Wear a freaking mask already

Sure. In a modern global economy it’s more complicated. But heterogeneity of each area does impact the threshold in that area.

Do we also agree there have indeed been pandemics ended by herd immunity? The “never been herd immunity “ talking point has been bandied about since this thing started and I don’t know how it can be with a straight face. Most believe humans have been around 200,000 years coexisting with viruses that predate humanity by eons. I know this isn’t your idea so I’m not being snarky to you, but with the first viral vaccine being developed in 1796, the claim no viral pandemic in human history ended with natural herd immunity is patently absurd. In fact I provided an example of the Spanish flu that ended with natural herd immunity after the discovery of viral vaccines. I don’t know who came up with the talking point but they were very uninformed on evolutionary biology, virology/immunology, and human history. Sorry to rant in your post, but this bothers me as much as the claim C19 is “just the flu”.

I’m sorry I assume when Sweden is used as an example the entire situation is understood. I should have been more clear. When I referenced protecting the aged it’s more than just rest homes. I suggest this is read to explain what’s going on in Sweden. It’s interesting from a universal healthcare pro/con standpoint as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...rly-families-blame-the-government-11592479430

Basically Sweden has not been treating aged C19 patients at all. Almost 90% of deaths are over 70 years of age, most received only palliative care. The mistake Sweden made is in handling of the aged population. Part is mismanagement of care homes but it’s in hospital settings as well. They wrote off the elderly in their march towards herd immunity. Undoubtedly that’s a mistake but it doesn’t mean the whole theory is stupid. Such assumption is analogous to saying capitalism is stupid because we allowed it to breed oligarchy in the US.

Ok. I believe when it’s all said and done herd immunity will occur well under 70% but in the context of this discussion I’m just quibbling to go there. My point is it’s prudent to design that 25% natural immunity to cause as few deaths as possible. We can’t do that if we refuse to discuss the issue openly.

Yes, known obvious defined underlying conditions. But to claim no correlation is to claim study participants who showed no heart abnormalities were just “lucky”. There is a reason some people sustained damage and some didn’t. Shouldn’t we be trying to figure out what that reason is instead of just denying some underlying condition not codified in the study is at play?

Like I said, i have an open mind and anxiously await further studies and follow ups on those with heart irregularities after C19.

I haven’t put enough effort into research to say one way or the other. But at some point drug abuse, non treatment and diagnosis of numerous health conditions under lockdown, suicide, etc. are going to overshadow the direct effects of the virus. Especially as we continue to see case fatality rates fall. Which they will continue to do because most places have already lost the most vulnerable individuals. The fact effects of infection and even lack of infection after exposure varies so much in the population is further evidence heterogeneity can’t be discounted when calculating herd immunity thresholds.

Yes I see your point and agree fever is often most indicative of more severe adverse reactions. I was looking at it from the perspective of inducing trepidation in skeptical candidates. Skeptics are more swayed negatively by say 13 cases of myalgia and 10 of headache than one low grade fever. From a scientific perspective you are 100% correct though.

Concur on likely less stellar results with larger more diverse pools. Also happy it appears to be a good vaccine.

Of course nobody wants to attempt herd immunity in immunocompromised populations. We wouldn’t want to use the Novavax vaccine indiscriminately on candidates with severe known saponin allergies either. Common sense must be a factor. If I was in charge I’d be very careful about vaccination of infected or recovering C19 patients with a saponin adjuvant as they upregulate cytokines. Hopefully that’s being considered.

Ok, I got ahead of myself and address percentages above.

But you don’t believe anywhere near 25% natural immunity exists anywhere, correct? (I do, but that’s another discussion for another day) So how do you propose we get there? I suggest a strategic approach.

I’m not sure what constitutes amazing. I just know different boroughs have varying compliance and Queens is somewhere around 20%. There no conceivable way that is keeping infections minuscule compared to May when masks use was being actively enforced and lockdowns were in effect.

One of these days I’m going to dig further into this but I know for a fact mask mandates are often implemented after cases are already falling precipitously. Case in point is NYC. Their cases were falling drastically before their mask mandate. And rates of decrease did not change after mask mandates.

To be clear, I’m not anti mask. Like you, I think they (and other protective devices like goggles etc.) are underutilized if we are serious about preventing infections. They have their place. But I won’t pretend they alone are responsible for changing rates of infection when clearly many times rates were decreasing ahead of mandates and didn’t fall faster after mandates. Every situation is different, but the time to take masks seriously is early, not after infection rates have already peaked and are falling.

I’m not surprised. Statins decrease mortality independent of cholesterol regulation when used for cardiovascular purposes and as far as I know we don’t understand the mechanisms. But it is logical they would be beneficial since cardiovascular metrics are so involved in C19 progression and death. Excellent news. Thanks for sharing it. I heard theories about statins way back in the spring but hadn’t heard anything since.

 

Biden says it’s patriotic to wear a mask - to protect others.
That’s leadership.

Trump encourages people NOT to wear a mask.

It sounds like you agree with Biden on this.

 

Examples?

 

Temporarily maybe, but like I said in a country like ours where people move around a lot...

No, maybe you're not considering it the right way. In the case of H1N1, the 1918 pandemic died out in two years when 40% of the population where the virus was spreading had been naturally infected. But it comes back (that is, strains of H1N1) as the susceptible population through new birth grows beyond the threshold. The same was true for all the previous influenza pandemics like the 1957 Asian flu, and the 1968 Hong Kong influenza. During the pre-vaccinations days, measles used to strike once in three years and German measles every seven years. [/quote]

Well, I'm not going back 200,000 years ago, that would be plain impossible to do given the lack of recorded history. Maybe I should rephrase, in recorded human history. The point where you and I are diverging is simply the one of how you say something has ended. ONE wave of a viral pandemic may have ended by herd immunity but the problem is, it pops back up. Eradication of these diseases was only achieved with vaccines.

I hope that my explanation above has clarified the issue.

