Another dose of reality...from real doctors.

[CO. Hoosier]

Anecdotally I’ve found that the older folks are being much more reckless. The younger people with families are doing a good job and the older boomers are not abiding at all. I assume it has a lot to do with where they are getting their “news”.

My experience is the exact opposite. Latest example is a trip the outdoor nursery a couple of days ago. The only customers without masks were younger. Some were even using those high filtration respirator masks with unfiltered exhale valves--probably believing they were doing some good.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

JDB, definitely agree with you except to add,
younger folks might not die from the virus, but by going to work they might have avoided getting sick.

In other words, the lockdown is preventing young people from getting sick.

Lots more sick younger workers without the lockdown would haven taken a toll on the economy.

That logic doesn't exactly hold though hoot, for the following reasons:

• Younger people without underlying conditions ("YPWUC") are far less likely to get seriously ill from the virus
• YPWUC are biologically more equipped to continue operating and contributing to the economy, which we need
• YPWUC are still going to be susceptible to the virus when the lockdowns end (whether that's now or in a couple of months)

Let's remember, the lockdowns were pushed heavily to flatten the curve and allow our healthcare system to preserve capacity and ramp up so that it would be able to treat/handle not just COVID, but all of the critical patient needs. We are simply delaying the inevitable without a viable vaccine (years away) for many, particularly as the country enters fall and winter.

 

[hoot1]

That logic doesn't exactly hold though hoot, for the following reasons:

• Younger people without underlying conditions ("YPWUC") are far less likely to get seriously ill from the virus
• YPWUC are biologically more equipped to continue operating and contributing to the economy, which we need
• YPWUC are still going to be susceptible to the virus when the lockdowns end (whether that's now or in a couple of months)

Let's remember, the lockdowns were pushed heavily to flatten the curve and allow our healthcare system to preserve capacity and ramp up so that it would be able to treat/handle not just COVID, but all of the critical patient needs. We are simply delaying the inevitable without a viable vaccine (years away) for many, particularly as the country enters fall and winter.

JDM, agree with you on the following...

the lockdowns were pushed heavily to flatten the curve and allow our healthcare system to preserve capacity and ramp up so that it would be able to treat/handle not just COVID, but all of the critical patient needs.​

The part being overlooked in the above is that the lockdown purpose is also to insure that people who are infectious but asymptomatic or have mild illness don't pass it on to someone else..

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The part being overlooked in the above is that the lockdown purpose is also to insure that people who are infectious but asymptomatic or have mild illness don't pass it on to someone else..

Yes, but that is a temporary benefit. I'm not doubting its effectiveness, but COVID is going to continue spreading once lockdowns are lifted. It's a "Band Aid" solution.

From Martin Kulldorff, PhD, a biostatistician in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at the Brigham and Women's Hospital:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/29/delaying-herd-immunity-is-costing-lives/

Because of its virulence, wide spread and the many asymptomatic cases it causes, Covid-19 cannot be contained in the long run, and so all countries will eventually reach herd immunity. To think otherwise is naive and dangerous. General lockdown strategies can reduce transmission and death counts in the short term. But this strategy cannot be considered successful until lockdowns are removed without the disease resurging.

 

[Bowlmania]

We are simply delaying the inevitable without a viable vaccine (years away) for many, particularly as the country enters fall and winter.

Years away? Fauci said yesterday that a coronavirus vaccine ready for wide distribution by January is doable.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Years away? Fauci said yesterday that a coronavirus vaccine ready for wide distribution by January is doable.

Terrible idea for him to be making that claim. Not only would it be unprecedented development time, but to claim that it will be widely distributed in seven months is insane.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-timeline.html

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/15/coronavirus-vaccine-prospects

Time for another look at the coronavirus vaccine front, since we have several recent news items. Word has come from GSK and Sanofi that they are going to collaborate on vaccine development, which brings together two of the more experienced large organizations in the field. It looks like Sanofi is bringing the spike protein and GSK is bringing the adjuvant (more on what that means below). Their press release says that they plan to go into human patients late this year and to have everything ready for regulatory filing in the second half of 2021. For its part, Pfizer has announced that they’re pushing up their schedule with BioNTech and possibly starting human trials in August, which probably puts them on a similar timeline for eventual filing.

