- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***
Posted on 6/23/20 at 2:19 pm to Whiznot
Posted on 6/23/20 at 2:19 pm to Whiznot
quote:Tell us more, Dr. Baw.
Official US COVID-19 deaths are around 220,000. Ioannidis is saying that 220,000,000 people have been infected in the US. Dr. Ioannidis is full of crap and his study is trash.
A .1% fatality rate still makes sense even if 120,000,000 haven't been infected. Because the IFR difference between a young adult and an elderly person is different by an order of magnitude. The young adult IFR is probably .01% or less and the IFR for the elderly is probably 1% or more. So if you shoehorn COVID positives into LTC facilities you will get more deaths.
2
Posted on 6/23/20 at 2:24 pm to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
exactly. especially if most of your cases were in densely populated new york where they definitely sent the case back to the facilities.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 3:35 pm to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
quote:
A .1% fatality rate still makes sense even if 120,000,000 haven't been infected. Because the IFR difference between a young adult and an elderly person is different by an order of magnitude. The young adult IFR is probably .01% or less and the IFR for the elderly is probably 1% or more. So if you shoehorn COVID positives into LTC facilities you will get more deaths.
LINK
Still seems low for a theoretical max. Assuming NYC is a large enough population to root out small denominator impacts ~0.2% of their population died.
0.1% might make sense as it pertains to infections occurring today - however historically I don't think it holds up.
Parish levels for Louisiana (% of population dead, only larger Parishes).
East Baton Rouge: 0.06%
Jefferson: 0.11%
Orleans: 0.14%
St. Tammany: 0.06%
Caddo: 0.09%
Lafayette: 0.01%
However, both NYC and NOLA are keeping this from spreading WAY easier than models would be able to predict - implying that those areas may be close to whatever theoretical max dead they were going to end up with.
For instance, if 33% of NOLA had it, and 33% were resistant to it via some other biological means, than NOLA would be at a herd immunity threshold with a net IFR of 0.42%. (66% vs. 1-1/2.5 or 60% assuming Ro of 2.5).
It can also be seen that a spike in NOW in Acadiana is not all that unexpected - they never saw it to begin with.
Posted on 6/23/20 at 3:42 pm to BRIllini07
I wonder why it seems like we're seeing community spread now vs isolated cases initially.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:18 am to BRIllini07
Anyone know how to get reliable stats out of Sweden? It looks like their daily deaths have been mostly in single digits recently. Are they about to have this thing completely behind them?
Posted on 6/24/20 at 9:41 am to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
I wonder why it seems like we're seeing community spread now vs isolated cases initially.
Because initially the number and age group of folks, without symptoms, weren't getting tested like they are now.
And much of the initial, deadly spread were from nosocomial conditions (infections acquired in hospitals/LTC).
That paper I linked in here yesterday estimates that 6.5% of the state had already been infected by the end of March. That's way higher than what we were finding in initial testing.
It was out and spreading in the community this whole time, but it just went unnoticed because it's not as severe to most of the population.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 10:57 am to Sasquatch Smash
Massive news from this new preprint, folks.
A study of household contacts of seven families who had someone who tested positive, and then others in the families had symptoms but later tested negative for antibodies.
This definitely means a much, much lower threshold for herd immunity. I am convinced that, with variability to infection considered, the real number is under 20%.
A study of household contacts of seven families who had someone who tested positive, and then others in the families had symptoms but later tested negative for antibodies.
quote:
Six out of eight contacts developed a SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response against structural and/or accessory proteins that lasts up to 80 days post symptom onset suggesting a past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusion. Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can induce virus-specific T cell responses without seroconversion. T cell responses may be more sensitive indicators of SARS-Co-V-2 exposure than antibodies. Our results indicate that epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may lead to a substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus
This definitely means a much, much lower threshold for herd immunity. I am convinced that, with variability to infection considered, the real number is under 20%.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 11:07 am to GOP_Tiger
quote:
This definitely means a much, much lower threshold for herd immunity. I am convinced that, with variability to infection considered, the real number is under 20%.
