[HN Gopher] The mutation that helps Delta spread ___________________________________________________________________ The mutation that helps Delta spread Author : pseudolus Score : 126 points Date : 2021-08-20 17:37 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | jmfldn wrote: | Purely anecdotal but I'm double vaccinated (Astra Zeneca) and I | caught Covid recently. It was probably Delta as 99% of cases in | UK are. I know of quite a few vaccinated friends who've caught it | recently too. Mainly AZ I think but one was Pfizer (single | jabbed). | | Anyway, none of us had severe illness although I felt pretty | rough for a few days like I had a really bad cold and smell went | for a week completely. I was basically fine though and everyone | else I know is too who got it recently. The point is that it does | seem like this Delta variant breaks through regularly and it does | seem (again, purely anecdotal) like it's v infectious. Of course | the thing to emphasise is that, whilst it might break through, | the vaccine still stops serious illness to a high degree. It does | highlight however the need to not be complacent. Vaccines don't | seem to be stopping the spread right now as much as you might | think, and the high number of cases combined with high | vaccination rates is an obvious selection pressure. More variants | are inevitably coming and it does seem like this virus is bucking | the trend and not necessarily becoming less potent despite | increased tranmissability in some variants | | My conclusion is that, whilst I welcome the UK being sort of | "back to normal", let's keep up the mask wearing, hygiene | standards and so on. It's a balance but I sense things are | getting a bit too lax. I'm not overly anxious but let's stick to | the precautionary principle a bit more. | tommymachine wrote: | Do you have awareness that your anecdotal data, even if it were | more than anecdotal, still would not prove that the shots | you've taken reduced the symptoms, as many cases are | asymptomatic / mild symptoms anyways? | jmfldn wrote: | Sure, it's anecdotal not proof and in no way scientific my | self assessment. I've just noticed a trend amongst friends | recently. | tommymachine wrote: | The criticism I made wasn't about the anecdotal nature of | your post, but the lack of logic in the conclusions you | drew from it. | | It's amazing how people of your persuasion must avoid at | all cost viewing their own thinking from a logical | framework. | jmfldn wrote: | The point in my sharing this as 'anecdotal' is that this | is my subjective view, and that from where I sit, these | conclusions might follow but the correlation might be | coincidental too. I.e maybe I avoided serious illness for | some other reason; maybe I have no antibodies and the | vaccine didn't trigger a response in me but I'm one of | many who had it mildly. There are any number of other | possible explanations. I'm not making any scientific | logically bullet proof statements here, I'm speaking as | an armchair pundit thinking "hmm, seems like a lot of | vaccinated people I know have the virus all of a sudden. | Seems like vaccines might be helping with the severity of | the illness, maybe I was one of them. However, I wonder | if all this means we should exercise just a bit more | caution until we're sure this high infection rate isn't a | problem in the overall fight we're engaged in". | | The actual hard logic and policy I'll leave to the | scientists and policy makers but, in the UK, at least the | latter have a chequered history. | technothrasher wrote: | You invoke "you people" and then draw an unfounded and | non-sequitur conclusion about your interlocutor's | motivation while asking _them_ to think with a logical | framework??? | zzt123 wrote: | Same. My breakthrough infection lasted over a week. Nothing | serious, but definitely very infectious, so I self quarantined. | I've had minimal social contact and just about avoided COVID | the original, so it was surprising how quickly I caught Delta | after it became dominant. | laurent92 wrote: | Since more people are vaccinated, they don't always know that | they carry. It adds a lot to the contagiousness. They may | also be less careful, due to the insurance paradox (insured | people have more accidents). | kzrdude wrote: | It's not normal until we can forget about it all. (So it will | take time!) | belter wrote: | Thanks for sharing your experience. | | >"... Of course the thing to emphasise is that, whilst it might | break through, the vaccine still stops serious illness to a | high degree...." | | Important to note, vaccines do not protect you, its the immune | response they trigger and the level of antibodies that will | protect you. | | What really should be happening should be a mass vaccination | program and a mass antibodies level testing program at the same | time. Except for a few clinical studies, whose results are only | now starting to come out I do not think any country is doing | that. Frankly it puzzles me a little bit. | | There is not enough data yet to see how these antibodies levels | reduce with time, but there is already plenty of information to | show they drop dramatically after 6 months, hence the talk now | of the third shot. | | Hence I think its better to say vaccines will produce level of | antibodies that will protect...for now. | | "Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines" | | https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different... | criticaltinker wrote: | _> What really should be happening should be a mass | vaccination program_ | | _Compulsory_ mass vaccination using the current vaccines | poses a serious public health risk [1][2][3]. See my other | comments here for more explanation and citations. For these | reasons, vaccination strategies should be highly targeted | towards vulnerable populations, and should be heavily | supplemented by additional therapeutic modalities. | | _> and a mass antibodies level testing program at the same | time_ | | Antibody levels are used as proxy for protection [4], but | higher levels of antibodies do not necessarily always | translate to higher levels of protection. In fact, | individuals with undetectable levels of antibodies can still | have robust and durable immunity [5][6][7]. There is plenty | of literature on antibody levels reducing with time [8][9], | but again, antibody levels are only one aspect of a complex | immune response. | | [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | | [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and | their phenotypic consequences? | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | | [3] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine | resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/p | df/10.1098/rspb.2016... | | [4] SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against | reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33937733/ | | [5] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow | plasma cells in humans | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf | | [6] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune | memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody | responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell- | reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | [7] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is | associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune | responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination | https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 | | [8] Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild | SARS-CoV-2 Infection | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920668/ | | [9] Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS- | CoV-2 one year after infection | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9 | civilized wrote: | > Compulsory mass vaccination using the current vaccines | poses a serious public health risk [1][2][3] | | None of your references say this or anything remotely | implying this. Backing up a provocative claim with a | snowblind of irrelevant references is a shameful | misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it | immediately. Doing it in a public health context is | particularly dangerous and frankly disgusting. | aplummer wrote: | Thanks for adding this. Compulsory mass vaccination is | one of the greatest medical miracles in human history, | possibly the actual single greatest. | | Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung#/media/Fi | le:Poumon_a... | newacct583 wrote: | Second greatest. Antibiotics take the crown. | criticaltinker wrote: | My emphasis is on _compulsory_ , but perhaps I should've | been more clear. Obviously I've triggered some people | here. | | Vaccines are powerful tools that help save lives and we | should use them. But if they are used indiscriminately | they can actually further endanger public health. You | might be familiar with antibiotic resistance - vaccines | are subject to the same potential for unexpected | consequences. | | All of the sources I cited support this fact - it is not | misinformation. Did you read any of them? | | Here are some excerpts for you: | | Excerpts from [1]: | | _> "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of | SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and | antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 | under control." _ | | _> "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of | viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for | these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new | strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and | immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: | how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies | (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?"_ | | _> "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with | one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to | exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, | and consequently resistance to vaccines or other | prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for | protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under | positive selection." _ | | _> "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the | population increases substantially as the number of | infected individuals increases, suggesting that | complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 | transmission that exert specific pressure on other | proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not | exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., | high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air | purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune | escape" _ | | _> "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be | diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic | modalities" _ | | Excerpts from [2]: | | _> As vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are deployed across | populations, it is possible to create a selection | pressure for variants that can escape the vaccine- | acquired immune response. Over the past few months, | several variants have emerged which show a reduced | susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none | appears to escape entirely. These variants largely | emerged before vaccination was widespread, thus selection | pressure from vaccines is unlikely to have made a | significant contribution to their emergence. However, as | vaccines become more widespread, the transmission | advantage gained by a virus that can evade vaccine- | acquired immunity will increase. _ | | _> There is no historic precedent for the mass | administration of antiviral medication in the community | as prophylaxis, apart from the use of anti influenza | Neuraminidase Inhibitors, which were used to a limited | extent in this way in the early phases of Influenza | Pandemic of 2009 in the UK. The safety and efficacy | profile must be extremely well established for a mass | administration strategy to work and poor compliance will | likely rapidly lead to the selection of drug resistant | variants, rendering such a strategy short lived. _ | | I could go on, but that fact is your comment is not a | charitable or informed response to the statements I made. | | [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (April | 2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | | [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and | their phenotypic consequences? | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | civilized wrote: | I stand by my post. None of this says anything remotely | implying what you claimed, that the vaccines pose a | serious public health risk. That is purely your | speculation, vaguely inspired by the content of the | papers. | | Your contention that it matters whether the campaign is | compulsory or not only takes you further from your | supposed evidence base. It's not even in the same | universe as what the papers are talking about, and is | purely your own invention. | | I understand that you're worried about vaccine escape, | but to go from that to "the vaccines are a serious public | health risk" is a completely unwarranted leap. | fitzroy wrote: | I'm curious to know how much the reaction to the second or | subsequent jabs correlates to antibody/immunity level. I had | no reaction to the first jab and a 12-hour flu-like reaction | to the second jab the next day (both Moderna). | | NOT having a similar reaction to a third booster would be | concerning, but I wonder how much the reaction actually | correlates with protection for shots beyond the first. | belter wrote: | Good question. I think the consensus is that the two things | are not related. That is the reason I argued for | vaccination and testing for immunity as a single combined | action for each individual. | | "No, vaccine side effects don't tell you how well your | immune system will protect you from COVID-19" | | https://theconversation.com/no-vaccine-side-effects-dont- | tel... | red_trumpet wrote: | It's not just antibodies though. Vaccines also trigger you to | get memory cells, which have a longer life span. So even if | your antibody levels go down after ~6 months, and you might | get infected again, your immune system will have a faster and | more precise reaction, preventing a more severe course of | covid. | loosescrews wrote: | Note that it appears that it is still unknown how likely | breakthrough infections are to result in long Covid. The very | limited data that does exist indicates that the likelyhood is | rather high (~20%). | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/well/live/vaccine-long-co... | phkahler wrote: | Isn't long Covid caused by damage from the spike proteins? In | that case, repeatedly giving people the vaccine might do | damage as well since it gets you to produce those spike | proteins right? | red_trumpet wrote: | What's your source that spike proteins cause long covid? | | This article[1] says the cause of long covid is still not | clear. | | [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57833394 | nradov wrote: | Long COVID isn't a distinct disease, it's just a vague | label for a set of non specific symptoms. There is evidence | that some cases are caused by re-activation of dormant | Epstein-Barr virus infections. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233978/ | | If proven correct that wouldn't be at all surprising. We | already know that major stresses can sometimes reactivate | EBV. It might be a good idea to also test all COVID-19 | patients for EBV. | eecc wrote: | orders of magnitude less though. | undersuit wrote: | The spike proteins allow Covid to enter your cell where its | actual RNA coopts the cellular machinery of the cell to | reproduce. After enough copies of the virus are assembled | the RNA coopted cell is made to kill itself by self-lysis | releasing the new viruses. | | The spike protein itself is not dangerous. | singingfish wrote: | I think it kind of is because it's got a similar binding | affinity to heparin. Heparin is a first responder | chemical in the immune system. Coopting a low level part | of the immune system like that is rather more dangerous | than if it were getting entry via some other mechanism. | On the other hand I could be wrong about this. | foldr wrote: | Hundreds of millions of people have received vaccines | that (either directly or indirectly) expose them to the | spike protein in question, so clearly it can't be | dangerous. | irthomasthomas wrote: | Long Covid has the same symptoms as stress, anxiety and | depression, which are to be expected after contracting a | pandemic level virus and being forced to isolate. Is there | any proof yet that it is any more than that? | monoideism wrote: | Long covid often includes easily quantifiable issues such | as lung and heart issues. | logicalmonster wrote: | This is roughly my theory on long-covid too. | | The social isolation, stress, lack of sun and exercise, bad | diets, and other side effects of the hypochondriac society | we now live in are largely responsible for what is called | long-covid. | | I think lung damage found in some cases is likely fairly | typical post-covid, but my theory is that this is common | after any harsh illness involving the respiratory system | whether it's cold/flu/covid, we just weren't looking for it | nearly as often before. | amznthrwaway wrote: | Long covid also shows itself in lung function, with | decreased vo2max, visible lung damage, etc. | | I am unsurprised that this disinformation was posted by a | user who posts right-wing extremist propaganda nearly | exclusively. | TeMPOraL wrote: | Stress, anxiety and depression don't show up as lung damage | on MRI scans. | nitrogen wrote: | What are the stats on that, especially vs. other severe | respiratory diseases? | | Asking because I've had "long covid" since long before | there was a COVID, so either everyone's making a bigger | deal out of it than necessary, or I'm actually much worse | off relative to normal than I thought and I should really | be questioning my doctors. | Closi wrote: | > Asking because I've had "long covid" since long before | there was a COVID | | Well that isn't "Long Covid" then. Symptoms can come from | a variety of causes, and just because you suffered some | of the same symptoms unrelated to a Covid infection | doesn't mean that others won't experience similar | symptoms after Covid. | nitrogen wrote: | So what are the percentages of people who will have long- | term symptoms from Covid, how does that compare in | severity and frequency to other respiratory diseases, and | if it wasn't something people cared about before Covid, | why do they care now? | polote wrote: | Almost none of the 20% people mentionned had a MRI scan. | So you don't answer the question. | | The problem of long covid studies is they don't have a | control group, so it is easy to say wrong things. | | Its probably closer to 1-4% than 20% | stakkur wrote: | Current breakthrough rate in the US is .004%, including Delta. | In fact, vaccines are generally working as well or better than | expected against _all_ known variants. | tunesmith wrote: | "Selective pressure". I find this phrase really confusing, | because I think people use it differently. I'm still trying to | nail down my own knowledge about this, but here's the gist I | have so far. | | Viruses are not like bacteria. Bacteria can mutate in direct | response to antibiotics. Viruses cannot mutate in direct | response to vaccines. Some people use "selection pressure" to | describe what