“But that’s next year!” will be the reaction of many who are hoping for a vaccine ASAP, and I can understand why. The thing is, that would be absolutely unprecedented speed, way past the current record set by the Ebola vaccine, which took about five years. More typical development times are ten years or more. But hold that thought while you peruse another news item today from J&J. They have an even more aggressive timeline proposed for their own vaccine work: they have already announced that they have a candidate, and they say that they plan first-in-human trials in September. Data will be available from those in December, and in January 2021 they say that they will have the first batches of vaccine ready for an FDA Emergency Use Authorization. Now that is shooting for the world record on both the scientific and regulatory fronts.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Terrible idea for him to be making that claim. Not only would it be unprecedented development time, but to claim that it will be widely distributed in seven months is insane.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-timeline.html

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/15/coronavirus-vaccine-prospects

Time for another look at the coronavirus vaccine front, since we have several recent news items. Word has come from GSK and Sanofi that they are going to collaborate on vaccine development, which brings together two of the more experienced large organizations in the field. It looks like Sanofi is bringing the spike protein and GSK is bringing the adjuvant (more on what that means below). Their press release says that they plan to go into human patients late this year and to have everything ready for regulatory filing in the second half of 2021. For its part, Pfizer has announced that they’re pushing up their schedule with BioNTech and possibly starting human trials in August, which probably puts them on a similar timeline for eventual filing.

“But that’s next year!” will be the reaction of many who are hoping for a vaccine ASAP, and I can understand why. The thing is, that would be absolutely unprecedented speed, way past the current record set by the Ebola vaccine, which took about five years. More typical development times are ten years or more. But hold that thought while you peruse another news item today from J&J. They have an even more aggressive timeline proposed for their own vaccine work: they have already announced that they have a candidate, and they say that they plan first-in-human trials in September. Data will be available from those in December, and in January 2021 they say that they will have the first batches of vaccine ready for an FDA Emergency Use Authorization. Now that is shooting for the world record on both the scientific and regulatory fronts.

There is a rush, but it might be craziness. It was mentioned last night that sometimes vaccines actually make the disease worse and not better. We certainly do not want to risk that. Nor do we want to give people vaccines that cause long term problems.

I am skeptical a real treatment can be created in a year, a vaccine would be a miracle.

Here is info on the condition that can cause vaccines to assist the disease. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

 

[hoosboot]

There is a rush, but it might be craziness. It was mentioned last night that sometimes vaccines actually make the disease worse and not better. We certainly do not want to risk that. Nor do we want to give people vaccines that cause long term problems.

I am skeptical a real treatment can be created in a year, a vaccine would be a miracle.

Here is info on the condition that can cause vaccines to assist the disease. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

Yeah, the projections on when something could emerge are varying wildly. I believe the quickest vaccine to emerge from clinical trial is the Ebobla virus vaccine and that was something like a five year timeline. We're throwing a bunch of money at this and hoping for the best with a pretty unproven vaccine producer taking a very primary position in all this. I suspect that we'll have something in a much quicker than normal timeline, but that there will be a lot of issues arising from it that would have been smoothed out in a more deliberate process that we don't really have time for.

 

[hoot1]

Yes, but that is a temporary benefit. I'm not doubting its effectiveness, but COVID is going to continue spreading once lockdowns are lifted. It's a "Band Aid" solution.

From Martin Kulldorff, PhD, a biostatistician in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at the Brigham and Women's Hospital:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/29/delaying-herd-immunity-is-costing-lives/

Because of its virulence, wide spread and the many asymptomatic cases it causes, Covid-19 cannot be contained in the long run, and so all countries will eventually reach herd immunity. To think otherwise is naive and dangerous. General lockdown strategies can reduce transmission and death counts in the short term. But this strategy cannot be considered successful until lockdowns are removed without the disease resurging.

JDB, hoping we can do better than herd immunity as finally occurred with the Spanish Flu, as I understand it.

Anyhow, check this article out about why herd immunity won't.save lives.

 

[RedFan1]

JDB, hoping we can do better than herd immunity as finally occurred with the Spanish Flu, as I understand it.

Anyhow, check this article out about why herd immunity won't.save lives.

Sobering, but it makes sense. I guess what I'm wondering, or really hoping for, is that some combination of limited herd immunity (say 25% of population), more moderate, voluntary social distancing, summertime UV exposure increase and a handful of moderately effective treatments that at least shorten the amount of time that someone is contagious, would push the R0 enough under 1.0 to give the virus a chance to simply die out. I know I'm probably reaching, but thinking this way for me is much better than the alternative of hoping that we'll develop a safe vaccine in record time.

