Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
amanuensis
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 pm

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by amanuensis »

fon wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:04 pm
amanuensis wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:07 pm What we can do is protect the vulnerable from the worst of the disease. This would be enough if we did it properly.
The theory/excuse is that there is no way to do it properly, outside locking down.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a general push to treat this 'like polio or smallpox', which are viruses with different characteristics that could be 'defeated'.
I see no push of that sort. On the contrary, Devi Sridhar threw in her towel, today, see twett below.
it will be in new treatments to reduce hospitalisations/fatalities, not in 'defeating covid'.
I kinda half agree with that, vaccines do the heavy lifting, but where it gets through, better treatment might help there too.Anyway, here's Devi, the fallen Queen of zero covid, throwing in the towel for the umpteenth time:

Screenshot 2021-03-15 at 12.52.12.png
Quite possibly the right thing to do would be to vaccinate everyone and achieve herd immunity, allowing us to return to normal.

Alternatively, vaccinating everyone with a non-sterilising vaccine against a rapidly mutating virus might present an enormous stimulus for a complete vaccine escape (it has already achieved partial escape). This, along with an entire population with identical immune characteristics, could result in the virus running riot and another 100,000 vulnerable dead.

So perhaps the right thing to do would be to vaccinate only the most vulnerable. But the success of that approach would need the non-vaccinated to have a low chance of producing a vaccine escape variant -- even though there wouldn't be any specific selection pressure for vaccine escape the sheer quantity of virus out there might make this likely.

It is important to get this right. What I'd like to see is some decent modelling of the two scenarios to work out which would be the better approach, the inherent risks, sensitivities, etc.

It is nice to have opinion, but where the lives of thousands are concerned it is best to have supporting evidence.

Splatt
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by Splatt »

fon wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:47 pm They've brought the rate to 1m jabs per day, we can give the whole nation a top up in 10 weeks. But we can increase the rate again, if we needed to. The NHS has turned out to be a very sound system for quickly delivering vaccinations.
Doesnt matter. With the 4-6 month lead time to even create and produce a vaccine alone is impractical.
As is keeping mass vaccination going indefinitely forever more.
That and people wont keep volunteering to get stabbed twice a year at least.

The whole thing is utterly utterly unworkable.

Splatt
Posts: 1583
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by Splatt »

"build test, trace isolate to jump on outbreaks".

She's arguing for never ending restrictions.
Do you really class "normal" is always being just one phone call away from 2 more weeks off work unpaid for you and your family and having to check-in whenever you go anywhere?

Shes campaigning for permanent infrastructure to keep permanent control on this via social methods and NPIs.

But then again, she has a DPhil in Anthropology and her thesis was on the role of the world bank in India. She has no knowledge, experience or qualifications in virology or epidemiology.

miahoneybee
Posts: 1493
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by miahoneybee »

How about the unvaccinated choosing to stay unvaccinated as the survival rate for the 99% without and experimental.vaccine is 99.9%.
Let out the 99.9% from their enforced prison sentence and shield the 1%.
All very simple really especially many of the 1% such as elderly in care homes..the sick and vulnerable were hardly going to be out night clubbing every night..attending school..shop till they dropped..travelling regularly in their own country and a road for holidays..running businesses.. the list goes on but the 99% have sacrificed their lives for well over a year so why should they be forced and not asked to continue to do so ?to a achieve what?they have already worked their way through killing off the elderly and will continue.
The ultimate goal is vaccinating everyone .. vaccine passports and full control over every aspect of everyones lives.
When had this ever been a out a virus and why are people on here and the government and their cronies trying to hard to convince us it Is.
:lol: :lol: that's laughable.unfortunately the rest of it isn't.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by thinksaboutit »

miahoneybee wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:58 am How about the unvaccinated choosing to stay unvaccinated as the survival rate for the 99% without and experimental.vaccine is 99.9%.
Let out the 99.9% from their enforced prison sentence and shield the 1%.
Logic let down by your "facts"

IFR is well above 0.1%........ Obviously...

The vulnerable proportion is well above 1%.... Obviously

amanuensis
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 pm

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by amanuensis »

thinksaboutit wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:30 am
miahoneybee wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:58 am How about the unvaccinated choosing to stay unvaccinated as the survival rate for the 99% without and experimental.vaccine is 99.9%.
Let out the 99.9% from their enforced prison sentence and shield the 1%.
Logic let down by your "facts"

IFR is well above 0.1%........ Obviously...

The vulnerable proportion is well above 1%.... Obviously
The IFR depends on vulnerability/age. It is likely significantly below 0.1% in the non-vulnerable under 40. It is likely below 0.1% for the non-vulnerable aged 40-50, and only slightly above for 50-60. (lots of sources out there, but this one came up first: https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/5/9/e003094.full.pdf)

Unfortunately you're right about the proportion of vulnerable in the UK. About 15% are in the 70+ group which has a significant IFR, and a significant number of these will be in the co-morbidity group (very much higher IFR). For the <70 group there's still a large proportion that are vulnerable through co-morbidity. I'd be surprised if the proportion of vulnerable in the UK populaton was under 25%.