happens with bacteria and antibiotics. Others use | it in a looser sense. | | Viruses mutate purely randomly. Now, if a virus happens to | mutate in a way that escapes vaccines, _and_ if vaccinated | people are more likely to party because they are vaccinated, | then yes, you could argue the mutation has an advantage against | other variants the vaccine has protected against, in a social | sense. Some people use "selection pressure" in this sense, | which I think causes confusion. | | So the more relevant question is, if a virus mutates in an | unvaccinated person, and that mutation happens to have the | ability to escape all current vaccines, then, can the virus | spread faster in a 50% vaccinated community than a 0% | vaccinated community? | | Answers as far as I can tell: | | - Arguably yes, if the 0% vaccinated community is so sick from | other variants that they aren't out and about to get exposed to | the new variant. But I think this answer is cheating and | doesn't get to the heart of the question. So, control for | population activity and assume that both the 0% and 50% | populations have the same chance of being exposed. | | - If the 0% vaccinated community is infected with variants that | can "crowd out" the newer mutation, then it could grow faster | in the 50% vaccinated community. But I don't know if this is | actually possible - I do know it's possible to catch multiple | variants at one time, and I'd expect that _usually_ a mutation | that is more fit in terms of escapability might also have | fitness advantages with transmissibility. | | - If the mutation responded _to_ the vaccine, in a direct | biological sense, then it would clearly grow faster in the 50% | population since it wouldn 't have existed otherwise. But this | is the scenario that not possible as I understand it, since it | is based on a misunderstanding of how viruses work. | | I welcome any corrections from those who are more familiar with | this. | undersuit wrote: | >Bacteria can mutate in direct response to antibiotics. | Viruses cannot mutate in direct response to vaccines. | | What do you mean by this? Are you a Lamarckian? | tunesmith wrote: | I don't know what that is. Put a bacteria and an antibiotic | in a petri dish, and the bacteria can evolve in a way that | has greater antibiotic resistance. Put a vaccine in a petri | dish with a virus, and nothing happens. Bacteria are living | organisms. Viruses are not. | doubleunplussed wrote: | Viruses are subject to selection, mutation, and heredity. | These are the three necessary ingredients to be subject | to Darwinian evolution. | | Whether they're defined as "life" or not isn't really | relevant. | | (Personally, I have a pet definition of "life" that just | equates it to being subject to Darwinian evolution. | Viruses not being defined as life never sat well with me) | bingohbangoh wrote: | How long do you think we'll be keeping up the mask wearing | given that "more variants are inevitably coming?" | jmfldn wrote: | No idea, this is a deeply complex question that I'm not | qualified to answer. I'm merely wondering out loud as a | member of the public if we have our policy around this | calibrated quite right. | jimmaswell wrote: | It has to end at some point, and for me and most other people | where I live in the US, it mostly has. | bingohbangoh wrote: | I thought the same last summer. | | It's always "almost over" yet there's chatter of Lockdown | 3.0 here in the tristate area. | code_duck wrote: | > it does seem like this virus is bucking the trend and not | necessarily becoming less potent despite increased | tranmissability in some variants | | I would think causing more severe symptoms is a disadvantage | for a Covid strain in terms of selection, because people | affected by such an illness are more likely to go into | quarantine or a hospital, reducing transmission. | johnchristopher wrote: | From what I understand: Not if symptoms appear many days | after the infection. Covid easily transmits when it's still | in the upper part of the body. Once it gets into the | chest/pulmonary and you start manifesting symptoms and it | inflicts long lasting damages it has already contaminated | others. What happens after that doesn't apply pressure to the | virus to be less virulent or lethal. | code_duck wrote: | True. A longer asymptomatic incubation period is also an | evolutionary advantage. | rolph wrote: | when reproduction[X] occurs before a selective factor[y] | is in play, the selective factor has no first order | influence on reproductive success. | | the theory of inverse relationship between severity of | symptoms and transmissibility, is based on the idea that | sick individuals spend more time laying in convolesence | than interacting with other individuals. | | this mechanism goes out the window when the infection is | transmissible before symptoms appear. | | this is the case with covid, i wish it was other than | wishfull hoping but it isnt. | mynameishere wrote: | _a bit more_ | | A bit more until the virus decides to go away? Or a bit more | until they invent a non-leaky vaccine? Or a bit more like when | the cows come home? Because that's what you are talking about. | A bit more forever. | TeMPOraL wrote: | A bit more until, by combination of the virus mutating to | less dangerous forms and everyone's immune system being | primed against it, it settles somewhere between common cold | and the flu. | jmfldn wrote: | Yes someone thing like this. Exactly where we draw the line | now is the hard question. I don't think we're massively off | the mark but I feel we could be proceeding a bit more | slowly is all. I'm not advocating the reverse gear or | massively changing course. We're not quite out of the woods | is the point. | CheezeIt wrote: | It's already well outside the top causes of death among the | vaccinated. | dragontamer wrote: | Lets start with "Lets be precautious until hospitals stop | triage of care". Maybe we should be precautious until | hospitalization levels return to something looking like | normal. | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/16/joel- | valdez... | | > Man shot 6 times waits more than a week for surgery after | hospital is overwhelmed by covid | | --------- | | When our hospitals are full, we should be cautious. When our | hospitals empty out, we can open up a bit more. This | obviously is location-dependent (and higher-vaccinated areas | can afford to open up more). | | But the absolute goal in every location is to keep hospitals | functioning, and the relative stress levels of doctors / | nurses at a reasonable level. I know in my state, we've been | having to employ student nurses before they've graduated, so | that there's enough staff around. | | As long as hospitals feel the need for emergency measures, we | need to be precautious and doing what we can to clamp down on | the sickness. | tasogare wrote: | > The point is that it does seem like this Delta variant breaks | through regularly and it does seem (again, purely anecdotal) | like it's v infectious. Of course the thing to emphasise is | that, whilst it might break through, the vaccine still stops | serious illness to a high degree. | | If numbers from IHU Mediterranee are to be believed, the Indian | variant is about 6 times less dangerous than the English one. | Way more infectious and less dangerous, the latter part helped | mutating it to the former. And that's the numbers without | taking vaccination into account. | | I wish medias would relay the information fully instead of | spreading fear by only telling about the more infectious part. | If indeed less dangerous this is a very good news that this | strain is spreading more. | pama wrote: | Assuming that all of Florida has the delta variant, right now | 53% of all adult ICU patients is with COVID-19, and the total | people in hospitals with COVID is about 79 per 100K. So I | don't understand why anyone thinks this variant is less | dangerous. https://www.fha.org/covid-19.html | johnchristopher wrote: | > IHU Mediterranee | | I'd wait a bit for someone else to provide a second opinion | considering Raoult track records regarding covid. | hutzlibu wrote: | I see the sentiment here expressed, that Covid is far from over. | To be honest, I stopped following news since being fully | vaccinated some time ago, so I am kind of ignorant here. | | Is the main problem, the unvaccinated, or that the Delta (and | co.) variants are still, too dangerous for vaccinated people? Or | is it the fear, that they will get more dangerous? | Filligree wrote: | > Is the main problem, the unvaccinated, or that the Delta (and | co.) variants are still, too dangerous for vaccinated people? | Or is it the fear, that they will get more dangerous? | | Lots of problems. | | - The virus causes serious sequela; people who have been | infected may have life-long damage, and some of that damage | looks really bad. There's little correlation between severity | of the initial infection and severity of the damage, so we | don't know if vaccines help either. | | - Not all people can be vaccinated. Young children can't be | (their immune systems don't work the same way), people with | some other underlying diseases can't be, etc. It's by no means | just anti-vaxxers who are at risk. | | - People aren't dying enough. Historically, this sort of | pandemic only ended once the people who were genetically at | risk had all died, and we're not letting that happen. Now, to | be _very clear_ : I'm not saying we should! | | - Having a vaccinated population intermingling with an | infections population means there's immense pressure on the | virus to evade those vaccines. Many of the means by which it | might do so will make it far more deadly to anyone who _isn 't_ | vaccinated; Delta, for example, has adopted 'human wave | tactics' to overwhelm the antibodies. | | However, this does mean that history is a poor guide to what | might happen. | | Viruses don't generally have any reason to want their hosts | dead, but there's also little evolutionary pressure for having | that _not_ happen. | | We're helpfully adding pressure that's well suited to make it | more deadly. Yay. | red_trumpet wrote: | Kind of a combination of Delta and unvaccinated. Delta is more | infectious than previous variants., which means that we need | more vaccinated people to reach herd immunity. | sreque wrote: | The main problem is that the U.S. federal government in | particular has been pretending for a while that we can get to | zero COVID, then blaming the unvaccinated when it doesn't | happen. First, they said we need 50% vaccination to achieve, | herd immunity. Then 60%. Then 70%. Then 80%. When things don't | work out, they vilify and blame the unvaccinated. | | In reality, unvaccinated with natural immunity are likely more | protected against the virus than the vaccinated. Israel's | vaccination rates are among the highest in the world, and | they've suffered the same delta outbreak as everyone else. | Further, Israel has the most accurate and comprehensive data to | date, and their numbers clearly show the naturally-immunized | outperforming the vaccinated during their delta wave. They've | since resorted to giving 3rd booster shots to the most | vulnerable to compensate. | | https://arieh.substack.com/p/inside-israels-delta-outbreak-p... | | https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/israel-delivers-boos... | | The real issue is that COVID is likely going to become endemic, | and at some point the world needs to face this and move on. | Unfortunately, our politicians have been lying to us and using | COVID as a tool to gain political power for so long, that they | are unwilling to admit they were wrong and to steer us in the | right direction. The best we can do is elect these people out. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | You were (legitimately) attacking my numbers elsewhere but | here you are posting completely inaccurate information. | Israel is nowhere close to "90%" vaccinated. Haaretz from 4 | days ago reports them at 78%: https://www.haaretz.com/israel- | news/israel-vaccine-data-how-... | | Given the vaccine is not approved for people under 12, | there's no way it could be 90%, as 28% of their population is | 0-14 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of | _Israel#Age_str... | sreque wrote: | I misremembered. It was 90% of people over 50 that were | vaccinated. It's in the article I linked. But I don't think | that discredits my main point, that increased vaccination | rates aren't going to eliminate the virus entirely and that | natural immunity is actually doing better. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | Here in Canada "natural immunity" would only cover maybe | 4-5% of the population. Official testing numbers of total | cases in Ontario since the pandemic began put it at 3.7% | here (though it's likely a bit higher because of bad | testing during first wave.) | | Maybe in some US states where the disease was horribly | mismanaged that number is much higher, but it's a) not | reliably counted b) badly researched. Knowing whether | someone is "naturally immune" is a big roll of the dice, | whereas we know for sure when someone is vaccinated. | | And to get to a high "natural" immunity rate requires | unnecessary death and suffering. | | But yes, half of the 18-29 year olds here seem to be | rolling the dice and playing this "natural immunity" | game; which is why they are now the vast majority of | hospital admissions for this disease. | sfink wrote: | Your numbers are wrong (see other responses for why.) | | The herd immunity figure (1) legitimately changed with the | variants, and (2) is always going to be a shot in the dark so | personally I don't find much point in paying attention to | government figures anyway. Government is providing figures to | achieve an outcome; it's fundamentally a policy tool. If you | want the science, listen to scientists. | | The delta variant is currently overwhelming a large number of | hospitals, and it wouldn't have done so with higher | vaccination rates. Whether or not you view that statement as | vilifying unvaccinated people is beside the point. | | If it is going to become endemic, and there are very good | arguments that it will, then I agree that we'll need to move | on. But "moving on" != "ignoring". Flushing the existing | vaccines down the toilet and letting the cards fall as they | may is not a winning strategy, yet that's exactly what 40% of | the US population is presently choosing. | | "Moving on" means treating it like chickenpox or at least the | flu. Not like meteor strikes. | sreque wrote: | I misremembered the numbers but if you click to the linked | analysis the numbers are correct there. | | As to the delta variant overwhelming hospitals, that's | partially because hospitals are firing nurses that won't | get vaccinated. The lack of beds is primarily a staffing | problem and hospitals are shooting themselves in the foot. | I've also heard they have been underpaying nurses and some | are just quitting or switching to better-paying contract | work. | | Second, the media and even some hospital administration | officials are blatantly deceiving people on actual hospital | status: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/06/fact- | checking-4-claim... | | There's a whole section there debunking the claims, for | instance, that hospitals in Florida are overwhelmed. | | I don't think anyone thinks that "moving on" means | forgetting, but I do think it does entail having the | government get out of the business of mandating lockdowns, | masks, or vaccines. The problem lies in the fact that the | media were too successful in scaring people to death about | COVID. It makes handling the virus in a sane way impossible | without negative political fallout. | criticaltinker wrote: | > it wouldn't have done so with higher vaccination rates | | That is the rhetoric that Fauci and others have been | pushing, but the scientific literature is accumulating | mounting evidence that counters the claim. Not to mention | the data out of Israel - which has one of the highest | vaccination rates in the world - is also strong evidence | against your claim. Israel is struggling with overwhelmed | hospitals due to variants reducing the efficacy of | vaccination and also naturally acquired immunity. | | FWIW I'm keeping an open mind, please cite primary sources | to support your claim and I will happily consider them. | tomrod wrote: | Please share some scientific citations showing natural | immunity gives better protection than vaccines. This runs | counter to what I'm hearing from my virologist sources. | kriskrunch wrote: | Here are a couple of preprint studies that show naturally | acquired immunity provides protection. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33948610/ | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33907755/ | | Meanwhile the CDC published this study showing the | opposite: | | https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=m | m... | | I can understand why people are confused. | | There appears to be two camps, one that believes that | science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp | people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new | reality. | | I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide | better protection to the virus better than my body after | recovering, but I'm not specialist. | | Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially | incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual | booster shots? Why would they make something better? | | As long as fear navigates our course, we won't see an end | to this. | sreque wrote: | It really depends on the virus. For some viruses, the | vaccines are far more effective and less risky and have | helped eliminate or mostly eliminate the virus entirely. | For other viruses, vaccines are far less effective. | | The Israel data is clearly showing natural immunity doing | better for COVID, and every other peer-reviewed study I | have seen shows natural immunity doing "at least" as well | as vaccinated immunity. | criticaltinker wrote: | There is no scientific consensus that naturally acquired | immunity gives better protection than vaccines. | | Two facts that are trending toward consensus in the | scientific literature: | | A) Naturally infected individuals who recover will acquire | robust and durable immunity [1][2] | | B) Natural infection induces an immune response that is | mostly similar but slightly different than the immune | response induced by vaccination. The primary differences | can be summarized as: naturally infected individuals have | nucleocapsid protein antibodies whereas vaccinated | individuals do not, and vaccinated individuals have an | immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein | RBD. [3][4][5] | | In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection | is better because it induces a broader and more balance | antibody response, but the literature has not established | consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of | health outcomes for individuals. | | [1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow | plasma cells in humans | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf | | [2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune | memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody | responses and memory B and T cells | https://www.cell.com/cell-reports- | medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | [3] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is | associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune | responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.c | om/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 | | [4] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by | Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination | https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 | | [5] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more | broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from | SARS-CoV-2 infection | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ | tunesmith wrote: | That first paragraph really isn't fair because R0 has | changed. So of course scientific opinion has changed. That's | not same thing as pretending and then vilifying. | | Your second paragraph is eliding a lousy "therefore" - | obviously, the cost of shooting for natural immunity versus | vaccination is that you have to experience the actual disease | and all its risks. Survivorship bias. | rajin444 wrote: | Scientists are allowed and should be allowed to say "the | data changed, so our recommendation changed". Politicians | and health leaders have a responsibility to interpret the | data and develop communications and policies that build | trust and inform the public. It's a failure on the part of | the latter when they make promises to the public that they | know are not guaranteed. | | They have made definitive statements that are wrong too | many times in the past year and a half. That is a massive | failure. The average joe has nowhere near the time nor | expertise required to interpret the scientific data out | there, so trust is everything for them. At some point, you | run out of the good will required to say "ok, I'll trust | you again". Maintaining trust is a leader's most important | job. | tshaddox wrote: | Personally I think the real problem with COVID is that it is | a disease which kills many people and harms many more, not | that some people supposedly vilify unvaccinated people. | kriskrunch wrote: | Why not fight heart disease with this voracity, since it | kills more people? | tshaddox wrote: | What fight, and what voracity? | bonzini wrote: | There's not a single heart disease, and a lot of | cardiovascular issues are caused by bad habits rather | than infectious pathogens. | kriskrunch wrote: | That's the reasoning used to vilify unvaccinated people, | which is my point. Cheers | Florin_Andrei wrote: | > _I stopped following news since being fully vaccinated some | time ago_ | | You're mostly fine, but you should not get disconnected | completely from the news. | | Vaccine efficacy seems to wane slowly (faster for old people). | Probably before the 1 year mark you should get a booster shot. | | The Delta variant is skewing some of the initial estimates, for | the worse. | | The odds that you will catch the virus but have no symptoms or | repercussions are still rather substantial, but definitely less | than 50% (estimates vary). So there is a chance that you can | still transmit it. Please wear a mask indoors in public places. | sfink wrote: | I disagree. | | Before Delta, it was reasonable to resume almost all | activities after being fully vaccinated. | | I don't believe that is true any longer. There are too many | breakthrough cases, presumably driven by a much higher viral | load that can overwhelm defenses. (The figures I have seen | are 1000x _in the upper respiratory tract_ of infected | people; I haven 't been following well enough to know what | the increase is in actually expressed viruses. But it's going | to be a lot, and viral load has proven to be a very | significant factor for transmission.) | Florin_Andrei wrote: | Well, I made no predictions for the future. :) | | Vaccinated people are still mostly fine, even with Delta. | You just don't get the close to 100% protection against | severe disease, it's a little lower than that. It's still | pretty good protection against severe cases (talking about | mRNA vaccines). | | What's clearly disappointing is that the vaccines are not | very good at preventing Delta from spreading. I have not | seen good estimates, but the numbers floating around seem | to indicate the vaccines (again, mRNA) are still at least | 50% effective against spread, but nowhere near 100%. That's | the biggest gap right now. | | It is true that viral loads are orders of magnitude higher | with Delta. That is still compatible with all the | statements above. | sfink wrote: | Sorry, I was only disagreeing with the summary "You're | mostly fine [because you are fully vaccinated]". I agree | with everything else you said. My only disagreement is | that I read "you're mostly fine" implying that it's still | ok to resume (or in this case continue) regular | activities. In my opinion, that is definitely no longer | true if you live in or near an area with overburdened | hospitals, and at the very least changes your | calculations in other areas because it's again important | to reduce transmission. | | Before Delta, I felt like reducing transmission was good | but not that important compared to the disadvantages of | isolation. Delta shifted the tradeoff back in the other | direction. How much is debatable, but personally I feel | that quite a few activities that were ok, aren't anymore. | I'm definitely still doing more than pre-vaccination, | though. | Covzire wrote: | For most people I know, other than mask requirements when going | out certain places and the constant fear mongering on TV, | COVID-19 is completely over and their lives are back to normal, | complete with in person graduation parties this summer, going | to ball games, family gatherings like it doesn't exist, etc. | Other than both my parents last year (who recovered, didn't | need hospitalization but were very ill for 2 weeks) I don't | know anyone who has gotten seriously ill from it since. | Steltek wrote: | For a balanced perspective and as a parent of ineligible | children about to enter a new school year, Covid is far from | over! We have no idea how long our school will be open or if | we'll need to split attention between work and quarantined | children at home. Similar to the evaporation of empathy for | unvaxxed people who are admitted to the hospital, I'm | concerned about a similar fatigue of tolerating working | parents who are still partying like it's 2020, except we have | no choice in the matter. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I have a friend that is an ER nurse that works at Cedars and | she's ready to quit because of the attitude that "covid is | over". She loves her job and helping people but the shitty | attitudes of patients and people in general over this issue | have caused her to rethink her life choices. | tomrod wrote: | (1) vaccinated people who get infected can infect others (this | wasn't common before Delta) | | (2) Kids aren't being vaccinated, and masks have become | political despite being the cheapest non-pharmaceutical | intervention when most or all are masked (versus costs of | shutting down, increasing ventilation, etc.). Some others also | cannot be vaccinated due to health issues or availability (not | in the US, it's widely available) | | (3) most, but not all, hospitalizations are among the | unvaccinated. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | So here in Ontario where we're @ about 65% of the population | totally vaccinated, today's new cases. | | Source: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data- | in-ont... | | 10.25/100k among people who are unvaccinated. 6.5/100k among | people who are partially vaccinated. 1.0/100k among people who | are fully vaccinated. | | For hospitalization: | | 2.04/100k for unvaccinated, 1.11/100k for partially, 0.21/100k | for vaccinated. | | For current ICU status: | | 1.6/100k for unvaccinated, 0.7/100k for partially, 0.05/100k | for vaccinated. | | So basically the vaccines are really good, even against Delta. | The disease is spreading primarily among the unvaccinated. And | even those who get it who are vaccinated are on the whole not | getting very sick. | | EDIT: For those wondering about natural immunity: only 3.67% of | the Ontario population is counted as having had COVID, so I | doubt it's a significant influence on those statistics. | Granted, the first wave had poor testing, so I'm sure the | number is a little higher, but I doubt it's more than 5%. | | _EDIT: disregard the below comment about 10% ending up ICU; is | incorrect because I was comparing the incremental new case | count against current ICU status. I 'll try to fix the # in a | bit._ | | But what's kind of crazy is seeing that those numbers seem to | be saying that among the unvaccinated who get it that almost | 10% of them are ending up in ICU. And when you consider that | those are probably overwhelmingly _young people_ (here 92% of | seniors are fully vaccinated and 95% at least one dose) that 's | scary. | seaman1921 wrote: | thank you for the numbers! | | But i think you got them wrong > 10.25/100k among people who | are unvaccinated that should be 10.25k - so your statement at | the end about 10% ICU admissions does not hold. | seaman1921 wrote: | and honestly given this huge error in your statement, I | have lost confidence in your entire comment unless you are | willing to share the source. | pfyon wrote: | The source is provided in the second paragraph. | sreque wrote: | That should be a clue that something is wrong with your | numbers. 10% of unvaccinated people getting COVID are | absolutely not ending up in the ICU. It's not even remotely | close. | | Also, as good as the vaccines are against delta, natural | immunity is doing even better: https://www.msn.com/en- | us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu... | | https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats. | .. | | https://arieh.substack.com/p/inside-israels-delta- | outbreak-p... | [deleted] | cmrdporcupine wrote: | I'm counting ICU admissions among the unvaccinated | separately, not against the population as a whole. When you | consider that the majority of the population (65% total, | 80% eligible) is vaccinated, then you have to separate the | two groups because the outcomes are totally different. | | But I did spot something wrong with the way I'm counting, | so yes the 10% is probably wrong. The reason is that the | daily new case count given by the province is incremental, | while the ICU count is current # of cases, not new | admissions. So it's not possible to do the comparison in | this way. I'd have to take a look at the current active | case count by vaccination status, which is something I | don't think the province is reporting. | sreque wrote: | Your biggest problem is that your data isn't accurate. | | The page notes that it's case count isn't necessarily | correct. This page shows the total case delta at 650 for | today versus yesterday: | https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread | | Whereas the spreadsheet from your page says 426. It's not | even clear to me that the 650 number is accurate because | not everyone may necessarily be reporting they have | COVID. I know when my whole family got COVID we didn't | report it to the government. I've seen estimates in the | U.S. that actual case count is more than double reported | case count: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news- | perspective/2021/07/us-covid... | | Secondly, ICU case counts are based on people who are in | the ICU and happen to have COVID, not people who are in | the ICU primarily because of COVID. So for yesterday the | delta in ICU COVID case count was 15, but we don't know | how many of those net new 15 are actually in the ICU for | COVID symptoms primarily. | | So taking the raw numbers for yesterday's delta, that's | 15 / 650 as a rough estimate (dividing the deltas isn't | really what we want but it's the best I can come up | with), and that lands us at 2.3%. I also believe that | number is far too high for the other reasons outlined | above. | | For comparison, the numbers here seem to indicate a 5% | chance of hospitalization for the unvaccinated: | https://www.wbay.com/2021/08/19/covid-19-wisconsin-dhs- | compa... | | They give no ICU numbers, so we can expect the ICU odds | to be closer to 2% again, and their data suffers from the | same problems. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | Not sure which spreadsheet you're talking about, the page | I linked to has a series of feeds, and if you download | today's CSV and sum all 4 case count columns it adds up | to 650. 426 is the unvaccinated count. 650 is the count | of all cases. Date covid19_cases_unvac | covid19_cases_partial_vac covid19_cases_full_vac | covid19_cases_vac_unknown 2021-08-20 426 64 103 57 | | BTW, it's not "my page"; it's the official gov't of | Ontario COVID data API. It's where the other link you | pasted gets its data. There's another feed that provides | just testing numbers, but doesn't break down by | vaccination status. It also reports yesterday as 650. So | the two accord. | | But please, go on. "Your biggest problem" is that you | don't read. Just like the 90% in Israel stuff. | tux1968 wrote: | > The disease is spreading primarily among the unvaccinated. | | What is the evidence for this? Vaccinated people are capable | of spreading the disease just as easily as those who aren't. | And since they're much more likely to be asymptomatic, may be | more likely to spread the disease unknowingly. | | Those without the vaccination are more likely to end up in | hospital, but that says nothing about how the disease is | actually being transmitted. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | I never said "spreading _from_ the unvaccinated " I said | "spreading _among_ the unvaccinated " which is borne out by | the fact that the unvaccinated (and partially vaccinated) | here are only 35% of the population (25% of the eligible | population) but are _75%_ of the daily new case count (and | perhaps higher because there 's a % with unknown | vaccination status) | tux1968 wrote: | How are case counts determined? Why would someone who has | no symptoms go for testing? Case counts among the | vaccinated are surely being under reported because | they're asymptomatic. | robertoandred wrote: | The vaccinated may be just as capable of spreading covid, | but they're less likely to be infected in the first place. | tux1968 wrote: | The vaccinated are not less likely to be infected. The | vaccine can not stop infection, it can only help your | body fight off the effects of infection. | [deleted] | tunesmith wrote: | This is the best article I've recently read that describes what | is currently going on: | https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/08/delta-has... | | (Pulitzer Prize winner for science communication) | TeMPOraL wrote: | Thanks for the link! Lots of interesting details in there. | I'll attempt a TL;DR of points most relevant for non- | Americans (but please check the article for context, | particularly on numbers, and link to sources): | | - Delta variant has ridiculously high R0 - estimated to be | between 5 and 9, where initial COVID-19 variants had it | around 2 to 3. | | - Viruses spread nonuniformly. Old COVID-19 (R0 = 2-3) tended | to spread through super-spreading events (few people | infecting a lot more at a time). R0 of 5-9 implies Delta | variant doesn't need super-spreading events. | | - This R0 value also means it's not possible to eradicate the | virus through vaccination or herd immunity - it's going to | become endemic (which was always seen as a likely outcome | anyway). | | - Current vaccines have proven to be effective against the | Delta variant, by significantly reducing infections (0.01% to | 0.29% chance of breakthrough disease), such infections | showing symptoms (~88% percent effective) and severity of | those symptoms if they show up, as well as preventing | hospitalization (~96% effective against Delta; >95% of all | COVID patients in US hospitals are unvaccinated). | | - There is evidence that vaccinated people can still transmit | Delta, even if themselves they don't show symptoms. As | expected, the virus seems to live shorter in the airways of | vaccinated people. | | - Above and high R0 mean Delta can spread even through | highly-vaccinated communities. | | - Individually, for those who can get a shot, it's the best | thing to do. Community-wise, we still need other precautions | - like mask, widespread testing, hygiene, improvements in | ventilation, to protect the vulnerable and slow the spread. | | - Vulnerable groups now include children under 12 - they're | not eligible for vaccination, and there's a growing (though | still small) amount of children suffering from long-COVID and | MIS-C. | | - The end goal is still to slow the spread, to keep schools | open and hospitals running, prevent healthcare personnel | burnout, give time to develop better countermeasures and | therapies, and let the economy slowly recover (instead of | repeating 2020). Slowing the spread down also gives the virus | less chances of mutating into a more problematic variant. | colordrops wrote: | What is the delta variant R0 in fully vaccinated | communities though? Certainly it's not in the range of 5 to | 9. If it's something like 2, then sure, a mask mandate | makes sense for everyone. But if it's much lower than 1, | then is it fair to force the vaccinated to wear masks? Is | this sort of information hidden from the public because | officials are too cowardly to force vaccine passports? | There are so many information gaps like these that leave | room for doubters. | tunesmith wrote: | You can figure it with math. Given a starting R0, a | vaccination level, and an efficacy, you can figure | effective Rt: | | Rt = R0 * (1 - (vacRate * effRate)) | | So if Delta R0 is 6, a community is 65% vaccinated, and a | vaccine is 80% effective against transmission, then | effective Rt would be: | | Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (.65 * .8)) = 2.88 | | Real effective Rt includes impact of mitigation levels | and natural immunity. So for instance, in Portland OR, Rt | is about 1.4. We didn't get hit as hard as surrounding | states in the first few rounds, so we don't have as much | natural immunity. In contrast, Seattle got hit harder | early on; their effective Rt is a little lower - and | Silicon Valley is actually pretty close to 1 right now. | tunesmith wrote: | One clarification - between 0.01% and 0.29% (actually 0.54% | now) of fully vaccinated people are affected by | breakthrough infection, while 88% effective means in a | situation where an unvaccinated person would become | infected, the vaccinated person would have an 88% chance of | not being infected. So the difference between the two is | exposure, which is a function of prevalence. | walterbell wrote: | Since the deadliest virus mutations kill their hosts, weaker | virus mutations can spread (without killing their hosts) more | quickly. | | US deaths peaked in January 2021, before Delta became prevalent | in the US, _before_ substantial vaccination, | https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/#graph-... | | US daily vaccines peaked in April 2021, | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-daily-covid-vaccine-do... | | India (origin of Delta) deaths peaked in May 2021, when their | vaccination rate was less than 5%, | https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/#gra... | redisman wrote: | Deaths are down because we vaccinated all the old people who | were dying in the first waves | monocasa wrote: | Deaths are climbing again in the US and are expected to be | above where they were the same time last year within a couple | weeks. | veemjeem wrote: | It's still lower than the peak of 3300 (7-day average) | during the winter season, and that's when we had 250k cases | daily. We're almost at 150k daily cases, but with only 1k | daily deaths. At least based purely on numbers, the CFR is | lower. The CFR is lower because most of the infections are | happening in younger people. | shreddit wrote: | Why would you vaccinate a dead person? | bregma wrote: | They're less likely to refuse on political grounds. | RC_ITR wrote: | We vaccinated all the old people, who were the population | most at risk for death the first time. | erokar wrote: | Delta-infected patients seem to be 1.8 times more likely to be | hospitalised, compared to Alpha-infected patients [1]. Since | the covid virus takes two weeks plus to kill its host and also | spreads while the host is asymptomatic, there really isn't much | selective pressure to make it less deadly. So far | infectiousness and severity of disease has gone hand in hand | with this virus. | | 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-23/what- | make... | tandem5000 wrote: | > 1.8 | | What's the confidence interval? | walterbell wrote: | _> Early data from Scotland indicated that delta-infected | Covid patients were 1.8 times more likely to be hospitalized | than those with an alpha infection. Other U.K. data support | the increased risk of hospitalization but do not provide | clear evidence that delta patients experience more severe | illness once in the hospital._ | | How do hospitals identify individual patients infected by | Alpha, Delta or other variant? | | Do they perform genetic sequencing of a virus sample from | each patient, to determine what mutations are present? If | they are doing statistical sampling, what percentage of | patients are being sampled for variant identification? | | It would helpful to have variant-specific numbers of cases | and deaths added to national data, so that accurate graphs | can be drawn for each variant. More granular data would | support data analytics of local, variant-specific, policy | interventions, to evaluate cause-effect on local health | metrics. | jryb wrote: | Last I checked the US was sequencing about 1% of patients. | In the Houston Methodist hospital system, they sequenced | the viral genomes of 56% of patients, which they estimate | is about 4% of Covid cases in the Houston metropolitan | area: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00 | 0294402... | | Of course, there is a sampling bias there for variants that | result in hospitalizations. | | Variant-specific proportions can be found here: | https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data- | tracker/?ACSTrackingID=USCD... | mellavora wrote: | genetic sequencing is pretty cheap these days. | walterbell wrote: | Is it to the price level (e.g. under $1K) where an | individual patient could pay a lab to sequence their own | virus sample? | | How about the cost of sequencing one drop of the vaccine | vial they received, as a quality control sample of the | distribution supply chain? | bhickey wrote: | > Is it to the price level (e.g. under $1K) where an | individual patient could pay a lab to sequence their own | virus sample? | | Sure. It'll run under $50 in bulk. Less, but not that | much less, if you're only interested in sequencing the | spike. | | > How about the cost of sequencing one drop of the | vaccine vial they received, as a quality control sample | of the distribution supply chain? | | This isn't a useful quality check. A negative result | implicates your field assay rather than manufacturing. | walterbell wrote: | Thanks for the pricing. | | _> This isn 't a useful quality check. A negative result | implicates your field assay rather than manufacturing._ | | What if there were multiple samples of the same lot | number, collected in different geographical regions at | different times? | nradov wrote: | Generally hospitals don't test for specific variants. | Instead they forward a sample subset of patient specimens | to regional or national infectious disease centers which | then perform genetic sequencing. That way we can monitor | the spread and evolution of variants. | | https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#monitoring- | varaint... | jamespwilliams wrote: | See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-var | iants... | cogman10 wrote: | Not every nation does this, mostly only the ones with | socialized medicine are. | | For nations like the US, we are measuring the variant by | looking at sewage. It doesn't tell us anything about who | ends up hospitalized, but it does give us a good indication | of what the is the common variant in a community (and | inferences are drawn from there). | | The UK has been doing probably the most covid genome | sequencing of any nation. | walterbell wrote: | Thanks, good to know. Would be interesting if the UK also | measured variants via sewage, as a methodological | comparison against their more expensive individual | sequencing. | quarterdime wrote: | "Since the deadliest virus mutations kill their hosts, weaker | virus mutations can spread (without killing their hosts) more | quickly." | | The problem with the SARS-COV2 virus is that infected | individuals are infected before they're symptomatic, let alone | dead. Thus there is no evolutionary pressure that would make | this virus less lethal, as is the case for viruses that kill | their hosts early in the course of infection. | walterbell wrote: | What are some good references on asymptomatic transmission? | | Early 2020 reports of asymptomatic transmission from South | Korea were later retracted. There was a contact tracing study | of 10 million people in Wuhan which found no asymptomatic | transmission. | caddemon wrote: | Unfortunately I think the media has really mixed up the | words "presymptomatic" and "asymptomatic". You're right | there is little evidence that people who never develop | symptoms can spread COVID. But it seems likely that COVID | can be spread up to 48 hours before symptoms develop, which | still presents roughly the same problem. | | Here is a paper looking at viral shedding over time in | COVID patients: | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 | | I also anecdotally know a few different people who caught | COVID from someone who felt fine at the time they | interacted, so I'm quite confident it is possible, although | I'm not sure I'd make a strong statement about the | prevalence. | FooHentai wrote: | There are some confounding factors to that though, I think? | Infectivity post mortem (as seen with plague) and time lag | between infectivity and symptoms appearing allowing for longer | periods of asymptomatic transmission. Both variables that mean | the spread of a mutation and it's lethality need not be linked. | walterbell wrote: | Mass distribution of non-sterilizing vaccines which reduce | symptoms (via blood/serum antibodies) but don't prevent | infection and transmission (lack of nasal/mucous antibodies) | can increase spread of variants that would otherwise cause | symptoms and self-isolation of the infected person. | bhickey wrote: | This is not a credible concern. | | Vaccination reduces the infection rate. Among vaccinated | individuals who suffer breakthrough infection the time at | peak viral load is significantly reduced. | walterbell wrote: | Could you recommend a good reference on the time interval | for peak viral load in infected vaccinated people? | | CDC recommends testing of vaccinated people, since they | can be infected and the vaccine suppresses symptoms, so | they won't know to self-isolate, | https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210729/cdc-reverses- | guidan... (July 29, 2021) | | _> Even if they're not showing symptoms, fully | vaccinated people should "get tested 3-5 days after | exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 | and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days | after exposure or until they receive a negative test | result," ... "Our updated guidance recommends vaccinated | people get tested upon exposure regardless of symptoms," | CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, told The New York | Times_ | tehjoker wrote: | Is there any information on what the upper bound might be on the | infectivity of SARS-CoV-2? I think a lot of people just assume | one big jump consumes most of the range, but we've seen at least | three big jumps so far ("Doug", "Alpha", and "Delta"). | toiletaccount wrote: | i was wondering this the other day. | | the next big mutations may not be more infectious because they | can survive outside the body longer, but because they get | around existing immunity or theres a longer asympomatic-but- | still-transmissible phase. theres a lot of different paths this | could take to mass infection. | tehjoker wrote: | Receptor binding affinity can also increase too, or like | Alpha did, further suppress interferon production. Lots of | ways... | T-A wrote: | That reminds me of this scary preprint from January: | | https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.06.425392v3 | | "in vitro evolution enhancing binding by 600-fold provides | guidelines towards potentially new evolving mutations with | even higher infectivity" :/ | tehjoker wrote: | I saw that yesterday and didn't post it because it was | too scary lol | bredren wrote: | This is getting at "saying the quiet part out loud." | | For a variety of reasons media and influential organizations | have avoided considering the upper bound on virility and | mortality (? Not sure the right term) of covid. | | But to think delta is it would be some kind of miracle. It | would mean we are going through the worst of it, and that after | we handle delta globally, people can worry about other things. | | But it doesn't stand to reason that we are done here with | covid. There are too many hotspots and I believe delta is older | than most of the big ones right now. | | How likely is a nasty new variant not pop out of Iran or India, | or Texas? | | What about variants created by non-human beings like rats? [1] | Are we going to skate by on those? That would be great! | | I suspect the public is not ready to fully address the breadth | and depth of covid's impact. I also speculate that the | "booster" shot suddenly being prescribed is intended to help | ward off future variants as much or more so than delta alone. | | [1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/researchers-find- | covid... | nradov wrote: | SARS-CoV-2 has multiple animal reservoirs, and that's one | reason why it will be impossible to eradicate. But generally | variants that evolve in animals will select for fitness in | those different species. So those will probably have less | impact on humans. | | This is one piece of circumstantial evidence why some | virologists suspect the virus was produced in a lab doing | gain of function research using transgenic mice with human | like respiratory systems. When the virus first appeared in | Wuhan it was already really good at infecting humans. That | would be unlikely if it had evolved in wild bats or pangolins | and then jumped straight to humans. But we don't know for | sure, maybe it was just natural bad luck with no lab | involved. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25589660/ | tehjoker wrote: | SARS-CoV-2 is a generalist that can infect many animals. I | doubt it a "lab leak". Studies of genetic sequences from | around the Wuhan fish market showed that it had been | circulating and mutated a bit for some time before it was | detected. | DSMan195276 wrote: | > When the virus first appeared in Wuhan it was already | really good at infecting humans. That would be unlikely if | it had evolved in wild bats or pangolins and then jumped | straight to humans. But we don't know for sure. | | Just curious about this point - wouldn't this always be the | case, since before it was good at infecting humans it would | only be in a few if any of them? IE. My thinking is that | even if it had existed for a while before that point, we'd | be unlikely to know since it wasn't at that point good at | infecting humans and thus not many had it. | MatteoFrigo wrote: | You probably mean "virulence", not "virility". The latter | word denotes the masculine ability to procreate. | | The confusion arises because the Latin word "vir" means "man" | (specifically of male sex, as opposed to human), and the | similar word "virus" means poison. | f38zf5vdt wrote: | Measles is estimated to be about 300% more infectious than the | delta variant, so if it surpassed measles it would be the most | contagious viral disease known to man. It's already pretty | close to what is assumed to be the "ceiling". | tehjoker wrote: | 300% is still a lot of room to grow. Delta is only about | twice as bad as the wild type strain. | marricks wrote: | I'm not sure "only twice as bad" paints an accurate | picture. | | - Herd immunity is much harder. Calculated as 1 - 1/r0 | where r0 is defined in relation to transmissibility. So if | r0 = 3 that's ~66% need to be immune to stop the virus. If | r0 = 6 that's 83% needed, much higher threshold. | | - The virus is only getting more deadly. A preprint study | found delta has "120% greater risk of hospitalization, 287% | greater risk of ICU admission and 137% greater risk of | death"[1] | | Also 225% more transmissible is 3x more unless I'm doing my | math wrong?[2] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS- | CoV-2_Delta_variant#Virul... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS- | CoV-2_Delta_variant#Trans... | polynomial wrote: | Do we have generally accepted R0 values for each of these | 3 variants? | marricks wrote: | I think there's am R0 for initial strain and then ranges | for the other variants. I thought it was in Wikipedia but | either it's been edited out or I saw it elsewhere. | | What I recall (so huge grain of salt here) was R0 at 2.3 | for initial strain then around 2x for Alpha and another | 2-3x for Delta. Not. Great. | nradov wrote: | Right which is why achieving any meaningful level of herd | immunity is now effectively impossible. Thus we're all | likely to get infected eventually. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd- | immu... | | Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing | death for all variants. | tunesmith wrote: | Right, and that's where vaccine efficacy comes into play. | If r0 is 6 and HIT is 83.3%, but efficacy is only 90%, | then you actually need about 93% vaccinated. | | And for herd immunity, what matters is transmission, and | the vaccine efficacies for asymptomatic infection are | pretty low; 50-60%. So mathematically impossible without | severe lockdowns and/or improved vaccines that are better | at preventing transmission. | Retric wrote: | Herd immunity happens long before we are all infected. | Less than 40% of the US population is completely | unvaccinated, which means we can open up more without | overwhelming hospitals. That does put the unvaccinated at | increased risks, but the general public is seemingly | unwilling to continue lockdowns to protect people | choosing not to be vaccinated. | | If ~85% is needed for herd immunity then we could be | rapidly approaching that point. Though specific locations | would likely have outbreaks even if it was less of a | concern nationally. | chinathrow wrote: | > Less than 40% of the US population is completely | unvaccinated, which means we can open up more without | overwhelming hospitals. | | Not sure where you get this about open up, but have you | seen current ICU fill levels in various US states such as | Alabamba etc? | Retric wrote: | That's quite regional. Nationwide there is still plenty | of ICU beds available, and presumably if it gets bad | enough hot spots will respond appropriately. | chinathrow wrote: | Huh? If you have a heart attack or a stroke or a grave | accident you need a regional ER asap, not one 5h away. | nradov wrote: | With an R0 of about 6 for the Delta variant, herd | immunity won't provide a meaningful level of protection | for most people. Herd immunity works with less contagious | diseases because susceptible individuals can go their | whole lives without exposure. But with SARS-CoV-2 now | being endemic worldwide we'll all eventually get exposed, | it's just a question of when. So the smart move is for | everyone to protect themselves by getting vaccinated and | actively treating co-morbid conditions like obesity, | diabetes, hypertension, and hypovitaminosis D. | | Any further lockdowns at this point cause far more harm | than benefit. | Retric wrote: | They can prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. | Opening or not opening schools are one case where local | communities are going to adjust based on the rates of | hospitalization. | tunesmith wrote: | There's math you can do to roughly judge impact of | partial vaccination. If R0 is six, and you're looking at | hospitalization, estimate vaccine efficacy for Delta at | around 90% (I've seen estimates above and below that). | | Taking your estimate of a 60% vaccination rate: | | 6 * (1 - (.6 * .9)) = 2.76 | | 2.76 is the effective Rt, which is far above 1, so no, | that is not enough to open up more without eventually | overwhelming hospitals. | | Natural immunity from catching COVID, and other | (inherently temporary) mitigation measures like | masks/distancing/lockdowns would bring that Rt down | further. But clearly what is best is more vaccination. | Retric wrote: | 2.76 assumes normal conditions, social distancing | literally changes the equation. | | Mask use for example pushes that down. It's easier to get | below 1 with a 50% vaccination rate than a 0% rate. | Meaning we can open up _more_ without overwhelming | hospitals. | tunesmith wrote: | That's pretty much what I said in my last line. The | problem is, "opening up more" generally tends to mean | things like less masking and less social distancing. So | to the extent that Rt is pushed down by mitigation | measures, Rt gets pushed back up when those mitigation | measures end. | Retric wrote: | The advantage in my mind is you can avoid the most costly | mitigation strategies. | | Unfortunately, vaccination rates are age dependent so | opening schools is a very high risk activity. Children | are at low risk for COVID but they would be a major | vector for transmission as everyone under 12 is | unvaccinated. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | All likely to be infected, I certainly believe. | | But I've been operating under the assumption that while | vaccination won't prevent you from infection, it is still | highly effective (90%+) at reducing symptoms, even with | Delta. I'm certainly open to learning if this is false, | however. I've just seen statistics that over 95% of | people hospitalized are unvaccinated. | kansface wrote: | I believe that number is in the 80s for the mRNA vaccines | and lower for the others (minus the one from Russia). | tunesmith wrote: | There are many efficacy numbers. mRNA does help against | infection but efficacy is apparently low, like 50-60%. | Makes sense because they weren't really developed with | that in mind. | | Efficacy goes to 60-80% for symptomatic, over 80% for | serious/hospitalization, and mid 90% for death. I think. | johnchristopher wrote: | > It may already be getting harder for SARS-CoV-2 to make big | gains in infectiousness. "There are some fundamental limits to | exactly how good a virus can get at transmitting and at some | point SARS-CoV-2 will hit that plateau," says Jesse Bloom, an | evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research | Center. "I think it's very hard to say if this is already where | we are, or is it still going to happen." Evolutionary | virologist Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research guesses the | virus still has space to evolve greater transmissibility. "The | known limit in the viral universe is measles, which is about | three times more transmissible than what we have now with | Delta," he says. | | https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/new-sars-cov-2-varia... | criticaltinker wrote: | Here is a fantastic resource from the UK government that | answers your question in great detail [1]. | | _> As eradication of SARS-CoV-2 will be unlikely, we have high | confidence in stating that there will always be variants. _ | | _> We describe hypothetical scenarios by which SARS-CoV-2 could | further evolve and acquire, through mutation, phenotypes of | concern, which we assess according to possibility. _ | | _> Scenario One: A variant that causes severe disease in a | greater proportion of the population than has occurred to date. | For example, with similar morbidity /mortality to other | zoonotic coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV (~10% case fatality) or | MERS-CoV (~35% case fatality). [...] Likelihood: Realistic | possibility. Impact: High. _ | | _> Scenario Two: A variant that evades current vaccines. [...] | Likelihood: Realistic possibility. Impact: High._ | | _> Scenario Three: Emergence of a drug resistant variant after | anti-viral strategies. [...] Likelihood: Likely - unless the | drugs are used correctly. Impact: medium. _ | | _> Scenario Four: SARS-CoV-2 follows an evolutionary trajectory | with decreased virulence. [...] Likelihood: Unlikely in the | short term, realistic possibility in the long term. _ | | And here is one very relevant quote: | | _> There is no historic precedent for the mass administration | of antiviral medication in the community as prophylaxis, apart | from the use of anti influenza Neuraminidase Inhibitors, which | were used to a limited extent in this way in the early phases | of Influenza Pandemic of 2009 in the UK. The safety and | efficacy profile must be extremely well established for a mass | administration strategy to work and poor compliance will likely | rapidly lead to the selection of drug resistant variants, | rendering such a strategy short lived. _ | | [1] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their | phenotypic consequences? | | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... | | https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... | tehjoker wrote: | Thank you! | bredren wrote: | Indeed, thank you for these links and quotes. | softwaredoug wrote: | There is a "Doug" variant?!? Asking for a friend... | | EDIT | | So there is! Ha | | > And you can imagine, it was quite a mouthful. So, we started | to call this D to G mutation 'Doug', and then any of the other | virus sequences that didn't have this mutation ... we called | 'Douglas', so it was sort of a bit of a private joke within the | lab," she said. "As more mutations came about, we'd come up | with a person's name for them." | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/17/nicknames-emer... | [deleted] | [deleted] | NullPrefix wrote: | >One of the first mutations to go global is known as D614G, | or Doug for short | hahamrfunnyguy wrote: | Also the Nelly and Eeek variants. They would have called it | Erik, but they worked closely with someone named Erik | already. | tomrod wrote: | It comes from the same family as SARS and MERS. Worst case, | IMHO, would be that level of mortality combined with its | current R0 of 6 to 9. | sfink wrote: | Do absolute R0 numbers have meaning without a specified | environment? | | As in, shouldn't there be various values for R0 within a | fully vaccinated community, R0 within an age group, R0 | relative to the prevalence of active infection in a | community, etc.? | | I'm just wondering what complexity is concealed within an R0 | figure. After all, if every infected person _really_ infected | 6 other people every 2 weeks or so, it would infect every | person on Earth in about a year and a half. | | Which is probably why R0 is distinguished from R1. Since | otherwise R1 would be R0**2, and I highly doubt it is. It | could be higher if viral load was a large factor (you have x% | chance of picking it up when around a single carrier, but >x% | if surrounded by multiple). Far more likely, it would be | lower as it burned out tightly-connected groups. | | Anyway, just thoughts triggered by seeing absolute R0 values. | raphlinus wrote: | It's best to think of R0 as a summary. | | For a detailed discussion, see TWiV [792] with | epidemiologist Jeff Shaman. First link in this show notes | is "A guide to R"[2]. | | [792]: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-792/ | | [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02009-w | tomrod wrote: | Consider R0 a rough estimate of how many people each cade | infects. It's an imperfect instrument but helps communicate | the idea clearly that answers "how infectious is this | virus?" | chefkoch wrote: | Can someone eli5 why some variants are substrains like Delta AY3 | and what or how much has to change to have it declared as a new | strain? | polynomial wrote: | This is a really great question. Technically speaking, any | single mutation defines a new strain. But that's not how we | tend to talk about it either to the general public or amongst | clinicians. Rather we use a more informal notion of a | significant functional change. We do this because there is, | somewhat surprisingly, no real term that reflects the category | of "new strain with significant or interesting functional | effects." | chefkoch wrote: | Thank you for the explanation. | hncurious wrote: | Covid is going to be endemic like the flu and cold. It's not | going to be eradicated, unfortunately, and I don't think we've | come to terms with this yet. | | Now what's our plan exactly? Get vaccinated every 6 - 12 months | indefinitely and always wear masks? What's our goal and what's | our new normal? | sdze wrote: | Too bad that the cold and influenza flu are not comparable with | Covid-19. | throwawaysea wrote: | I certainly hope it isn't leading to a society where papers are | checked and masks are always required. Although I am | vaccinated, I feel vaccine mandates constitute a breach of | bodily autonomy and medical privacy. As for masks - I find them | stifling in more ways than one - it is hard to breathe, it fogs | up glasses, it causes me to feel overheated, and it really | diminishes human connection and exchange of emotions. I think | the impact of masks on developing children who need natural | socialization will be drastic and dangerous. | | So my take is that at some point, we just need to deal with it | as a background event and move on. The infection fatality rate | for COVID is incredibly low, particularly for those under 50. | It is irrational to worry about it to the extent we are, since | we don't typically worry about such rare possibilities. I am | also betting that phenomenon like "long COVID" will either be | found to be other conflating factors, or found to be a | phenomenon associated with any illness. It's just that we're | _so_ focused on COVID as an entire species, that we 're | spotting all the little things we would normally ignore. | schmichael wrote: | I already get vaccinated every 12 months for the flu, so that | seems like a fine plan to me. | seunosewa wrote: | Perhaps they could add it to the flu shot. | xienze wrote: | Why get the flu vaccine anymore? If you believe official | reports, it's basically been eliminated by virtue of simple | mask mandates that everyone swears no one is following. | schmichael wrote: | > Why get the flu vaccine anymore? | | Because it's safe and easy. I have immuno-compromised | friends and elderly family members. Vaccines are almost | literally the least I can do to help keep them safe. I have | kids and taking care of sick kids is awful. Also I really | really really hate having the flu personally. Bleh. | | > If you believe official reports, it's basically been | eliminated by virtue of simple mask mandates that everyone | swears no one is following. | | I have not seen official reports that determined the drop | in flu was due to masks. I would assume the drop in flu was | due to many factors combined: schools and businesses going | remote, other physical distancing, more people getting the | flu vaccine to avoid getting sick and potentially straining | our strained healthcare system, masking, and who knows what | else... | | ...at any rate I expect the flu will return as kids go back | to school, workers return to offices, etc. I'll keep | getting vaccinated for the flu as long as my doctor | recommends it for my reasons stated above. | vharuck wrote: | I'm not surprised flu rates are crashing with the current | social distancing, mask wearing, and higher skittishness | around people with respiratory symptoms. Even if most | people do them poorly, and others don't do them out of | protest. | | The takeaway isn't that official reports are baseless | propaganda. It's that we were _really bad_ about handling | the flu before 2020. How many times did one of your | coworkers show up with a persistent cough, running nose, or | sneezing fits? How often did you see people with symptoms | in grocery stores or buffets? I 'm not surprised even a | modicum of care greatly outperforms our previous habits. | walterbell wrote: | We have many years of data on flu vaccine safety. | | Should the flu vaccine be combined with newer vaccines which | have numerically less safety data? | [deleted] | delecti wrote: | > Get vaccinated every 6 - 12 months indefinitely and always | wear masks | | An annual Flu and COVID shot seems perfectly reasonable. | Wearing masks in public is already normal (or at least not | uncommon) in many places, and I don't have a problem with where | I live being one of those places. | baxtr wrote: | Why indefinitely? If that was the case we would need shots for | the other cold viruses as well, which we don't. As you say, | Sars-2 will turn into an endemic virus and thus we will get | used to it over time, death rates will drop and it will turn | into a cold. There is absolutely no historic precedent to think | it will turn out differently. | tshaddox wrote: | The only reason we don't "need" vaccines for other cold | viruses is that they're very rarely severe, right? I'd | certainly take the shot if they existed. | baxtr wrote: | Yes exactly. But how was it when they first appeared in the | human population? We can't know for sure, but most likely | they caused a heavy pandemic in the first years and then | over time became "harmless". | | Just think about how bacteria/viruses which were not really | dangerous for Europeans wiped out entire populations in | Middle and South America. | chinathrow wrote: | If this is so clear, then my current question is how long | would that take? | baxtr wrote: | I would say 3-5 years without vaccines. See for example the | 1889 pandemic [1], which might have also been induced by a | coronavirus. It's hard to say with a vaccine since there is | no real precedent. If I had to guess I'd say 1-3 years? | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889-1890_pandemic | insulanus wrote: | We don't have vaccines for the 200+ viruses that cause "the | common cold". The flu, which is usually a more serious | disease, has a vaccine that is updated and offered yearly. | | 80% of US medical personnel already take the yearly flu shot. | Trasmatta wrote: | We get shots for the flu every year (or at least we should). | That's the historical precedent. | pengaru wrote: | Influenza is a different virus which mutates aggressively | (recombinant), I'm not under the impression sars-cov2 is | similar in this regard. | raphlinus wrote: | Buckle up. Quoted tweet[1] below: | | Congrats to Ben Jackson, @maciekboni, @viralverity, | @AineToole, @robertson_lab, @EvolveDotZoo, @arambaut et | al for their recent Cell paper. | | Rock solid evidence of alpha/non-alpha recombination in | #SARSCoV2 in the UK. | | https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00984-3 | | [1]: https://twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1428515836 | 62971699... | Trasmatta wrote: | Can somebody ELI5 what this means, and what the | implications are? | baxtr wrote: | Yes, you are right. At the same time, flu viruses are very | different from coronaviruses. We didn't get any shots | against OC43 and the three other already endemic | coronaviruses. | | Also, note that older people and immune-deficient people | (who are most likely those needing a shot every year) have | been dying from ordinary cases of flu before, too. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | Due to COVID not mutating as quickly, I think the end game is | everyone getting immune, through a combination of repeated | vaccinations and infections. | munk-a wrote: | I am becoming more skeptical of that outcome unless we can | kill it dead globally. It seems probable to me that this is | going to go on in perpetuity like a much more deadly seasonal | flu. | chitowneats wrote: | What evidence do we have that covid "doesn't mutate as | quickly"? | | There have been at least 3 distinct variants, separate from | the original strain, since the virus was detected in late | 2019 / early 2020. | bparsons wrote: | Relative to perhaps, the seasonal flu. | bonzini wrote: | These variants have their most severe symptoms blocked by | the same vaccine with very similar effectiveness. Influenza | viruses, on the other hand, undergo recombination in such a | way that the vaccine has to be engineered every year based | on guesses of what the prevalent strain is going to be. | avereveard wrote: | immunization doesn't seem to last long enough for this plan, | it will just increase the mutation pressure. | ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: | I got covid last march, and got it again one month ago. I was | very sick for three weeks on my second covid infection. I | think we are about to face the harsh reality that covid is | never going away, and immunity and is never going to happen. | The virus will mutate and find new ways to infect | schmichael wrote: | > I think we are about to face... | | I feel like this is what most experts were saying from near | the beginning: this is not a few months problem. This is an | ongoing problem that will require us to adapt just as it | adapts. I remember many articles in 2020 projecting what | the virus might look like 5 or 8 years out. | | Lockdowns and other extreme measures were about flattening | infection curves to keep from overwhelming health systems, | _not_ about eradicating the virus outright. | | Masks and distancing are about getting the virus to a | manageable infection rate to minimize impact on our new | normal lives. | | Vaccines are the only way out without high mortality and | extreme pressure on our health systems. Whether it requires | vaccines like polio (one or two and safe forever) or flu | (annual) is yet to be determined AFAIK. It seems like | somewhere in the middle is most likely at least for many | years to come. | munk-a wrote: | > this is not a few months problem | | I agree that it was never a few months problem - but I | think we had a window to stamp it out and low vaccination | production and adoption rates have killed that window | dead. I don't believe it's impossible that we beat this - | but I would not be surprised if mutation rates simply | outrun vaccination adaptation. | theonething wrote: | > I think we had a window to stamp it out | | What do you base that on? That seems highly unlikely to | me. Even as the virus tapers down in one country, it or a | variant surges back in five others and then it spreads to | others. I haven't seen any chance of stamping that out. | ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: | I just dont see how getting a shot every year or six | months for eternity is a viable solution. Not only that, | vaccinated individuals can encourage new mutations (this | is controversial, but I believe over time it will be | realized) | kaoD wrote: | > I just dont see how getting a shot every year or six | months for eternity is a viable solution | | What do you mean? We have yearly flu vaccinations. | paganel wrote: | > We have yearly flu vaccinations. | | Where I live (Eastern Europe) those are taken by a | minority of the population. | TurkishPoptart wrote: | Yes, but flu shots are entirely voluntary. Meanwhile, | there's legislation being considered in the U.S. to put | people on Do Not Fly lists for not showing proof of being | "fully" vaccinated. And who knows how far the goalposts | can move when it comes to what "fully" vaccinated means. | Next year, that might mean having had 4 shots, or more. | munk-a wrote: | In the 1970s the US required MMR shots for attendance in | public schools and the disease quickly tapered off - | we've done this before and, so long as the vaccinations | aren't inducing a financial burden on individuals that | are unable to afford it - I see no issue with requiring | vaccination if you want to share a close space with | others. A lot of potential partners will reject you if | you're unable to provide negative STD results - this | isn't all that different. | grepfru_it wrote: | What is your definition of very sick? | | I too had a similar series of events and my second | infection was both worse and better than the first. My | first bout was longer but consisted of just a mild cough | with a tolerable shortness of breath but 9 months of long | haul hell. My second was rife with congestion, headaches, | and muscle pains but it came and went in the span of a | week, no long covid this time around (so far). | nradov wrote: | Same as with what probably happened with HCoV-OC43, another | betacoronavirus very similar to SARS-CoV-2. Evidence indicates | that it caused a worldwide pandemic that killed a lot of people | starting in 1889. Now it's endemic. Most of us catch it when | we're young and healthy which gives us partial immunity later. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/ | | https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/175... | | Eventually almost all of us will be infected by some variant of | SARS-CoV-2. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at | preventing death. | criticaltinker wrote: | > Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing | death | | Yes individuals who have been vaccinated or recovered from | natural infection will have durable immunity and | significantly lower risk of severe outcomes like | hospitalization and death. [5][6] | | The real question: is mass vaccination effective at | preventing the spread and increasing trasmission/virulence of | variants of concern? A growing body of the scientific | literature and evidence suggests not. [1][2][3][4] | | This doesn't mean we shouldn't be using vaccines, rather we | should use them in a highly targeted way, and supplemented by | other therapeutic modalities. | | [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | | [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and | their phenotypic consequences? | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | | [3] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of | Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiolo | gy/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... | | [4] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine | resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/p | df/10.1098/rspb.2016... | | [5] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune | memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody | responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell- | reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | [6] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is | associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune | responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination | https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 | rileyphone wrote: | [2] states: > The UK should continue to proactively support | a strategy of worldwide effective vaccination in order to | drive down global viral load reducing the likelihood of | dangerous variants emerging in other parts of the world. | | In any case, even if vaccines lead to stronger variants (as | some of the research you cited states is possible), a game | theoretical situation is created where enough people are | vaccinated that those who are not are just leaving | themselves in greater danger. And in the case of a mutation | breaking out of the vaccine, [2] suggests just to | immediately start making a new one with the same | technology. | nawitus wrote: | Why use vaccines in a highly targeted way instead of giving | it to everyone? | criticaltinker wrote: | Because mass vaccination combined with a vaccine that | does not necessarily prevent infection and transmission | creates selective pressure that is likely to further | enhance the fitness of the virus and will lead to | variants that escape the immune response in both | vaccinated and naturally infected individuals. | | Excerpts from [1]: | | - "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of | SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and | antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 | under control." | | - "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of | viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for | these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new | strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and | immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: | how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies | (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?" | | - "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one | or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist | in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and | consequently resistance to vaccines or other | prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for | protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under | positive selection." | | - "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the | population increases substantially as the number of | infected individuals increases, suggesting that | complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 | transmission that exert specific pressure on other | proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not | exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., | high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air | purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune | escape" | | - "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be | diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic | modalities" | | [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (April | 2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | HeroOfAges wrote: | Glad to see you're not getting downvoted for this. This | line of thought and information will be dismissed as a | conspiracy theory and will follow the same arc as the lab | leak hypothesis. Meaning there will be attempts to | discredit it with no more than appeals to authority until | the truth becomes impossible to ignore. | vkou wrote: | > Because mass vaccination combined with a vaccine that | does not necessarily prevent infection and transmission | creates selective pressure that is likely to further | enhance the fitness of the virus and will lead to | variants that escape the immune response in both | vaccinated and naturally infected individuals. | | And yet, the Delta variant evolved in an 100% | unvaccinated population - and is quite happily punching | through some of the protections afforded by vaccines, | despite not having any evolutionary pressure to do so. | | > "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the | population increases substantially as the number of | infected individuals increases, suggesting that | complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 | transmission that exert specific pressure on other | proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not | exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., | high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air | purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune | escape" | | Doesn't this mean that the problem is in _having_ a large | number of infected individuals? Which is exactly what | happens when a virus sweeps through the unvaccinated | population - see, delta. | | Also, since Covid and its variants seems to happily re- | infect people who have already had it, the same | evolutionary pressures will still be present, as long as | there's a large reservoir of sick people, regardless of | whether they are rubbing shoulders with vaccinated | individuals, or 'caught it eight months ago' individuals. | | We have two broad options for reducing the number of | dangerous COVID mutations. | | 1. Harsh lockdowns, Australia/NZ/China style, to bring | cases down. It works, but everyone hates it. | | 2. Mass vaccination, that gets us to herd immunity | against the most prevalent strains of COVID, so that we | no longer have millions of active cases. We're not there | with 50% of the population vaccinated. We might be there | if we were at 85%. | | Since you seem to think that #2 is not the solution, what | is your plan for stopping the evolution of the virus? #1? | walterbell wrote: | Why should already-immune, recovered people be | vaccinated? | munk-a wrote: | Vaccination has shown better health outcomes even in | already infected persons[1] - getting both is the best | protection and there is no rational reason to refuse the | vaccine. | | 1. | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782139 | walterbell wrote: | It is still very early in vaccine trials. There are | anecdotal reports of an increase in non-Covid health | problems in those who had already recovered from Covid, | then got vaccinated. That's separate from the tens of | thousands of reports in VAERS and non-public (HMO) | adverse event reporting systems for all Covid-vaccinated | people, whether or not they were previously recovered. | vkou wrote: | Because you don't become immune after surviving COVID, | many people have caught it multiple times, now. | walterbell wrote: | The most recent UK data shows 137 confirmed cases of | reinfection out of 5.2 million first-positive PCR tests, | which works out to 0.003%, see the chart on page 18, http | s://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/. | .. | baxtr wrote: | Yes, exactly. | | More info on the 1889 pandemic: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889-1890_pandemic | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | >Get vaccinated every 6 - 12 months | | So what I already do for influenza. | BjoernKW wrote: | I've been asking those questions for about 16 months now and | hardly anyone of those in charge is willing to even consider an | answer. They just botch and bumble their way through from one | lockdown to the next. | | The COVID-19 vaccines are a boon and a vital component for | ending this crisis. However, they're not the panacea those in | charge made them out to be. Make no mistake, those vaccines, | particularly those of the mRNA variety are more successful and | have been available much more quickly than one could've | reasonably hoped them to be. | | Still, it should have been clear right from the start that | virus variants against which vaccines are not as effective | anymore are a distinct possibility. | | Hence, my suggestions for a "new normal" (though I dislike that | term because it implies both that the world in general is | static and that on the other hand we have to accept the current | situation as the new default indefinitely) for the time being | (that is until COVID-19 has become endemic and most of the | population has built up at least some level of immunity - | through vaccines or by "natural" means) are these: | | 1. getting vaccinated, if possible | | 2. getting booster shots and / or updated vaccines regularly, | in case that's proven to be useful (the jury still being out on | both counts) | | 3. wearing masks in certain settings, e.g., on public transport | | 4. the most important one: having everyone - vaccinated or not | - tested for indoor gatherings or large-scale events (rather | than prohibiting those outright) | | Other than that, life has to continue as normal: No further | lockdowns, no social distancing, no civil rights restrictions. | | Unfortunately, and totally incomprehensibly, #4 seems to be | highly controversial, with some countries now even shutting | down their previous - if perhaps not exemplary then at least | adequate - testing schemes or implementing truly asinine | measures such as mandating people to pay for tests and only | requiring those not vaccinated to be tested at all. | | Yeah, right. What could possibly go wrong? I suppose the | rationale behind that one is: "No tests. No problem." | hartator wrote: | Getting tested - have you? - is not neutral on your body. The | nasal swab is sterilized by a carcinogen gas which exposure | should be limited and you can't avoid wrong gesture by a | nurse physically damaging your nose. It's fine time to time | but not everyday. | BjoernKW wrote: | Regarding that claim about the carcinogen gas (ethylene | oxide) see https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck- | coronavirus-swabs-... , for example | | That an object has been exposed to a compound during that | object's lifetime doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be | exposed to that compound upon touching the object. | polote wrote: | Why do 2, 3, 4 when people are already protected? | | I don't understand the fear the catch covid once your | vaccinated, why not make the same measures for the flu for | example? | BjoernKW wrote: | #2 because if the virus gets an update it might make sense | to give the immune system an update, too (the same way we | do with the flu, by the way). | | #3 because it further reduces the risk to get even mildly | sick at little to no cost. I'll continue to wear a mask on | public transport even after this pandemic is over. I don't | need to catch the flu or even the common cold either, if I | can avoid it. | | #4 because it enormously helps with keeping new infections | at a minimum. Hence, further lockdowns neither required nor | justifiable anymore. | jdavis703 wrote: | Yeah, as long as COVID-19 fills up hospitals we should do this. | Not having hospitals seriously compromises quality of life. | | I had untreated kidney stones for about a week at the peak of | the pandemic. When I was in the middle of an attack I could not | work, the pain was too severe. I was missing several hours of | work everyday just dealing with pain. | | I finally got to the emergency room which did basic imaging and | gave me painkillers and muscle relaxers. | | I didn't get the actual stones removed until 6 months later! | | So yes, I'd rather vaccinate and mask up then be denied | healthcare. | walterbell wrote: | _> Not having hospitals seriously compromises quality of | life._ | | A non-trivial percentage of healthcare workers were infected | in 2020 and recovered with natural immunity to Covid. Some of | those feel strongly enough about vaccine mandates that they | are prepared to move jurisdictions or retire, which would | exacerbate existing staffing shortages in some hospitals. If | we don't want more hospital shortages, we should reconsider | unnecessary vaccine mandates for those with hard-earned | natural immunity, which includes nasal/mucosal immunity, | unlike intramuscular vaccines that were developed for symptom | reduction, https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/10/covid- | intranasal-vaccine... | | _> Vaccines that are injected into the arm have done a | spectacular job at preventing severe disease and death. But | they do not generate the kind of protection in the nasal | passages that would be needed to block all infection. That's | called "sterilizing immunity." The fact that the vaccines | don't block all infections and don't prevent vaccinated | people from transmitting isn't a big surprise, said Kathryn | Edwards, a vaccine expert at Vanderbilt School of Medicine._ | | The UK's SAGE also commented on nasal (inhaler) vaccine | development and the consequences of non-sterilizing | intramuscular vaccines for variants, | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | | _> Whilst we feel that current vaccines are excellent for | reducing the risk of hospital admission and disease, we | propose that research be focused on vaccines that also induce | high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in order to | reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated | individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of | variant selection in vaccinated individuals._ | rescripting wrote: | A recent study showed having had COVID before offers less | protection from reinfection than the vaccine [0]. | | "The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous | infections through June 2021 found that those who were | unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection | compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings | suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, | getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection | against reinfection." | | [0] | https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination- | pr... | walterbell wrote: | Detailed response to that study, | https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of- | rei... | | _> Also what should be obvious is this study doesn't | really look at the relative strengths of naturally | acquired immunity vs vaccination acquired immunity, it is | looking at whether vaccination can add further to the | robust protection elicited by covid infection._ | | Latest UK data shows 137 confirmed cases of reinfection | out of 5.2 million first-positive PCR tests, which works | out to 0.003%, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/g | overnment/uploads/... (see chart on page 18) | sreque wrote: | This article completely destroy the CDC's report: | https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/08/more- | voodoo-e.... | | The CDC's report is a fantastic example as to why the CDC | don't deserve our trust. They are dishonest. They cherry | pick data to fit their narrative. They are unburdened by | the constraints of peer review. They admit in their own | study that it can't apply causation and yet they remain | silent as the media run wild and report the study as | causative fact. | | This analysis has, to my knowledge, not been debunked at | all: https://arieh.substack.com/p/inside-israels-delta- | outbreak-p.... | | It shows natural immunity far outclassing vaccine | immunity in Israel. | | In terms of peer reviewed studies, they all show that | natural immunity is fantastic: | | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2781112 | | https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-5370(2 | 1)0... | | https://www.cell.com/cell-reports- | medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/ | RMV... | walterbell wrote: | https://arieh.substack.com/p/inside-israels-delta- | outbreak-p... | | _> it looks like recovered people -- people who had | tested positive for the coronavirus in a past PCR test -- | are massively under-represented. Recovered people are | around 9% of Israel's population, but they're less than | 1% of current cases. | | > That has led to speculation that recovery from past | Covid is more protective against infection from the Delta | Variant than vaccination. Known recovered people in | Israel are mostly not vaccinated, though some chose to | get a single booster dose ... From data I was passed last | week, recovered people were testing at only 0.1% | positivity, compared to more than 1% for vaccinated | people. | | > I wouldn't be surprised if natural infection turned out | to be more protective against variants than spike protein | vaccination. It makes sense that the body's immune system | would find more ways to attack the whole pathogen and | would recognise different parts of it compared to the | changing spike in variants._ | jjwiseman wrote: | https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how- | can-... argues that people are misinterpreting the | Israeli data due to Simpson's paradox: In | the case of vaccine efficacy vs. severe disease, it is | the fact that both vaccination status and risk of severe | disease are systematically higher in the older age group | that makes overall efficacy numbers if estimated without | stratifying by age misleading, producing a paradoxical | result that the overall efficacy (67.5%) is much lower | than the efficacy for either of the age groups (91.8% and | 85.2%). | criticaltinker wrote: | First off, I'm sorry you had to suffer like that - and I | don't want anyone to be denied healthcare. | | > I'd rather vaccinate and mask up then be denied healthcare | | You've presented a false dichotomy here - mass vaccination | and masking will not necessarily prevent overwhelmed | hospitals. | | Israel is a prime example - with one of the highest | vaccination rates in the world - their hospitals are being | overwhelmed right now due to the variants. The CDC is | reporting similar data from the U.S. [1][2][3]. There's no | doubt that vaccination is saving some lives, but it also may | be partly to blame for the increasing dominance of variants | of concern. [4][5] | | And counterintuitively, compulsory masking is likely setting | us up for a very bad winter in terms of endemic illnesses | such as influenza and RSV - which poses an increased risk of | overwhelming medical facilities even further. | | I only raise these counterpoints to help inform others and | bring much needed nuance to these discussions. | | [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e3.htm | | [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slid | es-... | | [3] https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/08132021_covidupdate. | htm... | | [4] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | | [5] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and | their phenotypic consequences? | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | | [6] The impact of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on | the future dynamics of endemic infections | https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30547 | chefkoch wrote: | > Israel is a prime example - with the highest vaccination | rate in the world | | Israel has 60% of the population fully vacced, compared to | iceland with 71% | | >Israel's ICUs overflow as unvaccinated patients fall | severely ill | | https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/sj1lzflgk | eecc wrote: | Only 66% of Israelis are fully vaccinated: there's a good 3 | million hard-core religious orthodox who won't let science | interfere with their deity's will. | | 3 million of blissfully and deliberately ignorant | individuals who won't