demands of what vaccines might be capable of preventing. Some experts say such expectations are misplaced. For a start, figuring out what’s needed to achieve herd immunity with COVID-19 vaccines involves a range of factors, several of which are unknown.

What is the rate of the spread of the COVID-19-causing virus? Will the first vaccines deployed be able to stop transmission of the virus, or just stop people getting ill? How many people in a population will accept a vaccine? Will vaccines offer the same protection to everyone?

[...] The ECDC uses an estimated herd immunity threshold of 67% for its models, while Chancellor Angela Merkel said this month that COVID-19 restrictions in Germany could be lifted if 60% to 70% of the population acquired immunity, either via a COVID-19 vaccine or through infection.

World Health Organization experts have also pointed to a 65%-70% vaccine coverage rate as a way to reach population immunity through vaccination.

The idea of herd community is to protect the vulnerable,” said Eleanor Riley, a professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh. “And the idea behind it is that if, say, 98% of a population have all been vaccinated, there will be so little virus in the community that the 2% will be protected. That’s the point of it.”
- - - - -

Herd immunity without vaccination

In Pune, first signs of ‘herd immunity’ in small population groups
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/...e-7057931/

EXCERPTS: In a first-of-its-kind finding for any Indian city, a new study conducted in Pune has revealed that close to 85 per cent of the people who had been found infected with coronavirus in an earlier sero-survey had developed protective antibodies. In effect, they had acquired immunity from the disease.

[...] though the researchers who carried out the study are careful not to suggest that the city was approaching ‘herd immunity’, this is the first documented case in the country where the infection rate in a population group had gone up so high that the concept of herd immunity could already be playing out.

[...] “I don’t think we can still say that Pune has achieved, or is reaching, herd immunity. But the study is important because it shows that wherever there was high sero-positivity, the incidence rate has fallen subsequently,” Dr Gagandeep Kang, one of the co-authors of the study whose preprint was released on Thursday, said. The study is still to be peer reviewed.
- - - - -

What happened with Sweden? "The goal that never was but still get it projected on the country as if it had been."

(Oct 12) The Swedish approach: 'It’s annoying that people thought we used herd immunity when we never had that policy.'
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/th...11592.html

(Nov 15) Sweden 'got it wrong on herd immunity', says ex-health chief as infections soar
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sw...r-BB1b2jBA

(Nov 16) Sweden U-turns on herd immunity with tighter lockdown restrictions
https://www.cityam.com/sweden-u-turns-on...trictions/

(Nov 22, 2020 05:34 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Moderna only 90% whereas Pfizer’s 95%. I think we’ll see a few more as many companies were looking for the holy grail of vaccines. My feeling is that there’s better vaccines to come.

Are you sure about that? I thought that Pfizer was 90% effective. It looks like Moderna’s is 94.5 percent effective and Moderna is winning the race.

(Nov 22, 2020 05:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 22, 2020 05:34 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Moderna only 90% whereas Pfizer’s 95%. I think we’ll see a few more as many companies were looking for the holy grail of vaccines. My feeling is that there’s better vaccines to come.

Are you sure about that? I thought that Pfizer was 90% effective. It looks like Moderna’s is 94.5 percent effective and Moderna is winning the race.

I wasn't sure so thanks for correction. I'd feel better with a vax closer to 100% as unrealistic as that may seem. 100% impossible, always someone who won't be helped..

I might tune in to 60 Minutes later, they’re doing a segment on Covid - “long lingering symptoms.”

(Nov 22, 2020 09:38 PM)Leigha Wrote: I might tune in to 60 Minutes later, they’re doing a segment on Covid - “long lingering symptoms.”

Oh good! I'll have to watch that too. I posted a thread about long-lasting symptoms of covid:

https://www.scivillage.com/thread-9278.html