 

[82hoosier]

Years away? Fauci said yesterday that a coronavirus vaccine ready for wide distribution by January is doable.

Who are you going to listen to: Dr. Fauci or someone who goes by the name JamieDimonsBalls?

 

[hoot1]

Sobering, but it makes sense. I guess what I'm wondering, or really hoping for, is that some combination of limited herd immunity (say 25% of population), more moderate, voluntary social distancing, summertime UV exposure increase and a handful of moderately effective treatments that at least shorten the amount of time that someone is contagious, would push the R0 enough under 1.0 to give the virus a chance to simply die out. I know I'm probably reaching, but thinking this way for me is much better than the alternative of hoping that we'll develop a safe vaccine in record time.

Red, by relying on governors to set local standards your "limited herd immunity" approach may actually occur as I see it.

Indiana's governor is taking this a step further by giving local authorities options in terms of timing and lifting restrictions.

This entire pandemic challenge will hopefully give us information after being carefully reviewed by scientists unencumbered by politics can provide help in dealing with future biological attacks.

 

[Bowlmania]

Who are you going to listen to: Dr. Fauci or someone who goes by the name JamieDimonsBalls?

Thanks. I needed a laugh today and you came through for me!

 

[sglowrider]

There is a rush, but it might be craziness. It was mentioned last night that sometimes vaccines actually make the disease worse and not better. We certainly do not want to risk that. Nor do we want to give people vaccines that cause long term problems.

I am skeptical a real treatment can be created in a year, a vaccine would be a miracle.

Here is info on the condition that can cause vaccines to assist the disease. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

The last pandemic, MERs' vaccine hasn't even been distributed yet. And that happened eight years ago. I wouldn't want to be the first batch of people taking it. As some genius once said, you don't want the cure to be worse than the problem.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sobering, but it makes sense. I guess what I'm wondering, or really hoping for, is that some combination of limited herd immunity (say 25% of population), more moderate, voluntary social distancing, summertime UV exposure increase and a handful of moderately effective treatments that at least shorten the amount of time that someone is contagious, would push the R0 enough under 1.0 to give the virus a chance to simply die out. I know I'm probably reaching, but thinking this way for me is much better than the alternative of hoping that we'll develop a safe vaccine in record time.

Red, by relying on governors to set local standards your "limited herd immunity" approach may actually occur as I see it.

Indiana's governor is taking this a step further by giving local authorities options in terms of timing and lifting restrictions.

This entire pandemic challenge will hopefully give us information after being carefully reviewed by scientists unencumbered by politics can provide help in dealing with future biological attacks.

Just to underline this important point: there's no such thing as "limited herd immunity." As hoot's link points out, "herd immunity" is a state that a population reaches with respect to a disease when enough people have gained immunity that the disease is no longer able to spread easily. As such, there are only two paths to herd immunity:

1. Vaccinations
2. The epidemic runs its course

Having 25% of people immune isn't any sort of solution to anything. All it means is that 25% of the population got the disease.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

JDB, hoping we can do better than herd immunity as finally occurred with the Spanish Flu, as I understand it.

Anyhow, check this article out about why herd immunity won't.save lives.

I found that to be rather mediocre. If the majority of the 70% are young or healthy people, that significantly changes the issue. That’s what Sweden is attempting. I’ll be watching closely to see how it unfolds. It may very well fail but this isn’t a persuasive argument against herd immunity.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I found that to be rather mediocre. If the majority of the 70% are young or healthy people, that significantly changes the issue. That’s what Sweden is attempting. I’ll be watching closely to see how it unfolds. It may very well fail but this isn’t a persuasive argument against herd immunity.

The article you don't find persuasive literally addressed those very issues.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Who are you going to listen to: Dr. Fauci or someone who goes by the name JamieDimonsBalls?

Shit my track record is better than Fauci at this point. He’s been disappointing

 

[RedFan1]

Just to underline this important point: there's no such thing as "limited herd immunity." As hoot's link points out, "herd immunity" is a state that a population reaches with respect to a disease when enough people have gained immunity that the disease is no longer able to spread easily. As such, there are only two paths to herd immunity:

1. Vaccinations
2. The epidemic runs its course

Having 25% of people immune isn't any sort of solution to anything. All it means is that 25% of the population got the disease.

