KCLarkin

The incubation period is 14 days. The false negative rate is extremely high in the first 4 days of infection. So it is not possible to say how many people became infected during the quarantine period. Many of those who tested positive on Day 7 were likely infected on or before Day 0. Only ~half the recruits were tested on Day 0 and Day 7. Untested and tested recruits were intermixed. So a recruit could be sharing a room with an untested roommate. But the main reason why your assertions are wrong is the lack of a control arm. This is an infectious disease with a doubling time of ~3 days in a general population. Doubling time is even worse in congregate settings like military camps. If you start with 16 infected people and no controls, you'd expect more than 500 infected marines by the end of two weeks. So these interventions stopped ~90% of the expected infections.

That's the magic of cumulative data. It can only go up! According to your logic, the measles vaccine doesn't work, since every year the cumulative number of measles infections goes up. -- 0.9% tested positive on Day 0 and only 0.6% tested positive on Day 14. Seems like effective infection control, but given the 14 day incubation period, you'd need a longer study to be sure.

I am guessing you didn’t read the actual journal article, since the results are opposite of what you are claiming. On day 0, 16 tested positive On day 14, 11 tested positive So the interventions worked. Not surprising given how successful the NBA and NHL bubbles were.

Under these conditions, only 2% became infected? And this is your “evidence” that these measures don’t work?

Bhattacharya “The risk that kids pose to adults is very very small, even if they’re positive.” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6944e1.htm In this study, the SAR within households was 53%. If the index patient was a child (<12), the SAR was also 53%.

This is a myth. Kids, especially older kids (10+), do spread the disease. I personally know a 10 year old kid who got it and passed it onto at least three other kids and at least one parent. This is an area with very low transmission, so it was easy to trace the spread. There is ample literature that shows older kids spread the disease at similar rates to adults. This doesn't mean you shouldn't reopen schools.

Vaccines will go to med staff first, but regardless remember two doses per person.

And then think about whether fecal diseases (typhoid, cholera, etc) are spread by farts.

Yes, but most of them didn't get infected over this short period. So, a mask likely reduces your risk of infection by -46% to +23%. We'd need more data to reduce that range. Matches the general consensus that masks are primarily source control but provide some protective benefit. NOTE: There are important caveats to this study. For example, this study started during the first lockdown, so most of the transmission is likely within households.

Shows a 20% reduction in transmission but the study wasn't large enough to get a significant result.

Greg, you can't even get your tortured analogies right: Scientists -> Quants Bureaucrats > PM/Analysts Politicians -> DIY investors

Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just spewing B.S.? Yes there was ......and were posted before, including by myself. Sorry, I was looking for evidence not polling data. For example, you could do something like this: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.11.20192971v1.full.pdf

Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just spewing B.S.?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.15.383323v1 100% certainty that Covid-19 will mutate but at a much slower rate than influenza viruses (we should be grateful this isn't "just the flu"). To simplify, let's assume the rate of mutation is related to mutations during the following: 1. Replications within a host (human or animal) 2. Jumping between hosts 3. Jumping between species This suggests that rate of mutation will be highest at the peak of the pandemic when the virus is replicating rapidly in people and jumping rapidly between hosts. We've had perhaps trillions of replications, yet vaccines are showing 90% efficiency. This shows that the virus is not mutating rapidly (which is also shown in genetic tracing). You could foresee some random mutation that allows Covid-19 to evade the vaccine, but the probability is related to the number of mutations. So the likelihood of a dangerous mutation occurring after June 2021 is much lower than one occurring in 2020. Edit to add: So that suggests you won't need a yearly vaccine solely due to mutations. You might still need one for waning immunity, but the preprint above suggests immunity could be reasonably long-lived.

Preprint released today suggests long-term immunity for 90% of people. Perhaps for decades as seen with SARS. Comparisons with flu are misplaced on all levels. So, in summary: 1. Covid is certain to become endemic 2. Between vaccines and acquired immunity this virus will not be material beyond 2022

some promising results from Slovakia’s widespread testing scheme. Infections cut in half? https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-11-09/slovakia-says-covid-double-testing-cut-number-of-infections-by-more-than-half

The comparison between Sweden, Finland, and Norway is more valid (even though n=3). Culture and climate are similar AFAIK. And the sample is chosen based on geography. But I don't think there is evidence that Sweden's strategy is better than Finland or Norway. On balance, the evidence seems to favour Finland's approach. And even if the strategy worked in Sweden, there is no evidence that it would work in other places. For example, places that don't have so many single-person households. And there is ample evidence in Spain, NY, UK, Israel, etc. that the Swedish strategy would not work in many places.

??? Swedens neighbours are Finland and Norway. I haven't seen any statistics (health or economic) where Sweden is significantly better than Finland or Norway. At best, you can say that Sweden has more fatalities and any economic benefit was small or non-existent. But you could make the case that Finland has both lower fatalities and better economic performance. Edit to add: Most people who cite Sweden as an example, are using it as a mythical approach without actually understanding anything about Sweden or its actual approach. I'm reluctant to comment on things I don't fully understand. So here is a comment from a Swedish newspaper:

This is mathematically incorrect. You don’t need to catch all infections. In most places, you would only need to reduce transmission by about 20% to get the epidemic under control. No. It is not valid to compare death rates between a state that was hit early in the pandemic before any controls or medical treatment To one that was hit in summer. All those deaths in NY were already baked in before the lockdown. The Florida vs NY comparison is especially flawed because of the climate and cultural differences. You might be able to compare Florida to Georgia or Louisiana. But even then, Florida is pretty unique. And even if they were comparable, n=2 is not exactly rigorous. It is especially wrong when you are deliberately biasing your sample.

This is exactly the rigorous scientific journalism I would expect from an intern at the Post.

My point wasn’t about Vietnam. It was about you blatantly lying when you said I considered Europe a successful model. And if it is so easy for you to lie about my positions when there is a written record, how easy is it to lie to yourself?

Greg, lying about my opinions is part of your delusion.

Greg, this is 100% false but lying about my opinions helps feed your delusion. The "success" countries include Vietnam, SK, Japan, Singapore, NZ. With one or two minor exceptions, the list has stayed the same since March. The virus doesn't care about what the people think. Ask Boris Johnson.

Greg, the nice thing about self-delusion is that you get to ignore any facts you don’t like. But in the real world, countries have tried your approach and it failed. Countries that acted aggressively have succeeded in reopening safely (or avoiding lockdowns in the first wave). Nobody wants this second round of lockdowns. They are forced upon places that didn’t do the work to put other containment strategies in place.