Point well taken. I was unaware of this. I apologize for not being as up to date. I've been busier lately - guess why? My county is getting another surge of COVID-19 and my hospital has been busier.

My point is to minimize that 25% as much as possible and vaccinate as many people as possible. That's the strategy that saves lives, unlike what covidiot-in-chief Dr. Scott Atlas wants. Look, I know that their model is controversial but the University of Washington IHME has stated that we could get to 410,000 deaths by the end of the year if mask use decreases... but get this, we could get to 620,000 if all precautions are tossed off the window. So, that means, an additional 210,000 deaths. I mean, I've always felt that the IHME tends to overstate things and Duke University's study has berated their methodology. So it's probably not this many for the very reason you've been saying, that the outbreak has cherry-picked a lot, already. So, let's cut their numbers to say, two thirds. Could the end of precautions, which is basically what covidiot Scott Atlas wants, result in 140,000 additional deaths? It's definitely not impossible which is why I think it's quasi-criminal. First of all, out of what authority or expertise he's making this push? The man is a freaking radiologist!!!

Now about the Herd Immunity Threshold, you know, the calculation also takes into account *susceptible* populations and it is still poorly understood what susceptible means, for the SARS-CoV-2 so I *also* don't exclude that the Herd Immunity Threshold is way lower than your run-of-the-mill epidemiologist calculates. While of course I value epidemiologists, I don't always think that they have the best understanding of clinical and immunological issues. They tend to get an R naught number and run with it and plot it to populations as if everybody is susceptible the same way. There are more sophisticated models that take into account an ever-evolving susceptibility situation. You and I have talked about a number of things, like vitamin D levels, blood type, ACE2 levels, of course underlying conditions, and it is not excluded that some people have just lamented how weak they were in terms of their immune system because they seemed to get the common cold so easily that if someone with it coughed two blocks away they were getting it (as a way of speaking), without realizing how lucky they are, because it's been said that if someone has been repeatedly exposed to coronavirus-caused common colds (20% of the common colds are by coronaviruses) the person has some sort of cross-immunity that dampens the severity of COVID-19. So, yes, the HIT could be lower.

Of course we should be trying to figure it out, which is why they've recommended a larger study. I don't know of anybody doing one, yet. But 78% is such a huge number (even though it's out of only 100 people) that this study can't be understood as anything other than concerning. I mean, even if we figure out what protected the 22% who didn't get the heart involvement, in terms of the population at large, it wouldn't be a lot of consolation for public health, id only 22% of people were immune to the heart damage. And again, like I've been saying, the heart is not the only organ. What if the people who, say, don't get the heart damage, end up being more susceptible for say, cognitive damage? Not fully knowing how devastating this disease may be in the long run for people who survived the acute phase just fine with mild symptoms, and once severe organ damages started showing up in studies and case reports sometimes in youngish and healthy-ish people, whoa, the covidiot known as Scott Atlas should think twice before pushing for people to be overexposed in the vain hope of getting the HIT. I'll tell you what, I'm prepared to bet that as a freaking radiologist his understanding of HIT is likely to be pretty primitive, which is why Fauci and Birx were irritated with him and clashing with him, because those two know a lot more about it.

Me too, and I'd add, until it is fully understood, maybe we should be prudent and NOT go for the herd immunity concept.

I'm not in favor of going back to lockdowns... I'm in favor of taking sensible precautions and NOT trying the Herd Immunity approach. Now, there are two things you're not considering.

One, that allowing the virus to spread unchecked in our supposedly less susceptible populations can ALSO lead to despair and suicide, from people who lose loved ones. Think of a happily married couple, and one of them dies of this. Think of the wife of that guy Nick Cordero who lost her husband in the prime age of 41 and is now the sole parent of a young boy, with her beloved husband no longer among us. Think of the psychological damage for the boy. Think of the worst possible pain a human being can experience, that of a parent losing a child, because yes, there's been deaths among children from Covid-19, although rare - but what if, a few years down the road, it's not so rare if people start developing heart failure? Think of the depression and guilt some teenagers have ALREADY expressed because they went out and partied, feeling invincible, got an asymptomatic case, but then spread it to a parent or a grandparent who then, died. This is the kind of thing that can perfectly push a teenager to suicide, in the midst of overwhelming grief and guilt. "I was stupid and I killed dad" is a pretty heavy thing for a teenager to experience. This is one predictable consequence of the push for herd immunity by the covidiot Scott Atlas, because the idea that we'll just "protect the susceptible" is defeated by the large number of Americans with underlying conditions, so his idea that we should push kids to practice contact sports and schools to reopen with minimum precautions so that the virus circulates more for more herd immunity... will inevitably result in some of these kids being the vectors of a disease that will kill some of their loved ones. Say a father has pretty significant but undiagnosed hypertension... doesn't qualify as the kind of people Atlas would try to protect (I'm still to see how he plans to do that, though), the man's teenage son plays for a college football team... gets Covid... it goes to his father and boom, his undiagnosed hypertension does him in, with a bad case of Covid-19 that becomes critical, then fatal. Great, huh?

Two, that there is NOTHING more destructive to the economy than NOT controlling an outbreak of a pretty scary disease, especially, if evidence of severe damage to survivors becomes more and more understood and diffused to the lay population. Not only because consumer confidence sinks, but because the burden of disease, disability, lost productivity, costs of treating long-term damage, and curtailed life span could become a generational drag for the economy, much worse in total dollars than the damage caused by the lockdowns.

I mean, if the covidiot known as Scott Atlas prevails and the young people become widely infected, *I'm* not about to go to a restaurant and have my table waited on by a young adult who would be saying, "Hi, thanks for coming to our restaurant, my name is Scott (pun intended) and I'll be your server tonight; I recommend our special, soft-shell crab, with a side of coronavirus." Thanks, but no, thanks. I'll stay home. That's how the economy gets in trouble, too.