I appreciate your clarification and agree that limited herd immunity was a poor choice of words. Perhaps a better description for my thought process would've been limited societal resistance. That said, my point remains the same. It is my understanding that any combination of factors that will bring the R0 below 1 should eventually lead to the virus petering out, if that rate is maintained for a long enough duration. Clearly, mandatory social distancing has already reduced the effective R0 of this virus from the estimated "natural" R0 of 3 to something below 2. We know this because we are no longer seeing exponential growth in new cases. Sweden has achieved lest than 2 with mostly voluntary social distancing. While I understand that they have some cultural advantages, it isn't completely ridiculous to believe that we could do the same, especially in less densely populated cities/states. Next, there is some evidence to suggest that warmer, more humid weather will further reduce the R0, although to what degree is uncertain. If a handful of imperfect but workable drug therapies that shortened the duration of a carrier being contagious are brought to market, then what percentage of the active population must have resistance in order to drive that R0 below 1? At an R0 of 3, you need 70% of the total population to achieve herd immunity. But if you have reduced the effective R0 to around 1, which would be characterized statistically by perfect linear new case growth, which is pretty close to what we are seeing, then a much smaller amount of immunity building up within the populace, especially those who are unable to substantially adhere to voluntary social distancing measures, could do the trick, could it not?

 

[UncleMark]

Next, there is some evidence to suggest that warmer, more humid weather will further reduce the R0, although to what degree is uncertain.

I really do wish people would quit repeating this. Singapore and Australia would beg to differ.

 

[RedFan1]

I really do wish people would quit repeating this. Singapore and Australia would beg to differ.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not stipulating that the impact is drastic. It clearly isn't, as you have so aptly stated. However, I have read the results of several studies that suggest that the R0 of this virus is slightly lower in warmer climates. Obviously, not enough on its own to reduce the rate of transmission below exponential growth. That said, it doesn't mean that some incremental improvement in R0 doesn't exist. That would actually be illogical for a respiratory illness of this type. This one has yet to be peer reviewed, but it is not the only study I've seen on the topic. It was simply the easiest for me to find: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3551767

 

[UncleMark]

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not stipulating that the impact is drastic. It clearly isn't, as you have so aptly stated. However, I have read the results of several studies that suggest that the R0 of this virus is slightly lower in warmer climates. Obviously, not enough on its own to reduce the rate of transmission below exponential growth. That said, it doesn't mean that some incremental improvement in R0 doesn't exist. That would actually be illogical for a respiratory illness of this type. This one has yet to be peer reviewed, but it is not the only study I've seen on the topic. It was simply the easiest for me to find: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3551767

Fair enough. Nevertheless, I still wish even reasonable, intelligent, well read people like yourself would quit referring to this. Why? Because it just gives ammunition to the "come summer it will all go away, like a miracle" nutbars.

 

[hoot1]

In reading the Holcomb plan I see that we may experience a version of the "herd immunity" approach whether some of us like it or not.

Let us face it, opening up the economy is way more politically acceptable than hunkering down as many scientists have been advocating.

In my view we shouldn't rush opening up the economy until we can test just about everyone and ignoring the possibility of a second wave could give us repeat of the Spanish flu disaster.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Who are you going to listen to: Dr. Fauci or someone who goes by the name JamieDimonsBalls?

Are you willing to take January or under? I'll gladly take the over in a charitable bet. Time to put your money where your fingers are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/health/coronavirus-vaccine-supplies.html

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

More interesting research:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/05/new-m...utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

https://jvi.asm.org/content/jvi/early/2020/04/30/JVI.00711-20.full.pdf

Out of the 382 nasal swab samples the researchers examined from coronavirus patients in the state, a single sample was missing a significant chunk of its genome. Eighty-one of the letters were permanently deleted, according to the new study published in the Journal of Virology.

“One of the reasons why this mutation is of interest is because it mirrors a large deletion that arose in the 2003 SARS outbreak,” Lim said in a statement.

During the middle and late phases of the 2003 SARS epidemic, the virus accumulated mutations that lessened its strength, according to the researchers.

“Where the deletion occurs in the genome is pretty meaningful because it’s a known immune protein which means it counteracts the host’s antiviral response,” Lim told the Daily Mail.

A weakened virus that causes less severe symptoms may get a leg up if it is able to spread efficiently through populations by people who don’t know they are infected, the scientists say.