All things CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

Joe

So people who aren’t locked down are more likely to contract the disease and spread it? Huh....I thought lockdowns weren’t helpful?

[JoeMauer89]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

Joe

So people who aren’t locked down are more likely to contract the disease and spread it? Huh....I thought lockdowns weren’t helpful?

TLD,

All I was trying to point out is this article is stating, that it is supposedly transmitting higher among young people. NOT that it's landing them in hospital more often, making them more sick,killing them,etc. That would be more NOTEWORTHY and cause for concern, don't you think?

Joe

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

Joe

So people who aren’t locked down are more likely to contract the disease and spread it? Huh....I thought lockdowns weren’t helpful?

TLD,

All I was trying to point out is this article is stating, that it is supposedly transmitting higher among young people. NOT that it's landing them in hospital more often, making them more sick,killing them,etc. That would be more NOTEWORTHY and cause for concern, don't you think?

Joe

I know. I was pointing out the part about it spreading amongst them because they aren’t locked down. Young people fare better but they can spread it....you watching the bucks? Fields is dealing!!

[JoeMauer89]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

Joe

So people who aren’t locked down are more likely to contract the disease and spread it? Huh....I thought lockdowns weren’t helpful?

TLD,

All I was trying to point out is this article is stating, that it is supposedly transmitting higher among young people. NOT that it's landing them in hospital more often, making them more sick,killing them,etc. That would be more NOTEWORTHY and cause for concern, don't you think?

Joe

I know. I was pointing out the part about it spreading amongst them because they aren’t locked down. Young people fare better but they can spread it....you watching the bucks? Fields is dealing!!

Agreed, time to take Justin out! Those ribs need a rest

Joe

[wgdsr]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

Joe

So people who aren’t locked down are more likely to contract the disease and spread it? Huh....I thought lockdowns weren’t helpful?

TLD,

All I was trying to point out is this article is stating, that it is supposedly transmitting higher among young people. NOT that it's landing them in hospital more often, making them more sick,killing them,etc. That would be more NOTEWORTHY and cause for concern, don't you think?

Joe

I know. I was pointing out the part about it spreading amongst them because they aren’t locked down. Young people fare better but they can spread it....you watching the bucks? Fields is dealing!!

bloomberg says the who was wrong again!!!!

bucks are punishing blackboard material dabo stuff at this point.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

Joe

So people who aren’t locked down are more likely to contract the disease and spread it? Huh....I thought lockdowns weren’t helpful?

TLD,

All I was trying to point out is this article is stating, that it is supposedly transmitting higher among young people. NOT that it's landing them in hospital more often, making them more sick,killing them,etc. That would be more NOTEWORTHY and cause for concern, don't you think?

Joe

I know. I was pointing out the part about it spreading amongst them because they aren’t locked down. Young people fare better but they can spread it....you watching the bucks? Fields is dealing!!

bloomberg says the who was wrong again!!!!

bucks are punishing blackboard material dabo stuff at this point.

We are #11!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Wood shedding Clemson!!

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

[PizzaSnake]

Hmm. Garanimal vaccines?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/01 ... changeable

[Bart]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

This math is simple. The way the virus interacts across all cohorts is not.

[JoeMauer89]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

This math is simple. The way the virus interacts across all cohorts is not.

Bart,

Thanks for putting it in a way I couldn't. Hence why I said to take anything The Atlantic writes with a large grain of salt, as it is far from a scientific peer-reviewed source. It's not as simple as PizzaSnake put it, in fact it's from proven to be the cases as The Atlantic "assumes".

Happy New Year to you and yours!

Hopefully The Buckeyes have another big performance in them on January 11th against Bama!


Joe

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

This math is simple. The way the virus interacts across all cohorts is not.

Really? Do you suppose Adam Kucharski is aware of that fact? Using a “European city” as he notes as a plausible scenario incorporates that factor.

Do people read for content, or to make selective points that are indeed revelatory?

I try and provide links to stories regarding the situation “on the ground” which is poorly understood and ever-changing.

However, if you wish to only countenance sources you feel fit within the dogmatic, slow process of your choice, then indulge yourself.

What I don’t understand is the panglossian stance of those who continue to naysay anything but the most
optimistic of views. I’m pretty sure blowing sunshine isn’t going to help in this situation. It didn’t serve us when coming from the bully pulpit, nor will it here in public discourse.

A little hyperbolic, but apt anyway:

“Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

Stop anthropomorphizing this virus. Or, do if you prefer, free yourself from Ruskin’s “pathetic fallacy”.

[wgdsr]

i haven't seen yet what uk's daily testing has been the last couple months, could be part of it.

but they did have a huge run in confirmed cases up to 25k/day and ran it back down to <15k in november. but in one month now looking to overrun 50k/day. that's... maybe a big problem. hopefully we catch it in its tracks here.

[old salt]

in other news, anderson cooper and some other guy have spent the last couple hours getting hammered within 2 feet of each other. talking and screaming and slurring. maskless, of course.

can't wait for this to be over, if there is an end.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/0 ... rs-vpx.cnn

EWWW !. 2 sloppy drunks. Did the 2 Andys kiss at midnight ? That's allowed in their bubble, right ?