Good point and one that I made up there in this response, too, but don't count too much on the case fatality rates falling, OK? We've seen them down then up, before. Remember, we are now entering the risk of the twindemic when the flu adds to the trouble. Remember, the second and third waves of the Spanish flu killed way more people than the first one. This is not over yet. I'll be reassured once it's over.

Yes, I am. But it's indeed an uphill battle since lay people have weird notions, and sometimes are very irrational around vaccines. Like I said a few times (you may have seen my use of this favorite analogy) close to 100% of people (not 100% because there are always the thrill-seeking candidates for the Darwin Award) would take road A if they were facing a choice between road A and road B to get to their destination, both about the same length and taking the same time to drive thought, but road B had a reputation for causing the death of 1 in 100 drivers traveling through it due to avalanches and whatnot, while road A had a reputation for being very safe, with only 1 in 200,000 people dying when traveling through it. Still, when faced to similar odds and picking between a vaccine and natural exposure to a dangerous infection, a bunch of people pick the natural exposure instead... go figure.

Agreed.

Similarly to egg-free influenza vaccines for those allergic to eggs, I'm sure that something can be worked out, with a batch being made with a different adjuvant.

It seems like serology surveys have found only a few places close to that number. How do I propose we get there? Through a massive educational campaign to convince people to accept a vaccine, and through trying to get the vaccine with the highest possible efficacy/best safety.

Continues below, I've exceed character limit

 

Continued from above

They just said "it's amazing how people have been compliant; almost everybody has a mask everywhere." It is true that they live in Manhattan and they've probably been avoiding any unnecessary travel to the other burroughs.

I'm not sure about that. I seem to remember that in Kansas the 15 states that implemented mask mandates saw a sharp decline in rates (the word used in the articles was "steep," after the mandate went into effect (given the usual delay of a couple of weeks). Not to forget, the other 90 counties DIDN'T see any dip; wouldn't they be seeing dips too if natural decline of the contagion was the decisive factor? But again, like I said, I've been too busy to keep up with everything.

Certainly prevention is better than trying to catch up to a bad situation, especially in the case of the spread of an infectious disease given that the more cases you have, the more transmission occurs to others (as in, quarantines and contact tracing can be effective initially, but not when community spread is everywhere).

Yes, interesting drugs that have been shown to decrease mortality for other diseases too, not just for cardiovascular disease.

 

@557

Some more from the covidiot Scott Atlas.. I have trouble calling him a doctor...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-n...-white-house-pandemic-response-200528324.html

Seems very similar to how Trump approaches stuff (quoting misleading and FALSE stats, for example, as per the last paragraphs of the article about the debunked false European stat about excess deaths). No wonder Trump loves him.

See this part:

"Confronted by the BBC interviewer regarding his lack of expertise, Atlas lashed out. “You know, I have to laugh at that,” he said, adding that it was “sort of silly” to think a virologist or immunologist was needed to deal with the pandemic."

Huh, yeah, "Doctor" Atlas, indeed, a virologist and an immunologist understand this situation WAAAAAAAAAAAY better than you do. That's not silly AT ALL. Stay on your lane! Go do your neuroimaging and leave infectious diseases to the experts, please.

Why is it that the more of an idiot someone is, the more arrogant he also is??

And see this, 557. Another study showing heart damage (so, yes, it seems like this WILL tend to get confirmed, as more people look into it):

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.25.265561v1

It's pretty darn scary... from the author: “I’m not a scientist who likes to stoke these things [but] I did not sleep, honestly, while we were finishing this paper and putting it out there.”

I got this quote from this lay press article about the study; they also say that people are actually starting to look for cardiac MRIs to see if they got the damage (which could explain the prolonged shortness of breath, on top of pulmonary fibrosis, if the ejection fraction is suffering.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/04/carnage-in-lab-dish-shows-how-coronavirus-may-damage-heart/

"raising the specter of heart failure for patients as they grow older and their hearts become weaker. Patients who heard about that German study are asking for cardiac MRIs, Parikh said."

By the way, the correction to the stats in the German study that the lay article mentions, I've been through them; they are very minor and don't affect the main points (there is basically only one correlation that changed). Here, from the authors (my highlight):

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2770026

"We are pleased to confirm that reanalysis of the data has not led to a change in the main conclusions of the study. As we originally reported, compared with healthy controls and risk factor–matched controls, patients recently recovered from COVID-19 had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher left ventricle volume, and elevated values of T1 and T2. However, the corrected findings no longer show higher left ventricular mass in these patients. We confirm that there are no other errors. The errors and corrections affect the Abstract, Methods and Results sections, Tables, and Figures, and the article has been corrected online. We most sincerely apologize to the readers and editors of JAMA Cardiology for any confusion, and we appreciate the opportunity to correct the original publication."

Still, it's unfortunate when this happens, because people who want to discredit science jump on this, not realizing that this is actually positive: the scientific community is vigilant and things get corrected when they are not completely right. Still, the meaning of this study remains absolutely the same.

 

Heterogeneity involves more than people moving around. I know you understand this, but someone infected moving to where I live has minuscule consequences compared to them moving into a studio apartment in NYC. Here they probably would work alone outdoors as compared to working indoors with many people in NY. That’s why different herd immunity thresholds differing geographically and demographically work at the macro level even though people move around. In models using heterogeneity to determine thresholds, movement is baked into the pie.

Sorry, on this point you are incorrect. Herd immunity is not viral eradication. I covered that clearly before. I explained the difference between eradication and ending of a pandemic. Herd immunity ended the 1918-20 Spanish Flu pandemic. Smallpox and Rinderpest have been eradicated. We can talk about eradication or herd immunity but I have no interest in conflating the two. We started out on herd immunity so let’s stick to that and not move the goalposts. I already said genetic remnants of Spanish flu are still around and you are correct on Hong Kong flu as well. It’s still killing people. But the Spanish Flu pandemic ended with herd immunity. Period. To claim otherwise you would have to change the definitions of “herd immunity” and/or “pandemic”.