adapt their social behavior to avoid | viral spread is more than enough to overrun any health | system. | walterbell wrote: | How many of those were infected and recovered in the last | 18 months? | undersuit wrote: | How many were infected multiple times in the last 18 | months? | walterbell wrote: | I don't have the Israel numbers, but UK data shows 137 | confirmed cases of reinfection out of 5.2 million first- | positive PCR tests, which works out to 0.003%, see charge | on page 18, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/gove | rnment/uploads/... | flyinglizard wrote: | It's closer to 1 million than 3 million. There are about | 6 million vaccinated out of a nation of 9 million, but | that's also including kids 0-12. The number I know is | about 1 million eligible who refuse the shot. | | It's not the ultra orthodox who really stand out. There's | about 30% in the general 20-29 groups who haven't taken | their shots (going down to about 20% in 30-39 and down to | 10% in the 60+ group), and many Arabs who are reluctant | to do so too. | nazgulnarsil wrote: | For people in a similar situation. Chanca Piedra might help. | goodluckchuck wrote: | Everything I've heard about how viruses evolve says that they | get milder within the host population. The host's resistance | keeps increasing as the virus mutates and the population is | exposed to the new mutations, and over time this allows the | virus to diverge from other populations... where the virus | isn't spreading. | | E.g. diseases can evolve in Europe then spread to Native | American populations. Evolve in bats, or apes, then spread to | humans. | | Now that this virus has shown that humanity has become one | population... and it will spread everywhere if we let it... we | should let it. | | If we do strict testing, vaccination, etc. and prevent | international travel, and otherwise fiercely prevent the virus | from spreading across populations, then we'll have just created | a situation where the virus could mutate to become harmful. | | As long as we do nothing we're safe. | munk-a wrote: | It's absolutely horrific to bring up Native American | populations considering the estimates on population loss | range from 25% to 90% with most folks erring toward the 90% | end of the range. As terrible as COVID has been we're no | where near the level where - as a middle aged person with | kids and parents[1] - it's expected that you'll be the only | one to survive out of your extended family. | | Estimates about the fatality of COVID put it way below the | small pox epidemic in North America but that's an absolutely | terrible example to draw on. | | 1. Assume your parents had two children - you both married | and had two kids - that's ten people so choose one to survive | (obviously epidemics don't actually work this way, but I've | found it's the clearest way to demonstrate proportional | mortality rates. | polote wrote: | Vaccinate all people greater than 40 years old, preferably | anyone and resume a normal life. | | Even though the vaccine doesn't prevent to catch covid to high | degree, it still prevent deaths and hospitalizations to more | than 90% (whether Delta or not, and whether Aztrazaneca or | Pfizer or Moderna) | | Long Covid seems to exists, but it is about 2-3% of cases so | nothing to really worry about more than any other disease. | | Maybe at some point the vaccine won't protect from a new | variant and things will change. But so far so good. And even at | this point, Lockdowns and masks mania doesn't seem to be give a | better output than asking citizen to be careful and try to | limit meeting too many people (Sweden) | | Here for more details | https://cspicenter.org/blog/waronscience/why-covid-19-is-her... | aantix wrote: | Take Vitamin D/C/Zinc/Niacin and build up natural immunity? | johnbaker92 wrote: | It's sad that this comment (and probably mine) downvoted | despite being a reasonable long-term response to this virus. | | Instead of mandating this vaccine worldwide, why don't we | focus on collectively building a better / stronger health | that would prevent the large majority of severe cases? | Florin_Andrei wrote: | It is downvoted because it's pseudo-science. | nradov wrote: | At least in the case of vitamin D it's hardly | pseudoscience. Multiple clinical studies have found that | hypovitaminosis D is a serious risk factor for COVID-19. | | https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/ | Florin_Andrei wrote: | It is correlated, but I am not aware of even a single | study that shows actual causal determination. | nradov wrote: | Are you claiming that you read all the studies linked | above and none of them show actual causal determination? | We can't really prove anything 100% in biology but the | totality of evidence is very strong here. | lambdaba wrote: | I recall studies showing significant efficacy even in | acute settings, which was slightly unexpected, at least | to me. | protein_lense wrote: | This is not a study, but it does discuss the biochemistry | of vitamin D and the role it plays in the immune system. | It is left to the viewer to draw their own conclusions. | | COVID-19 and Vitamin D | Association Between Vitamin D | Deficiency and COVID-19 | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT1CaTv5-e4 | johnbaker92 wrote: | According to "science": | | - Lockdowns should have stopped covid. | | - Masks should have stopped covid. | | - Vaccines should have stopped covid. | | - "Health" passports and those ridiculous mandates should | have stopped covid. | | The fact is, we're two years down the road and we're | still talking about this virus - so "true" science (that | advocated by governments / media I imagine?) is obviously | not working. | | Time to take a step back and think for ourselves perhaps? | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | > _- Lockdowns should have stopped covid._ | | Maybe if people obeyed them, which they did not. | | > _- Masks should have stopped covid._ | | Maybe if people wore them, which they did not. | | > _- Vaccines should have stopped covid._ | | Maybe if people got them, which they did not. | | And now that there are new variants in the wild because | of people not doing all of those things, the vaccines, | lockdowns, and masks still keep ICU beds from | overflowing. But you have to actually do them. | johnbaker92 wrote: | Have we perhaps forgotten about Sweden which: | | - Did not force lockdown / masks onto anybody | | - Has one of the least vaccinated population in Europe | (around 40% afaik) | | - Has had 0 covid deaths in the last couple weeks. | | - Has not had it worse than countries with stricter | mandates. | | Are we also forgetting about Iceland / Israel which are | among the most vaccinated countries in the world (on top | of having stringent mandates) and are basically | experiencing their largest spike in cases since the | beginning of this pandemic? | | At the end of the day, it's also good to realise so | called experts do not seem to have all the answers even | though it's "backed by science". Going back to common | sense and taking a step back is what will get us all out | of this. | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | > _Have we perhaps forgotten about Sweden: - Has not had | it worse than countries with stricter mandates._ | | Please explain this graph comparing Covid deaths in | Sweden to its immediate neighbors that shows the opposite | of what you're saying: | | https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data- | explor... | | > _- Has had 0 covid deaths in the last couple weeks._ | | Deaths per week are a function of previous deaths and | population distribution. If more people die at the | beginning, then fewer are left to die later. That's how | dying works. Sweden's weekly per capita deaths peaked | much higher than in the US or EU overall, and they've | lost more people per capita than their neighbors. | | A person who cares about numbers should be looking | cumulatively, not just within some specific narrow | window. | | > _Are we also forgetting about Iceland / Israel which | are among the most vaccinated countries in the world_ | | Israel isn't even in the top 30 and their vaccinations | flatlined back in February, they prematurely declared | victory, and people went back to licking doorknobs. But | let's ignore all of that for now. | | Congratulations, people faffed around fighting against | restrictions and vaccination for so long that now we have | successfully developed a mutation that achieves viral | escape. Go team! Yay! Mission accomplished! | | Vaccines and lockdowns and mask mandates still appear to | prevent deaths and hospital overflow. How do we know? | Because deaths and ICU bed percentages go down during | lockdowns and go up when lockdowns end and because a tiny | fraction of the people dying are vaccinated. | | Keep in mind also that Iceland still has one of the | lowest total per capita COVID death rates of any place in | the world. It's also a weird little volcanic island with | everyone living in only a few places with a major | international transit hub between Europe and North | America. The few places in the world doing better than | Iceland are places which also lock down quickly. | | > _Going back to common sense_ | | Except that your "common sense" tells you that Sweden has | done great and that Israel and Iceland are doing poorly | when compared to other countries the opposite is true. | How then should we assess the accuracy of your common | sense? | | My common sense says that people who refuse the vaccine | should just be refused access to hospital resources if | they get sick. It would neatly address a lot of issues. | ostrichlamb wrote: | > Deaths per week are a function of previous deaths and | population distribution. If more people die at the | beginning, then fewer are left to die later. That's how | dying works. Sweden's weekly per capita deaths peaked | much higher than in the US or EU overall, and they've | lost more people per capita than their neighbors. | | Is this necessarily an issue though? They've managed to | keep a reasonable way of life through those times while | building a natural immunity to this disease. They're also | not implementing any inhumane / dystopian measures like | "health passports" and the like. At some point we have to | look beyond the number of cases / deaths as the only | "success measure" for dealing with this thing. The level | of humanity (although hard to assess with numbers but | easy to _see_ for the humans among us) needs to be | factored in here. | | > My common sense says that people who refuse the vaccine | should just be refused access to hospital resources if | they get sick. It would neatly address a lot of issues. | | Should we carry on with this logic and ban the [obese / | overweight / inactive / drinkers / smokers / stressed / | etc.] from the hospitals because they could have done | something about their health that would ultimately have | prevented them from getting sick? This is a slippery | slope, but I'm sure you'll quickly understand why. | | That being said, if I also no longer have to pay taxes | that fund these establishments (and get refund on | previous contributions), I might take your deal .. That's | another discussion though. | Florin_Andrei wrote: | > _so called experts do not seem to have all the answers_ | | You are drinking misinformation from the firehose. That | quote is a clear symptom of it. | pacerwpg wrote: | Have you been actually following how things have gone? | Sweden has 1708% more deaths to covid vs Norway, but only | 84% higher population. That doesn't sound that great to | me. | ostrichlamb wrote: | Per Google stats, Sweden has had 14,664 COVID deaths to | this day on a population of 10.23M people which is 0.1%, | the vast majority being close to average age of death (82 | y/o) in this country. (It's also worth noting that ~24K | people die of vascular disease in this country every year | to put things in perspective.) | | Although death is always unfortunate, it seems to be a | very foolish goal to try and prevent everyone from dying | in this situation. Well, we might be able to do just | that, but how much of your previous way of life / | liberties are we willing to sacrifice _forever_? | MatteoFrigo wrote: | This comparison between two datapoints is not too useful. | The graphs at https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ | provide a more nuanced picture, with the caveat that | those are graphs of excess mortality and not necessarily | covid-specific. | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | Useful or not, I think it's more representative within | that region than you let on and matches basically the | activity causing this moment in the timeline from your | link: https://imgur.com/a/G3D7AZ2 | volfied wrote: | You're acting in bad faith and you know it. You can't | just say "lockdowns/masks/vaccines should have stopped | covid, but they didn't", when you know that a lot of | people out there refused to mask up, refused to | quarantine and refused to get the vaccine. | | People with your thinking are the reason we're still in | this pandemic. | tux1968 wrote: | >People with your thinking are the reason we're still in | this pandemic. | | If a proposed solution doesn't factor in non-compliance | when considering its likelihood of success, it isn't a | reasonable solution. | smolder wrote: | So you're aware it was noncompliance that reduced the | effectiveness of those measures, and you think... those | measures shouldn't have been taken at all? I'm not clear | on what the alternative was, apart from that. | | There's a difference between what's reasonable and being | perfect. I think they were absolutely reasonable | solutions, since I haven't heard a peep about any better | ones available, and even with noncompliance they are | helpful. | [deleted] | ssklash wrote: | > - Lockdowns should have stopped covid. | | Not everyone cooperated with lockdowns, rendering them | less effective. | | > - Masks should have stopped covid. | | Not everyone wore masks, rendering them less effective. | | > - Vaccines should have stopped covid. | | Not everyone is getting vaccinated, rendering it less | effective. | | I see a pattern here with an obvious solution, and it's | not doubting the "true" science and declaring ourselves | epidemiologists, virologists, and public health experts. | travoc wrote: | Each of these scenarios was predictable and in fact, | predicted by many. Yet here we are, still pretending to | be shocked at the intensity of human autonomy. | | If your plan requires everyone on earth to cooperate, | it's not a good plan. | ssklash wrote: | You realize that the way other diseases were eradicated | required the cooperation of everyone on earth? Or at | least in most countries. The reason we don't get polio in | virtually any country on earth is because of global | cooperation in the face of a disease with a known | mitigation. Barely 500 known cases _world-wide_ in 2019. | Thanks to global cooperation. Too bad propaganda and | social media probably ruined our chances of repeating | such a feat... | xienze wrote: | > The reason we don't get polio in virtually any country | on earth is because of global cooperation in the face of | a disease with a known mitigation. | | The polio vaccine being a sterilizing one is certainly a | _major_ reason for its success. The Covid vaccine, by | contrast, does not confer sterilizing immunity. Polio | also spreads through contaminated food and water, not the | exhaled breath of the infected. So other than those minor | things, great comparison. | osigurdson wrote: | Regular exercise should be a larger part of the | conversation. | | https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/does-exercise-help- | prote... | tcbawo wrote: | I haven't seen an evidence that supplements would prevent | the majority of severe cases, or the neurological damage | done (in even mild cases). Is this something backed up by | data? | mrfusion wrote: | Is neurological damage in mild cases backed up by data? | The only study I saw was based on self reporting and an | Internet based IQ test. | | Also considering perhaps 30% of the world has had covid | now (anyone have the exact figure?) that would be an | unbelievable amount of brain damage. I'd think we'd be | aware of that if one in three people had recent brain | damage. | nradov wrote: | The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been | infected so far. | lambdaba wrote: | Anyything that makes your immune system work properly | will help, the reason Covid is even a subject is that | there is a silent epidemic of immunocompromised people, a | large number of which are unaware that they are - the | kind of people who routinely get sick in the winter, for | instance. It's very strange that we are pretending that | healthiness doesn't exist or can't be improved. It can, | and rather easily and cheaply (yes, Vitamin D is one, but | also, especially for Covid, anything that improves | vascular function, as the etiology of Covid is closely | linked to vascular health... which is where Niacin | (vitamin B3), vitamin C, and reducing /eliminating sugar | come in). | johnbaker92 wrote: | Health goes beyond taking nutrients (although they might | help). Here we're talking about exercise, nutrition, | mental health etc: | | - None of those were advocated by governments during this | pandemic. | | - Some measures (lockdowns, etc.) were detrimental to | individual health and (imo) contributed to complications | we've been seeing. | | This is generally backed up by common sense (which - just | like the flu - has mysteriously disappeared in the past 2 | years) | BobbyJo wrote: | What's mysterious about the flu disappearing? The | precautions taken to reduce COVID were extremely | effective against influenza. Given that it was much more | broadly circulating, and therefore a large percentage of | the population had antibodies to dominant strains (more | than COVID even now), one would expect masks and | isolation to basically destroy it's spread no? | lambdaba wrote: | It's also possible that viral disease dynamics are just | like that, with one virus dominating at a time (amongst | this class of highly contagious respiratory viruses). | walterbell wrote: | There's a social-acceptability phenomenon where people say | one thing (e.g. in surveys) and do another (e.g. what they | buy). | | Relatively early in 2020, some grocery and pharmacy shelves | were completely emptied of Vit C/D/Zinc/Quercetin. When they | were restocked, they would sell out again, even with per- | customer quotas. This took place even with a complete news | blackout on early treatments. As with HCQ/Ivermectin, we have | decades of data showing very low risk of adverse effects from | these early treatments. So the worst case is that people | waste money on placebos. But there are studies showing that | early treatment helps some (not all) patients to recover more | quickly. | | Just as we don't know why some people are injured by | vaccines, we don't know why some people are not helped by | early intervention with supplements. More studies are need | for both, including funding for autopsies of those who die | and retroactive genomic sequencing of | virus/vaccine/supplement samples collected from the most | severely affected cases. | | India (origin of Delta) provides comparative data because | some areas have rejected Ivermectin while other areas have | embraced it. This is a ZH (sorry) article, but it uses data | from Johns Hopkins, | https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/indias-ivermectin- | blackou... | | _> This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 | cases and deaths - which we know were Delta Variant - down to | almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US | went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly | ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol. | | > Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with | 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a | total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US | without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily | cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with | Ivermectin._ | | At present, there are billions of dollars of economic | incentives for suppression of early treatment, because | vaccines are still under EUA that could be questioned by the | availability of therapeutics with decades of safety data. If | the FDA fully approves one or more vaccines in September | 2021, perhaps there will be more economic incentives to | perform research and studies of therapeutics. | | Merck (original holder of the Ivermectin patent) is | developing a new patented therapeutic for early treatment of | Covid. Time will tell whether this is a genuinely new | treatment or an "evergreen" variant of Ivermectin to obtain | patent revenue. Either way, it would mean that at least one | Big Pharma company has an economic incentive to promote early | therapeutics for Covid, which could provide some balance to | the currently polarized treatment landscape. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | Slightly off-topic: shouldn't the 'new normal' be to wear | N95/N99 masks? | | We know they're far more effective, and there's been plenty of | time to ramp up production. I don't see why the 'normal' option | is to wear a non-medical mask. | | It's also surprising that societies are entirely incapable of | doing a hard lockdown for 3 weeks with mandatory testing at the | end. I imagine that would be enough to reduce the case count to | near zero, but it seems this cannot be done at a national scale | even with time to prepare. | | _edit_ Turns out I 'm not alone here, here's a Harvard | professor pushing for mass use of N95 masks: | https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/n95-masks... | rich_sasha wrote: | Just asking: would they also be effective in a slightly | clueless general public? Eg they only work when they are in | your face, fitted, etc. | | It could be that cost/actual benefit looks worse when you | factor poor usage. | hncurious wrote: | That's actually what Dr Fauci initially talked about with | regard to the general public. With how masks are worn and | used in practice, he was probably right. | | Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. | When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask | might make people feel a little bit better and it might | even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect | protection that people think that it is. And, often, there | are unintended consequences -- people keep fiddling with | the mask and they keep touching their face. | | LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying | inside there? | | Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you | should think of health care providers needing them and | people who are ill. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gYAka7qSnM | anonuser123456 wrote: | This outlook ignores a critical factor. | | Intramuscular vaccine delivery did not confer high levels of | mucosal immunity. However, subsequent infection of the | vaccinated may provide excellent systemic protection while | allowing mucosal immunity to naturally develop as a consequence | of infection. | | If high levels of mucosal immunity develop as a result of | breakthrough infection, that may go a long way towards reducing | r0. | | Further, nasal delivery covid vaccines are underdevelopment. | These may also provide mucosal immunity. | | So there is still a very plausible way out of the pandemic that | includes the near eradication of the disease. | xboxnolifes wrote: | I'm not sure if this is technically feasible, but maybe a | yearly covid shot just gets added to the flu shot routine. | Either through the same shot, or two shots in one visit. | pragmaticalien8 wrote: | Just like any vaccine, I suppose better generation of vaccine | will emerge. https://athometest.com/blog/a-next-generation- | sars-cov-2-vac... | nonbirithm wrote: | Is it implausible to think that continued transmission and | mutation at this rate will cause a catastrophic worsening of the | pandemic to an extent several orders of magnitude above what it | is now? Vaccination is effective in the current state of the | pandemic, but what's to prevent the built-up immune response of | humankind being wiped out if the virus adapts enough? | slumdev wrote: | SARS-CoV-2 has four antigens. The existing vaccines stimulate | the production of antibodies against only one of them, the | spike protein. | | The existing vaccines are proving ineffective against Delta | because it has mutated significantly enough that its spike | protein does not cause a neutralizing immune response. They may | even be causing ADE, as evidenced by the most recent data | comparing Israel and Palestine. | bushbaba wrote: | Palestine is ambiguous. I assume you mean Gaza or West Bank? | | To Palestinians the entire country of Israel is Palestine. | Hence the chant from the river to the sea Palestine will be | free. | etc-hosts wrote: | Obviously the OP is referring to West Bank and Gaza. | bushbaba wrote: | There are Palestinians living in east Jerusalem. There's | Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. His use of | wording was ambiguous. | OneLeggedCat wrote: | > existing vaccines stimulate the production of antibodies | against only one of them | | Is this true for the J&J vax as well? | desine wrote: | Yes the J&J shot still works using only the spike protein. | IIRC only Novavax uses traditional inoculation of using the | weakened SARS-CoV-2 virus. | raphlinus wrote: | Novavax is a protein subunit vaccine, with the spike | protein only. The Chinese CoronaVac and Indian Covaxin | are traditional inactivated virus vaccines. | polynomial wrote: | weakened how? | nradov wrote: | Some of the current vaccines are produced by mixing | batches of SARS-CoV-2 virions with beta-Propiolactone to | make them inactive. | selimthegrim wrote: | Uh... citation? And as you know, neutralizing response is not | the only type. | slumdev wrote: | A study demonstrating the mechanism for Delta ADE in vivo: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384810/ | | Highly-vaccinated Israel's third-wave surge in both cases | and deaths: | https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/ | | Unvaccinated Palestine's lack of third wave deaths: | https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/state- | of-p... | Mordisquitos wrote: | > A study demonstrating the mechanism for Delta ADE in | vivo: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384810/ | | Not only is that article not a study but rather a letter | to the editor, but also in their last paragraph they | explicitly state that ADE in SARS-CoV-2 has never been | demonstrated _in vivo_. Here is the relevant quote from | the letter: | | > _[...] Although this potential risk has been cleverly | anticipated before the massive use of Covid-19 vaccines6, | the ability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to mediate infection | enhancement_ in vivo _has never been formally | demonstrated. [...]_ | [deleted] | walterbell wrote: | Thanks for the Israel-Palestine comparison. | jdkuepper wrote: | Here is a more in-depth counterpoint to that preprint: | | https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/08/16 | /a-... | nemo44x wrote: | A couple things though - the median age of Israel is | higher than that of Palestine by a pretty large margin. | Secondly, how can we be sure both places are testing at | the same rate? For instance, the percentage of cases | reported in Palestine VS Israel is smaller when adjusted | for population size. | [deleted] | YPCrumble wrote: | Do you have a source for the recent data on ADE? I searched | and didn't find anything suggesting this. The only thing I | see are studies that more vaccinated people are dying in | Israel, but that is to be expected because the older people | are, the more likely they are to be vaccinated and they have | less immune response to the vaccine. | | Source https://twitter.com/rzioni/status/1426178482569109504 | slumdev wrote: | See my reply to a sibling comment. The most damning | evidence comes from the comparison between highly- | vaccinated Israel, where there are many third-wave deaths, | and mostly-unvaccinated Palestine, where there isn't a | third-wave death spike at all. Having mostly-unvaccinated | Palestine as a control group is showing us that we don't | know what we thought we knew. | rdedev wrote: | The graphs you've mentioned in your sibling comment does | not separate deaths based on vaccination. Here is another | source that takes this into account. Vaccination does | reduce chances of severe infections even in delta, though | it's not as good as before: | | https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029 | 628... | | > The good news is that among Israel's serious infections | on Thursday of this week, according to Health Ministry | data, there were nine times more serious cases among | unvaccinated people over age 60 (178.7 per 100,000) than | among fully vaccinated people of the same age category, | and a little more than double the number of serious | infections among unvaccinated people in the under-60 | crowd (3.2 per 100,000) than among the vaccinated in that | age bracket. | | Also do note that official numbers from Palestine could | be undercounted because of the situation there | naasking wrote: | Not implausible at all. Mutation rate is proportional to the | number of infected. Third world countries have barely even | started vaccinating. There's a lot of room for nightmare | scenarios. | | Which is why I think it was a bone-headed move to not suspend | patent protection on the vaccines. Thanks Bill Gates! | rudedogg wrote: | The Bill Gates mention set off my conspiracy nut alarm bells, | but after reading this entire article[0] the criticism seems | fair. | | [0] https://www.devex.com/news/gates-foundation-reverses- | course-... | rdedev wrote: | This. The Astra zenca vaccine, originally designed by the | Oxford University, was supposed to be open licenced. But the | gates foundation convinced them otherwise. The top priority | should have been to get as many vaccine factories open as | soon as possible but even functioning factories had trouble | starting talks with bigshots like pfizer | | https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/have- | gates-... | | https://apnews.com/article/drug-companies-called-share- | vacci... | | https://newrepublic.com/article/162000/bill-gates-impeded- | gl... | silicon2401 wrote: | People believe what's comfortable/convenient, not what's true. | | In very early 2020, when I was following the news of the virus | development in Wuhan, China, I felt like a conspiracy theorist | pointing out to friends and coworkers that a bad epidemic | spreading in one of the most crowded parts of the world. They | thought it was ridiculous to say that hospitals were getting | overwhelmed, people were being quarantined etc. Don't even | think about suggesting it'll spread outside of China, or that | the virus may have come from the lab that just so happened to | also be in the origin of the epidemic, a lab which specialized | in highly infectious diseases. | | Not even 2 years later and where are we now? The entire world | got sick and pretty much every country has done | lockdowns/quarantines/shutdowns. Not to mention the lab theory | of the virus origin still can't be ruled out. | | Even after the pandemic started, people still had no problem | sticking their head in the sand. It's not a big deal; it's | 2020, we have technology and medicine and we'll just make a | vaccine and get back to normal. Well now it's almost 2022 and | somehow things just keep getting worse. | | We can reasonably say the Black Death killed 30% of Europe's | population. We can't reasonably say covid won't do the same. | All optimistic projections so far have been proven wrong, so | all we can say for sure is that humans are terrible at | predicting the future. | desine wrote: | >We can reasonably say the Black Death killed 30% of Europe's | population. We can't reasonably say covid won't do the same. | All optimistic projections so far have been proven wrong, so | all we can say for sure is that humans are terrible at | predicting the future. | | I think Black Death had quite a bit higher mortality than any | version of covid we will see | OneLeggedCat wrote: | > We can reasonably say the Black Death killed 30% of | Europe's population. We can't reasonably say covid won't do | the same | | I was going along, nodding my head in agreement until this. | Do you realize how bad medical care was during that era? | Hygiene? Knowledge of how to slow transmission in a community | (we Americans have not yet even BEGUN to _really_ take COVID | seriously)? Do you realize how vastly _more_ deadly than | Black Death that COVID will have to become to cause a 30% | death rate among the general population? It 's absurd. | silicon2401 wrote: | > It's absurd. | | People said that about the idea that covid would become a | pandemic too, you just proved my point. | jstanley wrote: | That doesn't prove your point at all. The fact that | someone disagrees with you doesn't prove you're right. | nradov wrote: | That's just fear mongering nonsense, like claiming that we | can't reasonably say that aliens won't invade the Earth | tomorrow. I mean I can't prove it's impossible but come on. | There's no scientific evidence that a coronavirus can be both | highly contagious _and_ have a 30% fatality rate. CDC data | clearly shows that the fatality rate in the US has been 0.6%, | largely because we have a lot of vulnerable elderly people | with serious co-morbid conditions. The fatality rate in | countries with younger, healthier populations is far lower. | And for vaccinated people of all ages the death rate is close | to 0. | silicon2401 wrote: | Yes I'm aware of what today is like, now tell me what | tomorrow will bring, because not many people have been able | to do that so far. Instead, as I said, optimism is proven | wrong as things just keep getting worse. But I'm sure | you're right, all the other mis-steps to this point were | flukes, this time you know for sure what the future holds. | cjfd wrote: | Both the worst-case and the best-case scenario are on the | table. Only time will tell what happens. As you seem to be | focusing on the worst-case scenario I will talk about the best- | case scenario. The best-case scenario is that the human immune | system is getting used to corona with even vaccinated people | spreading the delta variant with little chance of getting very | ill. This will turn covid-19 into something like the common | cold or possibly the flu. Who knows what will actually happen? | Both my best-case scenario and your worst-case scenario can | happen. I think, though, that one should not only focus on the | adaptability of the virus. The immune system also has been | doing defense against various pathogens for many millions of | years. | achenatx wrote: | The likely scenario is that it turns into cold/flu. | | Everyone either gets the vaccine or the virus and we are all | mostly immune. It mutates a little and once it mutates just | enough to spread substantially everyone who gets it gets | immune. Only a fraction of the population will get any | particular mutation. | | I remember having the debate that herd immunity has never | happened without a vaccine. Which is just BS. Every disease | throughout history has eventually reached equilibrium with | humans which is essentially herd immunity. | | Most mutations are point mutations. Once enough point | mutations accumulate that give the virus superior ability to | spread, it will. It is unlikely that any point mutation will | suddenly make the virus orders of magnitude more deadly. | empthought wrote: | You don't understand what "herd immunity" means. Herd | immunity means eliminating a disease within a community | ("herd"). It does not mean endemic case incidence with | socially tolerable outcomes, or whatever loosey-goosey idea | you mean by "equilibrium." | | Herd immunity means the contagion is eliminated. It has | never happened worldwide without a vaccine, and I'm unaware | of any virus where it has been sustained within a community | without a vaccine. How could it? The only paths to immunity | are vaccine or exposure, and exposure depends on the virus | actually circulating. | dannyz wrote: | At some point this is just arguing semantics, but my | understanding is that the herd immunity threshold is | defined when Reff < 1. You could have Reff=0.99999999, | which counts as herd immunity being reached, but it would | take a very long time for the virus to actually | disappear. Even if we do momentarily hit Reff < 1 for the | delta variant, there could be mutations/waning immunity | that causes it to stay around 1 becoming endemic. | chinathrow wrote: | > Every disease throughout history has eventually reached | equilibrium with humans which is essentially herd immunity. | | Not a biologist here but can you elaborate on this? Do you | consider all circulating diseases such as HIV, yellow | fever, malaria, hepatitis etc. having reached | "equilibrium"? | wizzwizz4 wrote: | Well, humanity still exists, therefore no disease wiped | out all humans. That's a form of equilibrium, and it's a | lot better than some other species. | | And now we have decent medicine, we can properly turn the | tables on diseases. mRNA vaccines are literally sci-fi | stuff, and now they're here! Antibiotics weren't even | _in_ sci-fi, and we 've got them (though they're no | longer panaceas). | Mordisquitos wrote: | No, it is not implausible in the sense that "it could never | happen". However, neither was it implausible for this to have | happened with the myriad of other viruses which have jumped | into our species across our natural history--and yet here we | are. | | Remember there is no motivation behind the virus to adapt, nor | such thing as "wiping out" the immune response. At most, there | are random mutations which, if they are more successful than | the previous ones, will become more widespread than their | alternatives. | | Are mutations that are less sensitive to current populations' | immune responses more likely to succeed? Yes, of course! But | there is a practical limitation to how much a virus can | accumulate mutations which evade immunity to previous variants: | it must not break its ability to infect (human) cells. | Eventually an equilibrium is reached, as it has thousands of | times previously. | christkv wrote: | I'm following the studies around nasal covid vaccines. | https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/researchers-begin-... | | The theory is that they will create a better early response in | the cells where the virus makes first contact making it more | likely to stop replication early. | | If it works it would seem this could be a more effective way to | vaccine for respiratory viruses. | nikkinana wrote: | I love staying home. Get paid and spend nothing. Thanks Cuba for | pioneering that concept! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-20 23:00 UTC)