Watsisname wrote:Source of the post The excess deaths in Peru are now 503 per 100,000 people, suggesting an infection mortality rate greater than 0.5%.
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post Maybe, as in suggesting that covid in countries with negative excess deaths makes people healthier.
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post Mortality rates need to be divided into population groups like age to become meaningful.
What are your thoughts about the mortality rate? I think this is a big issue. If it's low, towards that of regular flu, it seems clear that what the world is really facing is a panic epidemic spread by media. If the mortality is above 5% as some data might suggest, then clearly the world must not simply flatten the curve, but stop it.
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post Since the pandemic began I worked with the assumption that it is about 1% (or with some fuzziness depending on uncertainties and social factors: 0.5 to 2%), based on the reported CFRs in specific outbreaks and knowing roughly the fraction of asymptomatic cases. Then the antibody studies in New York supported that (not less than 0.5%).
midtskogen wrote:Watsisname wrote:Source of the post The excess deaths in Peru are now 503 per 100,000 people, suggesting an infection mortality rate greater than 0.5%.
Maybe, as in suggesting that covid in countries with negative excess deaths makes people healthier. Mortality rates need to be divided into population groups like age to become meaningful.
Vaccination of the 75+ age groups is now complete over here, and just now they made the recommendation that very frail people (i.e. basically dying people) not be vaccinated, as it was concluded that amongst people who died shortly after getting the vaccine, the vaccine had sped up the death process in 10% of the cases. A recommendation a bit too late. But it doesn't seem to have influenced the excess death statistics. Still negative.
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post A powerful and well-researched piece by Tanner Greer on Palladium:
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post I don't think what delays action is so much fear of panic, but lack of data.
Watsisname wrote:An estimate (by three different methods using excess mortality data) suggests the actual death toll from COVID-19 in India is between 3 and 5 million (versus the official figure of 400,000). Many deaths occurred in a spread out fashion last year due to the pandemic restrictions (which indeed flattened the curve but at an extremely high level). The second wave this spring was also far more deadly than the official figures indicated, and was much more visible.
Meanwhile in the US we're now seeing the same trajectory as so many other countries with delta. The delta variant is so infectious that it continues to spread -- easily and rapidly -- across the unvaccinated. With the relaxed measures, we observe an effective R value higher than at any time since spring 2020 before the lockdowns. The R0 value is likely between 5 and 8, which is insane. A more infectious disease also pushes the target for herd immunity higher. The original R0 of about 3 meant herd immunity would happen at around 66%. If R0 is 5, then we need 80%. If R0 is 8, then we need 87%. All of these numbers also don't account for how variants may evade prior immune response. If the virus develops enough ability to evade in a short enough time, then a true herd immunity never exists.
The way I see it, either we're going to take some much more dramatic action, or this is going to overwhelm our hospitals once again (in some places it's already happening), and result in many more preventable deaths and who knows what more variants. Allowing about a quarter of the population to be infected within a few months is not an acceptable strategy.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post Wat, how did the 1918 flu pandemic end? Was that with vaccinations or was some other method employed?
Watsisname wrote:A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post Wat, how did the 1918 flu pandemic end? Was that with vaccinations or was some other method employed?
No, there was no vaccine developed for it. They instead used many of the same measures we still use today: social distancing, limits on gatherings, and in some places wearing masks. These measures did not stop the pandemic, but slowed it down considerably and broke it up into waves -- much like with COVID-19. The worst of that pandemic lasted for about about two years and hit in four distinct waves (though at different times in different regions, again much like with COVID-19). The second wave was the most deadly.
How did it end? In about the same way as most pandemics in history. Once enough of the population has been infected (or recovered), the virus has a harder time jumping to new hosts, so the rate of new infections declines exponentially. How many must be infected before that happens depends on how easily the virus spreads (the R number), and the measures taken to slow it down. With Spanish Flu, that seems to have happened after about 1/3 of the population was infected (according to most estimates, though perhaps more had truly been infected, maybe even half or two thirds.)
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post But to blame a lack of data, the important question then is which data were lacking?
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post when children are born do they inherit antibodies/immunity from their parents who had gotten sick from it?
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post When people suggest that we weren't nearly afraid enough in March 2020, does it mean that they now reject the "flatten the curve" idea of that time?