Eradication of what diseases? None of the diseases we’ve discussed so far are eradicated. Only two viral diseases have been eradicated in recorded history (with vaccines) and I introduced them in this post. The diseases we’ve discussed previously (Influenza viruses) were at one time pandemic. Then they weren’t as a result of herd immunity. You can’t keep redefining herd immunity as eradication.

You refer to herd immunity being accomplished by 50% vaccination and 25% natural infection to stop the current pandemic. That will not eradicate SARS-CoV-2. Nor will it eradicate Covid 19. Yet you refer to it as herd immunity.

In contrast, when we discuss herd immunity in relation to Spanish Flu you insist herd immunity doesn’t exist without eradication of the virus or the disease. You ignore the fact herd immunity stops pandemics, it doesn’t eliminate infectious agents or the resultant disease. You can’t redefine terms to suit your argument.

I’m starting to be concerned people believe a vaccine induced (or natural or combination natural/vaccine) herd immunity will eradicate SARS-CoV-2. That is highly unlikely. Certainly in the near future (as in next few years). Grannies will still get infected. People will still die. But the pandemic will end with herd immunity. Again, herd immunity/end of pandemic DOES NOT equal eradication of infectious agent or resultant disease.

It’s becoming clear herd immunity and disease eradication are misunderstood concepts today. I blame the media for conflating the two.

Well, you are treating the aged as well as the young, unlike Sweden. So you would be busier! .

The situation in Sweden is complicated. The silly sound bites about it being a failure on herd immunity are all made in ignorance of what actually occurred and is occurring there. We can’t just look at a couple graphs and draw conclusions about herd immunity dangers or anything else. Again, media is at fault in my opinion. These talking points seem to appear first there and then spread to the forum.

Careful, I’m a bovine/equine/camelid/etc. doctor! Lol I’m on board with minimizing the 25% natural as well. But it’s looking more and more like even progressives and modern liberals aren’t going to take one unless Harris/Biden win the election. This thing has been so politicized now half the country won’t take a vaccine no matter what happens.

I agree with everything here. I’ll take the opportunity to pimp the idea we can all do a better job strengthening our immune systems and avoiding known comorbidities. I know my aerobic exercise has trailed off the last couple years so I’ve started running again.

Just my gut feeling but I believe at some point we will figure out what protects the 22% and it won’t be anything profound. Maybe the statin discovery will lead us to some answers.

Let’s hope there isn’t a lot of cognitive damage. I shudder to think what that would mean to our forum here. LOL

Sounds to me like if Atlas really was pushing for natural infections it’s been nipped in the bud.

I don’t think we should go for natural herd immunity either. But I think it’s going to be part of the equation whether we want it to be or not.

Good points. I’ll add that to my considerations. To get further into what I brought up about undiagnosed and untreated disease during lockdowns when people wouldn’t go to the doctor/hospital do you know if that surge is hitting the industry yet?

I don’t know why if one is concerned about infection they wouldn’t eat at home period.

I believe CFR will fall for two reasons. One, the most susceptible to severe C19 are either dead or “recovered“ (obviously recovered is subjective). Two, we are discovering better treatments all the time such as statins you brought up today. Oh, and CFR is independent of infection rate. I believe infection rates could increase in some areas in the winter but they will fall in others. Southern states will see less infections, northern states more on average. Infection rates may drive total deaths higher but I see no reason for CFR’s to not continue to fall.

 

Yes, you supplied me with that analogy when we first discussed vaccines. It’s a strong analogy. But facts are facts and we have to deal with irrationality. Now people are saying they won’t take a vaccine based on who’s president. They can’t research the vaccine, the developers, or the trials that have already been completed. They just assume it’s bad because of the President in office. There are probably some who would take one “from” Trump but not Biden. Bizarre to me not to base your decision on facts about the vaccine in question. Just as irrational as not trusting a vaccine because it causes some myalgia or headaches.

I don’t think it’s a big deal on the allergy side. I was just using it as an example of using common sense. However, upregulating cytokines with saponin adjuvants concerns me with this disease. Vaccination of an infected person could be very bad. We need rapid antigen testing. This adjuvant is awesome by the way. I’m actually a fan and I generally hate adjuvants.

Ok. Serological antibody surveys miss a lot of previously infected individuals because of documented cases of antibody fade and even recovery from C19 without formation of any antibodies. Also the cross reactivity of coronavirus T cells must be accounted for at this point I think.


It’s going to have to be a miraculous campaign to appeal to such a diametrically opposed partisan populace. I wish y’all luck. I’m glad it’s not my responsibility.

 

Or don't let them into Costco. Whichever works better.

 

I believe what I read Manhattan had better compliance than some others. I used Queens because of low compliance, high previous rates of infections, and low rates now.

I won’t comment on KS because I haven’t researched it. But in NYC my case is sound. Rates fell precipitously before mask mandate and did not accelerate downward after. Now with very little compliance, rates remain low.

Agreed.

It’s been awhile since I’ve read much about them. We probably know more specifics about modes of action now, I should do some digging I suppose. Thanks for the discussion.

 

Lol!

But shopping at Costco is more punishment than reward under the best of circumstances.

 

Its not a punishment if you want 50 ice cream bars in a big box.

 

Agreed. I should also have highlighted something that you know about but some people don't: the R naught number is not written in stone. It depends on factors such as population density, environmental factors, and what kind of epidemiological precautions people take or are able to take, so it varies according to geographic areas and types of population, and even seasons. HIT being calculated by reversing the R naught, it varies when the R naught varies. So, in certain neighborhoods in São Paulo, Brazil, the R naught for the SARS-CoV-2 was calculated to be as high as 12 which approaches measles numbers, while it can be as low as something like 2 or even lower in less densely populated areas where the population is social distancing, etc. This is the danger that afflicts lay people when they run wild with a concept they don't understand or only superficially understand.