I have been tracking this thread (posts by you and a couple of others..) and some (very small portion) of what your posting from the technical side I understand.. Most I do not..
However I am encouraged by your information.. even though I do understand the details..
Posted on 6/24/20 at 11:34 am to GOP_Tiger
I think the data about T cell responses is very interesting because it’s certainly a less easily tracked variable in terms of immune memory, at least in contrast to simple antibody levels.
I’m just genuinely curious why everyone seems to be of the opinion that herd immunity is a realistic goal. There is no such thing as herd immunity for any other coronavirus known to infect humans. If anything it might be a temporary lull in transmission in a population but could simply mean ubiquitous and likely seasonally predominant transmission - just like the common cold.
It’s also possible that as we develop some form of immune memory re-infection could be a much less severe infection. But who the hell knows?
I’m just genuinely curious why everyone seems to be of the opinion that herd immunity is a realistic goal. There is no such thing as herd immunity for any other coronavirus known to infect humans. If anything it might be a temporary lull in transmission in a population but could simply mean ubiquitous and likely seasonally predominant transmission - just like the common cold.
It’s also possible that as we develop some form of immune memory re-infection could be a much less severe infection. But who the hell knows?
Posted on 6/24/20 at 11:38 am to klrstix
Herd immunity is what happens when enough people get the virus such that cases decline on their own until the virus disappears.
Most estimates placed the percentage of people who would need antibodies to infection at about 60% for that to take place.
Those estimates are wrong for a number of reasons. One is some people are much more at risk from their environment than other, so they are more likely to come into contact with the virus. These are people in major cities like NYC, people who work in meatpacking plants, those in nursing homes and prisons, African-Americans, bartenders, etc. Because these people are more likely to get the virus, once they have had it and recovered, they become dead ends for virus transmission, because they can't get it again (at least for a while).
On the other hand, we also know that some people are much less susceptible to infection, including smokers, those who have had a recent "common-cold" coronavirus, and kids.
What this means is that, because some people are much more susceptible to infection than others, that we reach that herd immunity threshold at a much lower level than many experts originally thought. There's a lot of evidence that we might hit it at 20%, which would explain why places that had severe original outbreaks, like New Orleans and NYC, aren't getting very many cases now, and the new outbreaks are occurring in places that didn't have a significant number of cases in March and April.
This new study adds a tremendous amount of support to that belief, because it means that a lot of people have likely been exposed to COVID-19 and even had symptoms, but not created antibodies -- but they still have immunity through their T-cells.
It means that once this new wave finishes sweeping through the Sunbelt, that cases might decline in these areas without us having to resort to a return of shutdowns.
Most estimates placed the percentage of people who would need antibodies to infection at about 60% for that to take place.
Those estimates are wrong for a number of reasons. One is some people are much more at risk from their environment than other, so they are more likely to come into contact with the virus. These are people in major cities like NYC, people who work in meatpacking plants, those in nursing homes and prisons, African-Americans, bartenders, etc. Because these people are more likely to get the virus, once they have had it and recovered, they become dead ends for virus transmission, because they can't get it again (at least for a while).
On the other hand, we also know that some people are much less susceptible to infection, including smokers, those who have had a recent "common-cold" coronavirus, and kids.
What this means is that, because some people are much more susceptible to infection than others, that we reach that herd immunity threshold at a much lower level than many experts originally thought. There's a lot of evidence that we might hit it at 20%, which would explain why places that had severe original outbreaks, like New Orleans and NYC, aren't getting very many cases now, and the new outbreaks are occurring in places that didn't have a significant number of cases in March and April.
This new study adds a tremendous amount of support to that belief, because it means that a lot of people have likely been exposed to COVID-19 and even had symptoms, but not created antibodies -- but they still have immunity through their T-cells.
It means that once this new wave finishes sweeping through the Sunbelt, that cases might decline in these areas without us having to resort to a return of shutdowns.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 11:42 am to escatawpabuckeye
quote:
I’m just genuinely curious why everyone seems to be of the opinion that herd immunity is a realistic goal.