That said, it seems rather odd to make 100% suffer when similar effects could be obtained by making 25% suffer. It is doubly weird to put so much focus on the young, when the psychological impact on that group is likely to be very negative (we are measuring 'success' through a very limited lens of 'covid case numbers').

thinksaboutit
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by thinksaboutit »

amanuensis wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:26 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:30 am
miahoneybee wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:58 am How about the unvaccinated choosing to stay unvaccinated as the survival rate for the 99% without and experimental.vaccine is 99.9%.
Let out the 99.9% from their enforced prison sentence and shield the 1%.
Logic let down by your "facts"

IFR is well above 0.1%........ Obviously...

The vulnerable proportion is well above 1%.... Obviously
The IFR depends on vulnerability/age. It is likely significantly below 0.1% in the non-vulnerable under 40. It is likely below 0.1% for the non-vulnerable aged 40-50, and only slightly above for 50-60. (lots of sources out there, but this one came up first: https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/5/9/e003094.full.pdf)

Unfortunately you're right about the proportion of vulnerable in the UK. About 15% are in the 70+ group which has a significant IFR, and a significant number of these will be in the co-morbidity group (very much higher IFR). For the <70 group there's still a large proportion that are vulnerable through co-morbidity. I'd be surprised if the proportion of vulnerable in the UK populaton was under 25%.

That said, it seems rather odd to make 100% suffer when similar effects could be obtained by making 25% suffer. It is doubly weird to put so much focus on the young, when the psychological impact on that group is likely to be very negative (we are measuring 'success' through a very limited lens of 'covid case numbers').
We are in a position where close to 0.2% of the whole population have been killed by Covid (or died within 28days of a positive test, but closely matched by the rate of excess deaths. Since 100% (or anywhere near to that) of population has not been infected, the IFR must be well above 0.2% for the UK population as a whole.

Here is an extract from the bullet points in the article you referenced.

► Using variation in demographics, comorbidities and
health system capacity, we predict COVID-19 IFRs
for 187 countries, ranging from 0.43% in Western
Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.45% in Eastern Europe

Speedstick
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by Speedstick »

Some very good salient points made here once again by Miahoneybee. Covid Zealots may want to play around with the percentage button on their calculator and produce elaborate bar charts and Venn diagrams to scare us, akin to the tactics of SAGE.
But forget about defeating SARS-Cov 2 which by and large only kills those already very elderly or very ill.
How about getting off that percentage button and acknowledge the very very serious mental health crisis that is about to explode, caused by Lockdown affecting particularly the vulnerable and young. What percentage of the populace is now being harmed by anxiety, depression and even PTSD inflicted by the government's psychological warfare on its people, inspired by that madman Witty.
Zero Covid Zealots you won't need a percentage button for this, it runs into millions and millions of happy lives destroyed by the evil perpetrated by this government!!!!

amanuensis
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 pm

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by amanuensis »

thinksaboutit wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:16 pm
amanuensis wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:26 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:30 am

Logic let down by your "facts"

IFR is well above 0.1%........ Obviously...

The vulnerable proportion is well above 1%.... Obviously
The IFR depends on vulnerability/age. It is likely significantly below 0.1% in the non-vulnerable under 40. It is likely below 0.1% for the non-vulnerable aged 40-50, and only slightly above for 50-60. (lots of sources out there, but this one came up first: https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/5/9/e003094.full.pdf)

Unfortunately you're right about the proportion of vulnerable in the UK. About 15% are in the 70+ group which has a significant IFR, and a significant number of these will be in the co-morbidity group (very much higher IFR). For the <70 group there's still a large proportion that are vulnerable through co-morbidity. I'd be surprised if the proportion of vulnerable in the UK populaton was under 25%.

That said, it seems rather odd to make 100% suffer when similar effects could be obtained by making 25% suffer. It is doubly weird to put so much focus on the young, when the psychological impact on that group is likely to be very negative (we are measuring 'success' through a very limited lens of 'covid case numbers').
We are in a position where close to 0.2% of the whole population have been killed by Covid (or died within 28days of a positive test, but closely matched by the rate of excess deaths. Since 100% (or anywhere near to that) of population has not been infected, the IFR must be well above 0.2% for the UK population as a whole.

Here is an extract from the bullet points in the article you referenced.

► Using variation in demographics, comorbidities and
health system capacity, we predict COVID-19 IFRs
for 187 countries, ranging from 0.43% in Western
Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.45% in Eastern Europe
This is a disease where there is a subset of the population that is known to be vulnerable (dominated by age).

To quote only population wide IFR is not helpful (indeed, it is misleading) as it substantially overestimates risk for the non-vulnerable (leading to overestimation of threat with consequential overcompensation in behaviour, worry, etc) and substantially underestimates risk for the vulnerable (leading to vulnerable groups behaving in a more risky fashion) -- there are actually relatively few members of the population that have a personal IFR of about 0.2% (perhaps those 50-60 years old and healthy).

The point made originally was that we could relax lockdown for the non-vulnerable and they would have a relatively low death rate (that might be tolerable). Their (serious) mistake was to assume that only 1% would be affected by this when it would have been closer to 25%.

But the point that the death rate in the non-vulnerable would be relatively low is accurate.

Whether that low IFR would be acceptable to the population in return for a partial return to normality for them is a debatable point (and it should be debated).

User avatar
MikeAustin
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:27 pm

Re: Defeating SARS-CoV-2

Post by MikeAustin »

amanuensis wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:20 pm This is a disease where there is a subset of the population that is known to be vulnerable (dominated by age).
Indeed. On the same basis, we find many young people are dying of old age.

Post Reply