Here, this is a very good explanation that clarifies this issue:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6302597/

You are 100% correct. I apologize. I did move the goalposts and I feel kind of dishonest. You caught me being less than honest, twice now, the first one being my reluctance in discussing ADE. Again, I mean well, but it's no excuse, it's the same thing I blame Fauci for when he said that masks don't protect the wearer. It was with good intention but still a lie and it hurts credibility. I guess I'm terrified with this push for herd immunity and sometimes will overdo in my attempt to show to people that it's not a good idea so I started with herd immunity and ended with eradication... which is terrible because yes, of course they are not the same concept. OK, let's rephrase. Waves of pandemics have ended with natural herd immunity but this was insufficient to eradicate a disease (which in rare cases was achieved with widespread vaccination) so in most cases it kept popping back up and became endemic.

In the name of honesty - and I hate to do that - let me catch up to my previous mistake and provide an article that discusses ADE among other forms of vaccine-induced enhancement (hopefully not too many will read it, haha):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7131326/

I'll snip the rest of your post on this given that I've already conceded the point and everything else you said on this is correct, so if people want the correct version they should read 557, not CenterField, LOL.

Agreed. Like I said, even I gobbled it up without ever looking closely like you did, at what pushed up Sweden's death rate. On the other hand, it's also been said that the idea that Sweden shows that not taking any precautions is not harmful, ignores that Sweden is less densely populate, and has a very disciplined population and a lot of people there *did* implement epidemiological containment such as social distancing and working from home, and the government there did ask for these things (didn't mandate them but asked for them), and school closing did occur, just, not for all age groups. So, maybe they death rate got inflated by mistakes made regarding the elderly, but it may have been also deflated by a lot of disciplined and well-educated people (which are characteristics of the Swede) having taken precautions even without the country going into full lockdown.

You understand the science and you are used to vaccines. I would be much more optimistic if you were the White House advisor rather than covidiot Scott Atlas.

It's a pity, and it will be our undoing as a nation. I expect that this pandemic AND its economic consequences when we start having to face the costs of long-term organ damage, will do away with our world leadership and economic stability, because for a generation we'll be weakened by our own stupidity.

Very true. I've also increased the healthy side of my diet, going back to eating a more Mediterranean diet, and I've been swimming in our swimming pool after work, for more exercise (while before I only used the pool in weekends). I'm also ordering a pool heater to extend the season, something I had felt was unnecessary before, but now I want to keep swimming for as long as possible.

Agreed.

Nah, don't worry. It won't make a difference because... I won't say more. It would be a rule violation and I'd be in trouble with the mods.

Has it? Why? I haven't heard. Again, I haven't paid that much attention, too busy.

I only advocate for not intentionally going there (by tossing the precautions off the window) and especially not promoting more infection (by increasing contact sports, reopening schools without precautions, etc - by the way, I'm for reopening schools but WITH extensive precautions, I've listed what should be done).

Yes, of course.

Which is what happening so the pandemic hits the economy even without lockdowns (which by the way I read that is happening in Sweden too, although now I'm weary fo saying anything about Sweden since obviously I don't know so well what is happening there).

Yes, I made both points in another thread yesterday.

Agreed. And kudos on being the only poster here who can actually spot it when I'm being less than honest, haha.

 

No need to comment further as I agree 100% with all of the above.

 

It looks like there is some fire to go with the smoke on Atlas. I still mistrust media when most of the content is hearsay and they attempt to use other news sources as evidence, never linking to video or published statements by Atlas in context. To be clear that bothers me if it’s Trump’s people or AOC or Pelosi. Don’t feed me what they supposedly said. Give me the whole thing in context or write about something else. That said, I certainly don’t support use of false statistics by the administration.

I dunno, but it’s often the case.

Loved the study. That’s my kind of research. Digging into the nuts and bolts looking for answers. The study supports things both of us have stated in the past. You were correct direct infection of cardiomyocytes can occur and cause damage. There is also support for my theory that damage can occur without direct infection, especially in endothelial cells. I thought the study was very clear and concise stating in some cases of autopsy there was CM damage without presence of viral RNA. I was a bit surprised at the commentary of a doctor not part of the study confusing that issue in the press release. He is of course correct in the cell line research but not in translation to in vivo observations. I guess it’s neither here nor there, just more evidence actual studies are better information than commentary from the peanut gallery. Exactly your point with Atlas.

Thanks for sharing that. When I brought up correlations earlier it was just my innate curiosity of wanting to be able to scrutinize individuals not just complete data sets. I didn’t realize there was an error. I guess it’s good news there is less abnormality of the upper left ventricle. Unfortunately all the other abnormalities are confirmed. I think the scientific community does a good job policing stuff like this. If journalism and politics did the same due diligence our poor country would be in much better shape.

 

His statements exist in editorials he himself authored. It's not controversial that he did say the things he is being accused of saying. He did. The only thing is that he denied that he repeated these ideas to Trump, which is frankly entirely and absolutely hard to believe. Obviously, he is denying this because it doesn't interest the Trump campaign to allow the public to know that his most beloved adviser on this (despite said adviser having NO expertise whatsoever in these matters) is telling him that it is a good idea to implement measures that will expose people intentionally, knowingly and willingly. Can you image suburban moms realizing that when Trump pushes for schools to reopen and sports to resume, he is trying to get their beloved offspring infected, because he believed in the BS pushed onto him by this quack??? Votes for Trump will go up in smoke. So, I'm not surprising that he is denying it, it's called plausible deniability. But it makes no sense that these things he firmly believes in, are NOT what he is telling Trump behind closed doors.

I think it has to do with a personality disorder. Narcissism. They think they are smarter than everybody else. Same thing that Trump thinks, the "stable genius" who knows better than the generals, the scientists, etc.

Agreed.

Exactly. The scientific community does a superb job with this. It goes above and beyond the peer-review process (typically done by a couple of people before publication; but then, the published paper gets scrutinized hundreds and hundreds of experts and often they spot things that the peer-reviewers have missed). But contrary to what the anti-science folks think, this makes science MORE reliable, not less. The detractors say, "this study was fraudulent (or mistaken) and was retracted (or corrected), that means all studies could be fraudulent (or mistaken) therefore can't be trusted." What it really means is that it is darn difficult for a fraudulent or mistaken study to survive the scrutiny of the scientific community, so the ones that HAVE survived are pretty darn reliable, are not fraudulent and not mistaken, therefore they can trusted! With an open mind for additional criticism, of course, but WITHOUT a closed mind saying that it is absolutely certain that all science is tainted.