[JoeMauer89]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

This math is simple. The way the virus interacts across all cohorts is not.

Really? Do you suppose Adam Kucharski is aware of that fact? Using a “European city” as he notes as a plausible scenario incorporates that factor.

Do people read for content, or to make selective points that are indeed revelatory?

I try and provide links to stories regarding the situation “on the ground” which is poorly understood and ever-changing.

However, if you wish to only countenance sources you feel fit within the dogmatic, slow process of your choice, then indulge yourself.

What I don’t understand is the panglossian stance of those who continue to naysay anything but the most
optimistic of views. I’m pretty sure blowing sunshine isn’t going to help in this situation. It didn’t serve us when coming from the bully pulpit, nor will it here in public discourse.

A little hyperbolic, but apt anyway:

“Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

Stop anthropomorphizing this virus. Or, do if you prefer, free yourself from Ruskin’s “pathetic fallacy”.

What in the world are talking about? How about not taking every op-ed from a non-scientific source as the definitive rule and final say on anything. There's a middle ground and being entirely negative because you "feel it's your right to be blunt, etc" is just as bad. Take the time to research claims and wait and see if the data changes before blindly posting worst case scenario opinion pieces that don't account for real human behavior/mitigation/variability factors. You are barking up the wrong tree here, what Bart says is ENTIRELY true, and we know this after more than 10 months into this thing. Modeling inherently has flaws, and this is NO different.

Joe

[Bart]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

This math is simple. The way the virus interacts across all cohorts is not.

Really? Do you suppose Adam Kucharski is aware of that fact? Using a “European city” as he notes as a plausible scenario incorporates that factor.

Do people read for content, or to make selective points that are indeed revelatory?

I try and provide links to stories regarding the situation “on the ground” which is poorly understood and ever-changing.

However, if you wish to only countenance sources you feel fit within the dogmatic, slow process of your choice, then indulge yourself.

What I don’t understand is the panglossian stance of those who continue to naysay anything but the most
optimistic of views. I’m pretty sure blowing sunshine isn’t going to help in this situation. It didn’t serve us when coming from the bully pulpit, nor will it here in public discourse.

A little hyperbolic, but apt anyway:

“Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

Stop anthropomorphizing this virus. Or, do if you prefer, free yourself from Ruskin’s “pathetic fallacy”.

I don't know what he is supposing.

But here here is his quote from the twitter thread the article used (yes a twitter thread): "As an example, suppose current R=1.1, infection fatality risk is 0.8%, generation time is 6 days, and 10k people infected (plausible for many European cities recently). So we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x 0.8% = 129 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread...

It is not modeled on any actual data from what I can tell. His assumptions make perfect sense...the more infected, the more sick and the more hospitalized with death lagging behind. I do not see the model based on any real time data so no I do not think he was taking any of that into account but I am not him and that is just my opinion. You can build a similar model quite easily with excel. It is a simple matter of logarithmic growth.

The point I was making, obviously not well, is that we have no data indicating that all the cohorts will react the same. I might think they do but again, the data is not sufficient. For example, if this stain is more contagious but infects they young predominantly, which some data suggests, might that have a different outcome on the actual cfr?

I can assure you I see no anthropomorphic nature of this virus.

Edit to add:
If you want real boots on the ground writing, here is a preprint regarding the increased transmissibility of this strain.(of which Kucharski is an author) Increased transmissibility, unclear on severity.
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/ ... riant.html

[Bart]

i haven't seen yet what uk's daily testing has been the last couple months, could be part of it.

but they did have a huge run in confirmed cases up to 25k/day and ran it back down to <15k in november. but in one month now looking to overrun 50k/day. that's... maybe a big problem. hopefully we catch it in its tracks here.

We don't test enough. Period.

[wgdsr]

i haven't seen yet what uk's daily testing has been the last couple months, could be part of it.

but they did have a huge run in confirmed cases up to 25k/day and ran it back down to <15k in november. but in one month now looking to overrun 50k/day. that's... maybe a big problem. hopefully we catch it in its tracks here.

We don't test enough. Period.

who does?
i mean... maybe/probably? what does that look like? probably not with our lab capacity and "normal" pcr tests. more like rapid tests that are close to same accuracy. seems to me they just got recently developed as being in the same accuracy range. then big headlines "we'll be able to deploy 5 million in a month/several months" that's several days worth.

real impact on that would be moving algorithmically 10 fold or more. don't know if we have even the resource capacity to do that.

[wgdsr]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... study-says

From the article itself, probably the most important point.


