And they're hosting the Olympics in half a year. I wonder how that will work out given the current woes in Tokyo.
And they're hosting the Olympics in half a year. I wonder how that will work out given the current woes in Tokyo.
That has been happening in Florida and Texas, I dont trust any numbers coming out of those places.The question is also how responsibly in all countries they treated the testing for COVID. I heard that in some countries, doctors did not send patients for tests in order to artificially lower the incidence rates. True or not, I don't know. But if we assume that this is true, then such an attitude, on the one hand, at some point contributes to the underestimation of statistics, but on the other hand, the unexamined people were not on self-isolation and infect other people.
I love it- it's like the philosophy that dirt can be swept under the rug and let's pretend it's not there. By the way the amount of unvaccinated people is going to ruin us with how much more contagious this Delta variant is, I wonder if there is a quantitative comparison about how much more contagious it is vs the original. I also wonder if people who are fully vaccinated are transmitting the virus at the same rate as the unvaccinated, I read somewhere that although the vaccines prevent hospitalization in most cases, the transmission rate remains very similar.
What I have read is that Delta is about 50% more transmissible than Alpha (the UK variant), which was about 50-70% more transmissible than the original. So if R[sub]0[/sub] for the original virus was between 2 and 3, then for Delta it is between 5 and 8, with a most probable value of about 6.
The media is basically treating this 70% as gospel when it just assumes a static infection rate which is definitely not happening. The vaccination rate in Nassau County is 80% and the infection rate is still rising. I think it comes from a dual threat- first the mutation rate of the virus- but also the fact that there have been many repeat infections, so it's obvious that getting the infection doesn't confer permanent immunity, which we already knew, but the infection rate among those who previously had the infection seems to now be higher. I've even heard of many cases of getting the infection, then getting vaccinated, and then getting a second infection. It seems like the new variant is much more efficient at doing this than the original or prior variants were. Hence the decision by the CDC to issue indoor masking suggestions for even the vaccinated. Thanks for the infection rate measurement for Delta, Wat, is this variant any more lethal than the original? I had read some uncertainty on that subject, but most think that it's about the same as the original where that's concerned?What I have read is that Delta is about 50% more transmissible than Alpha (the UK variant), which was about 50-70% more transmissible than the original. So if R[sub]0[/sub] for the original virus was between 2 and 3, then for Delta it is between 5 and 8, with a most probable value of about 6.
I also checked with a simple model what value of R[sub]0[/sub] gives a best fit for recent outbreaks such as in the UK, the Netherlands, and in parts of the US with certain vaccination rates, while also accounting for some immunity by recovery from prior infection. Basically, the data tell me the same thing: Delta's R[sub]0[/sub] cannot be less than 4, and most likely it's around 6.
It is kind of bothering me that media continues to cite the "70% threshold to reach herd immunity". That's simply not true anymore with how transmissible Delta is. We see Delta spreading in places with more than 70% vaccination + recovery. This could also be an effect of how unvaccinated people are more likely to socialize with other unvaccinated people. Despite being a very good toy model, the spread of a virus through a population is more complicated than a bunch of dots randomly moving around and bumping into each other, and in this case that complexity matters.
Sure thing. My understanding is also that it's a bit uncertain and difficult to measure, but it's either about the same or a little higher (for people who have neither been vaccinated nor exposed to it before). A slightly higher lethality makes some sense given the role of a higher viral load within the body as one of the mechanisms for being more transmissible.
I wonder how many of these re-infections are because the person who got infected had a different variant or the original virus for the first infection vs being infected by Delta twice? I also wonder how much being fully vaccinated reduces the transmission rate (maybe this is why the CDC is recommending that fully vaccinated people remain masked indoors- there is some uncertainty about the transmission rate of fully vaccinated people if they do get the virus, even though we know the infections are much less serious for them, if an unvaccinated person caught the virus from them it would probably be much more serious.)Sure thing. My understanding is also that it's a bit uncertain and difficult to measure, but it's either about the same or a little higher (for people who have neither been vaccinated nor exposed to it before). A slightly higher lethality makes some sense given the role of a higher viral load within the body as one of the mechanisms for being more transmissible.