I don't think that true herd immunity is a realistic goal. I should have been more clear.
What I do think that many areas of the country have reached, and many more will soon reach, a level of immunity in which the virus can be controlled with only mild restrictions. In other words, I want enough help from immunity to drive the Rt back under 1, so that we can keep case counts stable without closing restaurants and retail back up.
And I do think that is reasonable.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 11:57 am to GOP_Tiger
A guy I work with told me his cousin tested positive in early April and didn't show symptoms. He said that the guy just tested positive again and is extremely sick. I told him that he was mistaken or downright lied. We argued for a solid ten minutes over it. Am I wrong? Is it possible to be reinfected just a couple months after getting it the first time? I just don't buy it.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 11:58 am to Commander Data
Supposedly a good bit of false positives in early testing.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:01 pm to wm72
quote:
He eventually did get sick with it but all of the traced contact happened before he was showing any signs.
I question this. Was it really no signs? Did he let a scratchy throat just go by as nothing? A head ache as nothing? A sneeze or cough as nothing?
I bet they are showing some symptoms but they are common symptoms we all feel from time to time.
This post was edited on 6/24/20 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:09 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
false positives
The thought never crossed my mind. As adamant as my buddy was this has to be what happened.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:12 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
but they still have immunity through their T-cells.
This is an example of one of the more "technical" things I do not understand. I will need to do a little research on "T-cells" are and what they do... Then I think I will have a better idea of that part of the discussion...
On the other hand I do understand the principle of "herd immunity" and some of the discussion around that..
Again I appreciate your willingness to take the time to explain..
This post was edited on 6/24/20 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:13 pm to Commander Data
quote:
We argued for a solid ten minutes over it. Am I wrong? Is it possible to be reinfected just a couple months after getting it the first time? I just don't buy it.
A couple of weeks ago, they reported a couple of studies that showed that asymptomatic people may not retain antibodies. And that they are at risk for reinfection. I think the data came from China, so take it for what you will.
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:16 pm to GOP_Tiger
I guess the challenge is in trying to manage the controlled burn through the population to get to a stage where enough people have seen the virus so that Rt will remain low without the drastic measures.
But again, if this coronavirus is similar to its relatives, the herd immunity, such as it is, will abate over time. And so at best we’re looking at waxing/waning level of viral spread in the population.
Meanwhile, it’s possible a vaccine could accelerate us to relative herd immunity. Again, it may be only transient but presumably could be titrated with boosters etc.
The question then is whether it’s worth trying to achieve some measure of herd immunity while we wait for a vaccine - as opposed to aggressively squelching community spread and then testing and isolating with a vengeance when re-opening. The latter option is politically harder but probably less costly in lives.
I fear that some leaders have made that question effectively moot by reopening their states before an adequate testing/tracing system was in place and under utilizing proven measures like mandatory masking and isolation hotels/barracks etc
But again, if this coronavirus is similar to its relatives, the herd immunity, such as it is, will abate over time. And so at best we’re looking at waxing/waning level of viral spread in the population.
Meanwhile, it’s possible a vaccine could accelerate us to relative herd immunity. Again, it may be only transient but presumably could be titrated with boosters etc.
The question then is whether it’s worth trying to achieve some measure of herd immunity while we wait for a vaccine - as opposed to aggressively squelching community spread and then testing and isolating with a vengeance when re-opening. The latter option is politically harder but probably less costly in lives.
I fear that some leaders have made that question effectively moot by reopening their states before an adequate testing/tracing system was in place and under utilizing proven measures like mandatory masking and isolation hotels/barracks etc
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:17 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
It was from South Korea
Posted on 6/24/20 at 12:26 pm to klrstix
quote:
I will need to do a little research on "T-cells" are and what they do.
The term T cells always reminds me of the Storybots: How Do People Catch a Cold episode.
From some light reading, they did a solid job explaining it to a younger audience (and me
)
Page 1139 of 1190
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News