It’s possible the new variant appears to infect the young the most because the research was conducted at a time when there were lockdowns but schools remained opened, the scientists said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... he/617531/


Please take anything from "The Atlantic" at face value. It's not even in the same universe as JAMA or STAT. It's decidedly alarmist in almost every CV-19 that it publishes. To write that the CV-19 variant thankfully does not produce (high likely most scientists are saying) more severe disease and will not affect vaccine efficacy (HIGHLY likely most scientists are saying) and STILL say these are BAD things is utterly ridiculous. Those are two of the most important things possible, the vaccine which will help tremendously tamp down this pandemic, and they fact that it doesn't produce more severe disease therefore hopefully not contributing to additional hospital pressure. To write that the fact that is more transmissible is WORSE than either of those two facts being reversed is utterly crazy. If it's more transmissible, sure that's not great but on the flip side is that generally the more transmissible viruses get, the weaker the potential severe effects become. We are not going to eradicate transmission of this virus for MANY YEARS, so what we are trying to do is reduce symptoms greatly in the most vulnerable, tamp down transmission to a manageable point, etc. If the new variant is in fact more transmissible with no major change in severity/etc it's just going to unfortunately, because obviously everyone would like to avoid CV-19, add to the pool of people that have short-term immunity combined with the increasing vaccinations/etc.

Joe

The math is simple.

“To understand the difference between exponential and linear risks, consider an example put forth by Adam Kucharski, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who focuses on mathematical analyses of infectious-disease outbreaks. Kucharski compares a 50 percent increase in virus lethality to a 50 percent increase in virus transmissibility. Take a virus reproduction rate of about 1.1 and an infection fatality risk of 0.8 percent and imagine 10,000 active infections—a plausible scenario for many European cities, as Kucharski notes. As things stand, with those numbers, we’d expect 129 deaths in a month. If the fatality rate increased by 50 percent, that would lead to 193 deaths. In contrast, a 50 percent increase in transmissibility would lead to a whopping 978 deaths in just one month—assuming, in both scenarios, a six-day infection-generation time.”

This math is simple. The way the virus interacts across all cohorts is not.

Really? Do you suppose Adam Kucharski is aware of that fact? Using a “European city” as he notes as a plausible scenario incorporates that factor.

Do people read for content, or to make selective points that are indeed revelatory?

I try and provide links to stories regarding the situation “on the ground” which is poorly understood and ever-changing.

However, if you wish to only countenance sources you feel fit within the dogmatic, slow process of your choice, then indulge yourself.

What I don’t understand is the panglossian stance of those who continue to naysay anything but the most
optimistic of views. I’m pretty sure blowing sunshine isn’t going to help in this situation. It didn’t serve us when coming from the bully pulpit, nor will it here in public discourse.

A little hyperbolic, but apt anyway:

“Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

Stop anthropomorphizing this virus. Or, do if you prefer, free yourself from Ruskin’s “pathetic fallacy”.

I don't know what he is supposing.

But here here is his quote from the twitter thread the article used (yes a twitter thread): "As an example, suppose current R=1.1, infection fatality risk is 0.8%, generation time is 6 days, and 10k people infected (plausible for many European cities recently). So we'd expect 10000 x 1.1^5 x 0.8% = 129 eventual new fatalities after a month of spread...

It is not modeled on any actual data from what I can tell. His assumptions make perfect sense...the more infected, the more sick and the more hospitalized with death lagging behind. I do not see the model based on any real time data so no I do not think he was taking any of that into account but I am not him and that is just my opinion. You can build a similar model quite easily with excel. It is a simple matter of logarithmic growth.

The point I was making, obviously not well, is that we have no data indicating that all the cohorts will react the same. I might think they do but again, the data is not sufficient. For example, if this stain is more contagious but infects they young predominantly, which some data suggests, might that have a different outcome on the actual cfr?

I can assure you I see no anthropomorphic nature of this virus.

Edit to add:
If you want real boots on the ground writing, here is a preprint regarding the increased transmissibility of this strain.(of which Kucharski is an author) Increased transmissibility, unclear on severity.
https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/ ... riant.html

it just needs to be directionally accurate.

[Bart]

i haven't seen yet what uk's daily testing has been the last couple months, could be part of it.

but they did have a huge run in confirmed cases up to 25k/day and ran it back down to <15k in november. but in one month now looking to overrun 50k/day. that's... maybe a big problem. hopefully we catch it in its tracks here.

We don't test enough. Period.

who does?
i mean... maybe/probably? what does that look like? probably not with our lab capacity and "normal" pcr tests. more like rapid tests that are close to same accuracy. seems to me they just got recently developed as being in the same accuracy range. then big headlines "we'll be able to deploy 5 million in a month/several months" that's several days worth.

real impact on that would be moving algorithmically 10 fold or more. don't know if we have even the resource capacity to do that.

Yes. I have been reading quite a bit on the rapid antigen tests. Home models. Mina at Harvard is a huge proponent of them. In my mind he has some extremely valid points.

I have seen differing ideas on the roll out numbers. If I were king I’d be sending them out to everyone, free of charge. You wouldn’t need 100% compliance, which you would never get. Getting a certain percentage to test and similarly to just stay home if positive would continually chip away to bring R below 1. Add in the vaccines and other social mitigation strategies would, imo, get us back towards normal quicker. Death of a thousand cuts.