The simple explanation could be that a lot of countries ordered huge loads of AZ, and I somehow doubt that AZ accepts refunds.
I always thought that it would be equal chances if a virus would become more or less lethal over time since evolution occurs by chance, with the exception that a more contagious virus would be more likely to spread and since there may be some connection between contagiousness and virulence, that it may actually tend towards becoming worse. So it seems like what you said in your last couple of sentences (and also in your first paragraph) is basically my point of view.Sure thing. My understanding is also that it's a bit uncertain and difficult to measure, but it's either about the same or a little higher (for people who have neither been vaccinated nor exposed to it before). A slightly higher lethality makes some sense given the role of a higher viral load within the body as one of the mechanisms for being more transmissible.
Added:
We do hear anecdotally a lot about more younger people filling up hospitals and ICUs and getting extremely ill, but it's difficult to distinguish this being an effect of the virus itself from the effect of preferential vaccination of the elderly. If I can find a good analysis I'll be sure to share it later.
There's also this extremely common belief that viruses should mutate to become less lethal over time. The reasoning being that a virus that kills its host is evolutionarily disadvantageous. Sounds totally logical, until we remember that it doesn't matter if the virus kills its host if it jumps to more hosts first -- which is rather one of the defining characteristics of a virus. This particular virus transmits very easily long before it kills (if it does). It often transmits before the person shows any symptoms at all! The contagious period begins two days before symptoms develop, and peak contagious period is the first day of symptoms. Mortality on the other hand is usually at least a week after symptom onset, often more than 2 weeks. So there's essentially zero pressure for it to become less lethal. There has instead been tremendous pressure to become more transmissible (as well as immune-evading). Being more transmissible can even make it a little more lethal, and it's no problem for it in evolutionary terms.
Yup. It basically implies that almost everyone gets it sooner or later. Better to be vaccinated if never previously exposed. (And if previously recovered from the disease, a subsequent single dose appears to provide extremely good protection.)Wat, what's your opinion on what Dr Fauci said yesterday? It's very concerning. He said people who are fully vaccinated and get infected with Delta are carrying six times the viral load of Alpha and basically the same viral load as people who never got vaccinated! So basically everyone is spreading it but the effects are of course much worse in those who aren't vaccinated because they have a far worse outcome.
So basically getting it once and then getting a single dose of the vaccine is equivalent to someone who never had it getting two doses of the vaccine? CDC and WHO made some missteps here, hopefully they and we learn from them. Never seen anything like this in my entire lifetime. I wonder if this is actually worse than the 1918 virus (I think it is). By the way did that virus ever make a comeback years or decades later? These viruses dont just disappear forever do they?Yup. It basically implies that almost everyone gets it sooner or later. Better to be vaccinated if never previously exposed. (And if previously recovered from the disease, a subsequent single dose appears to provide extremely good protection.)Wat, what's your opinion on what Dr Fauci said yesterday? It's very concerning. He said people who are fully vaccinated and get infected with Delta are carrying six times the viral load of Alpha and basically the same viral load as people who never got vaccinated! So basically everyone is spreading it but the effects are of course much worse in those who aren't vaccinated because they have a far worse outcome.
Masks still help to reduce transmission and hence the number of people infected at once. (Flatten the curve yet again.) As I said back then, I think it is unfortunate the CDC had decided in May to suggest that vaccinated people don't need to wear masks indoors. Vaccinated people could always still catch the disease (less often) as well as spread it, but more importantly it was a terrible policy in a practical sense. Using it as a carrot to try to motivate more people to get vaccinated was a bad idea. Now they have to explain yet another policy shift which is making more people angry and confused. Oops.