 

Start with Trump mocking Biden for wearing a mask

 

Dang, I hadn’t heard about that R naught in Brazil. That’s insane. What are they doing down there, French kissing everyone they see?

Very good. Hopefully everyone reads these links.

As I said, for some reason the concept of herd immunity has been corrupted from the beginning of this pandemic. I don’t know why but it seems to be a coordinated effort in the media.
I don’t perceive any dishonesty in our discourse. I see it as the two of us drilling down to the truth. You’ve helped me see my mistakes in how I perceive the pandemic’s effect on mental health and the healthcare sector. Even though we both operate from an independent standpoint in partisan politics it’s impossible to not be affected by it all swirling around us.

I really believe if ADE was going to be a factor in C19 we would have some solid evidence now. I’ve not seen any. First, convalescent serum and plasma prophylaxis and treatment hasn’t induced ADE. Second, there are so many different vaccines now in vivo in geographic locations with high rates of infections we should see something by now. Third, existence of cross reactivity in T cells from previous coronavirus infections not appearing to cause more severe C19 cases. All the evidence I’ve seen on cross reactivity is positive in nature.

Perhaps now I’m being too sanguine and dismissing potential for a problem down the road. There is the case of reinfection we discussed briefly that had more severe symptoms than the initial infection, but as it involved a mutated version the second time around we can’t assume ADE was in play. Am I missing something?

I don’t want to overlook the valid points you made on disease eradication. It’s important to discuss as it may be a goal in the future. I agree 100% that widespread vaccination is the only way to accomplish eradication. That would be a huge undertaking but maybe sensible if the heart issues etc. turn out to be prevalent and permanent in young healthy people.

For it to work, not just here but globally, there is going to have to be some political healing and “trust capital” reinjected into society. I was watching video of law enforcement physically ending Covid protests in Australia tonight while I milked cows. You don’t recover trust from that overnight if you want everyone to get vaccinated.

Also, I spent a little time reading comments on Facebook posts about vaccination here Nov.1. Looks like progressives, liberals, Dems., Reps., independents, and Trumpers all mostly opposed. Even saw some of my acquaintances who are hard core GOP Trump voters say things like “hell no, are you crazy?” All this will have to be addressed here and globally if eradication is ever a goal. Anyway, I’m glad you brought it up though because it’s not to early to strategize.

I’m certain you are correct on Swede’s mitigation efforts on the positive side. And I would never claim the herd immunity approach isn’t going to result in more deaths than an approach 100% based on infection avoidance. It’s just logic that there will be more deaths from C19 if herd immunity is tried even protecting and treating the elderly. But back to our discussion on excess deaths long term from other related but not direct C19 deaths, it’s not a simple formula or one we can even formulate until it’s all over.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but they couldn’t print enough money to get me there regardless of who’s president.

Well, you and I haven’t discussed politics much, but I’ve come to the conclusion it’s a concerted effort by the two major parties to maintain and increase control of the citizenry. They don’t really care which side you pick, just so you pick a side. To butcher, corrupt, and paraphrase, “a people divided are easily controlled and divested of the fruits of their labors”. They have leveraged C19 to further this aim. What we read here on PF daily shows most are willing participants in maintaining the divisions that drive us further from public servant leadership towards authoritarian rule.

This pandemic has really made me think more about personal health. Even though I’ve always been very healthy (thanks to my parent’s parenting ability in large part) it’s made me realize how much better I can do. And I’m not particularly concerned about getting Covid. I can’t understand why in the last 6 months people haven’t done more to protect themselves by living healthier lives. I’ve broached the subject here a few times since spring and it’s mostly ambivalence with some outrage at the idea we should take any personal responsibility.

Yeh, I think we understand each other. Probably the mods do too. LOL. Hats off to them for herding this bunch of cats.

It just looks to me like there is enough pushback from the public the herd immunity idea has nowhere to go.

I see no sense in intentional infection either and concur with your thoughts on schools. With one caveat. I’m no fan of our primary education system to begin with.

Thanks. That has to weigh heavy on the minds of healthcare workers.

I’m no expert on Sweden. I just know more than journalists and that’s a low bar. I’ll have to look more into their economy and spending habits post Covid.

Lowering CFR with better treatments may make our problem with reluctant vaccine candidates less relevant. Especially if we figure out how to effect recovery without damage to hearts, lungs, blood vessels, etc.

 

A very sensible article about herd immunity and its perils:

https://news.yahoo.com/why-a-herd-i...-19-could-be-a-deadly-disaster-153057073.html

 

It’s sensible but contains a lot of misleading information.

 

A lot? I re-read it and the only one I could spot is the assumption that we've only had 6 million infections; that doesn't count the ones we've missed, although I absolutely do not subscribe to the theory that we are missing 9 out of 10 cases for various reasons I've explained elsewhere (in the long "tracking / US / Italy / German" thread; it would be tedious to repeat my reasoning here but it's there. I think it's more likely that we're missing two cases out of three, which would mean we've had 18 million cases.

The article is sober on Sweden (more than I was once you opened my eyes) so what is that you are seeing that contains a lot of misleading information? Because it says we can reach it with vaccines? We can, if the vaccine is as good as the preliminary studies for Novavax, CoronaVax, and Sputinik V are showing. Because the WHO said we normally talk about vaccines when we talk about herd immunity? She didn't say it can't be accomplished with natural infection, she just said "normally." Maybe it's the part about two or three years to get there? Actually not impossible. But it's not even important. Even if it's 8 months or so (double of the time the virus has been with us and managed to infect, I believe, some 18 million people), the vaccines are likely to be here sooner than that, and the point of the article is simply the vaccines are a safer way to get it done, and they are, and if we go for the other way, tossing away all precautions, then the article correctly says that more people will die, and unnecessarily because the vaccines are coming.

So, what exactly are you seeing as misleading? I'll have an open mind to consider what you may say.

 

I’m going to preface this with another statement declaring I’m not advocating for pursuing natural herd immunity. Just because I’m appreciative of the benefits we are beginning to see certain places doesn’t mean it’s how I wanted it to happen. I agree with you vaccination is the preferred route to herd immunity today. That’s why I said originally the article was sensible but contained misleading information.

Ok, yes you spotted a big problem with the piece, the assumption we have only 6 million and change infections. We know that isn’t accurate in the context of herd immunity, so why use that number? Journalists are supposed to report facts in an unbiased manner. They are not in this article.

I’ll have to go back and read your reasons for your stance on actual infections and you likely have something I’ve missed, but here are my reasons for saying the yahoo piece is disingenuous on actual numbers infected.

First, the six million number is predominantly PCR data. Nobody wants to talk about this, but PCR is quite inaccurate at measuring infection rates or total infections. At day 1 of infection it will return 100% false negatives. Each day after infection it returns less false negatives till day 8 when it “only” misses 20% of actual infections. Then false negatives pick back up again. I understand in sick hospitalized individuals retesting sometimes occurs to finally get a positive result. But just using a (very) conservative number of missing 20% with PCR we have to add about 1.2 million to the six million PCR confirmed cases.

Now here’s where the information in the yahoo piece gets worse. In one place it mentions a 6% infection rate by antibody testing in Sweden (but those are early June numbers, more on that later). Then it talks about antibodies decreasing rapidly in many individuals which is true. In fact, some studies show at least 40% of individuals developing antibodies from infection lose them to the point of being undetectable in 60 days. So, a random sample in June would only detect 60% of recovered infections from March. Testing in July misses 40% of those infected in April and May and so forth. Never mind the July will miss more than 40% of March infections. So to get accurate cumulative results of total infections you have to start adding 40% of the previous 60 day period’s positives to the cumulative total. Of course you have to make sure your test pool is all previously untested but random. This is all based on the best peer reviewed information we have. What’s odd is not even herd immunity advocates seem to understand this or factor it into their calculations so I guess I can’t expect a journalist to. But clearly the antibody testing done today is vastly undercounting infected individuals. Discussion of herd immunity and antibody testing should factor this in but as far as I know I’m the only one doing so.

The yahoo piece also mentions the study on T cell immunity and admits it shows immunity is higher than antibody testing alone shows. But it doesn’t mention twice as many subjects with mild cases developed T cells than developed antibodies. So theoretically, the 6% antibody level in June in Sweden could translate to somewhere near 18% actually infected by June. That’s without adding the 40% of infected dropping off the antibody radar from March infections.

Now I don’t particularly enjoy math so I’m going to stop here. But Sweden didn’t peak with infections until the end of June when daily infections were 3 times the March and early April daily numbers. So someone who enjoys math do the work, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Sweden could be somewhere around 30% infected now applying my corrections considering the last antibody numbers I saw were from July and showed around 14% infected.

Oh yeh, there’s also the issue of cross reactivity from previous coronavirus infections that I’m not factoring in to the equation. We can’t put a numerical value on it yet but it looks more and more like a factor.

To directly answer your question of what’s misleading, it’s withholding pertinent information to the subject at hand.

Another pertinent piece of information is the peak of infections the end of June in Sweden that never had a corresponding spike in deaths. Deaths peaked mid April in Sweden then dropped precipitously at a constant rate through and after the peak in infections the end of June. And that’s with Sweden not protecting seniors or treating many of them when they contracted C19.

To make an already long story as short as possible, media portrayal of Sweden’s experience with Covid is garbage. Journalists are either incompetent boobs or intentionally forwarding an agenda. Either way it sort of ticks me off that a dang farmer has to do their work for them.

Since this is PF not Covid Forum or Herd Immunity Forum I’ll take this opportunity to encourage everyone (Trumpers, Bernie Bro’s, Yang Gangers, Bite Me’s, and everyone else) to turn off the tube, get off your news feed, shut off that partisan podcaster. Go read a legit research paper, the Federalist Papers, or some classic literature. Then take an hour and think this stuff through on your own. Stop letting people who are morons do your thinking for you. Journalists aren’t smarter or more informed than you are. In fact it’s the opposite. Don’t let them shape your beliefs and behaviors to suit them or their masters.

Rant over.

Oh, kudos to yahoo for mentioning the models accounting for heterogeneity effects on herd immunity threshold calculations. That was a pleasant surprise amidst the overall disappointment in information sharing.

 

Excellent points, but I'm already factoring in the mild cases missed by PCR false negatives when I say we're missing 2 out of 3 cases. As for people with more significant symptoms, yes, in my hospital we test them several times. We don't take one negative PCR as a definitive answers to the question of if they have COVID-19 or not. In my experience, if a patient gets persistent symptoms, he/she *will* be diagnosed even if the first PCR test may miss it.

Did you locate my long post about reasons I have to suspect that we are missing fewer cases than people say? You quote false negatives... but there is also the issue of false positives in surveys, later plotted to the full population, thus creating an artificially high number of presumed cases.

Good points about the non-lasting antibodies, but this has been extremely controversial, because there's been studies too showing persistent antibodies. At this point it is not clear to me if these antibodies last or don't, in the majority of cases. Likely sub-populations have different antibody survival.

Why is this important for herd immunity? Because cell immunity only may not prevent someone from catching the virus a second time and passing it on to others., especially now that we know that second infections are possible. Let's just hope that second infections are rare enough for this not to make a difference. The cell immunity will kick in and will likely result in a mild or asymptomatic second infection (although we've seen the opposite in the one US case), but the person will still be a carrier for a while.

I agree with your rant; that's why I predominantly post scientific papers here rather than lay press articles.

I had to put someone on Ignore, so arrogant and opinionated he was that an article he posted showed that remdesivir doesn't work for moderate cases. The lay press article had this title and was based on a scientific paper... that concluded the very opposite!!! In an RCT, a 5-day course of remdesivir did help moderate cases, separating from placebo with a p=0.02. Well, weirdly enough (for which the authors had a couple of possible explanations, and I added a couple more of my own) a 10-day course of remdesivir didn't separate from placebo on day 11. Regardless, the 5-day course did, so, the study showed two things: that remdesivir does work for moderate cases, and that the ideal therapy duration for remdesivir for moderate cases is 5 days, not 10.

That guy was so arrogant and contemptuous, pretending that *I* was the one reading the article wrongly (LOL), that I ended up placing him on Ignore... not before saying in my last post, "you are wrong and I'm right." Well, guess what? The FDA has just extended the indications of remdesivir to include moderate cases too, quoting the results of this very study to base their ruling on... (and, by the way, recommending a 5-day course, obviously), thus proving me right (well, I knew I was right before that, of course).

This is a prime example of a lay press journalist misreading a scientific paper and writing up an entirely misguided piece... and then people here gobble it all up and quote it as the absolute truth: "a study has proved that remdesivir doesn't work for moderate cases" when the study has proved the very opposite idea...

 

"Again, because some of these people said so in all letters. Why do you doubt them? It's a cult mentality. These people think Trump is a God who can do no wrong."

So these conservatives who "are in the hugely ridiculous impression that the entire international medico-scientific community is involved in this huge plot to exaggerate this virus' danger", specifically say that the reason that they believe this is because Trump told them? I seriously doubt that!

"Well, he did, many times... including in the hydroxychloroquine debacle when Fauci kept saying "not so fast, no evidence" and Trump got upset and kept insisting."

I'm talking about the virus itself. While Fauci went on national TV to say that people didn't need to change anything, are you saying that Trump should have been saying something entirely different?

"These countries, though, except Sweden, did get the curve down after their huge outbreaks, and did take consistent and coherent measures, while we kept going in the opposite direction."

The point is, that the situation as it stands is that Belgium, Spain, UK and Italy are also advanced, but they've been hit worse than the US.

"I won't be surprised at all if after it's all said and done, we far surpass the damage done by the virus (proportionallly) in all of these European countries you've mentioned..."

Well we'll have to see what happens. For now though, isn't it a good idea to think about the situation as it stands?

"Yes, we do know. On this, I'm right and you're wrong. I'm glad that you seem to be slowly realizing it, although still partially. Have you noticed how Trump repeatedly boasts about his travel ban? Any accomplishment by anybody linked to his administration on this, he'd be boasting about it non-stop. No, there was no pandemic preparedness team or individuals left and we were caught with our pants down."

Except, how exactly can the simple reallocation of duties to other areas of government be an "accomplishment?"

"Do you actually know how to perform a Google search? Because it took me all of half a second to find numerous articles. Here is one:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...avirus-trump-congress-tea-party-a9469186.html"

Your original claim was: "it has surfaced that Obama TRIED to replenish the stockpile of PPE but the Tea Party congressmen stopped him." Do you stand by that claim given that the article which you cite says that "most of that money was eventually secured?" Seems to me that the Tea Party people didn't actually STOP Obama at all, but merely held things up.

"Yeah! Of course he can object to it, he is the freaking POTUS! If he didn't want the team axed, the team would not have been axed."

No, I'm not question whether or not he COULD have objected to it, I'm questioning whether he SHOULD have objected to it. We don't know what the decision was based on. What if it was based on the opinion of experts? What does Trump know about pandemic preparedness? Isn't Trump suppose to listen to the experts? That's certainly what everyone has been saying!

"If someone briefed him "well, we're spending too much on this team, we don't need it, we recommend axing it" he could simply have said "disagreed. "

You're assuming that it was cost related.

"Pandemic preparedness is important; a new pandemic can pop up any time, I do not want the team axed, end of the story. Next topic, please.""

Which Trump may indeed have said, or words to that effect. To which the reply could have been, don't worry sir - the duties will be reallocated to other areas of government. Again, we DO NOT know!

""Children are immune." "People younger than 40 have nothing to fear." Both statements are contradicted by science and by facts on the field."

I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to support your claim that Trump said that "Children are immune." He didn't say that.

 

Okay, perhaps the below link? If so, that article doesn't include any mention of the CDC, or anything about the changes to testing, let alone say that Atlas is responsible the changes!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-n...-white-house-pandemic-response-200528324.html

Keep in mind that I'm using Google in a different country. My searches will produce very differently search results to yours.

With regard to Vindman, he was fired, but my point is that he's not some anonymous person who leaked something - he testified before Congress. I'm talking about LEAKS to the media. You know, those things which happen about a thousand times every day during this Trump administration? Again, if the CDC is engaged in a conspiracy, putting Trump's re-election ahead of public health, I just have one simple question: WHY IN THE HELL HAVE THERE BEEN NO LEAKS? You said earlier that somebody must have leaked because we know that "Atlas is behind the CDC's recommendation for not testing asymptomatic contacts" - but you're yet to demonstrate that any media has reported this.

With regard to Bright - he wasn't fired. He was reassigned - something which was two years in the making. Now, would he have been reassigned at a later stage if not for his testimony? Possibly, but we don't know. His former employer, HHS rejected that it was because of his testimony. This is the official narrative, and to believe that it's a lie is to believe a conspiracy theory, despite how justified it might be.

"What I believe is that this Dr. Scott Atlas is undermining the CDC because he wants Herd Immunity (which is clueless, stupid, and dangerous but Trump is delighted) and the new superintendent appointed by Trump got along with Trump in his crusade to undermine voting by mail. I mean, isn't it clear that there is an effort to curtail that? The AG is suing a state for allowing voting by mail, for God's sake! How much more clear do you want this to be? It's no conspiracy theory. It's a concerted effort."

Well voting by mail includes absentee ballots doesn't it? Is Trump against absentee ballots?