Coronavirus

[Spekulatius]

Let me bet, other developed countries will get vaccinated at 90%+ rate and be done with it faster than the US. I can't understand the distrusts of the US citizen toward scientists and institutions. Scientific theory, and infrastructure improvement made it so that within 200 years most of us live better than kings on many metrics.

 

Maybe that is just how the CEO of USA conveys it's message, IMO it feels rushed and improvised and that make the population nervous. They feel something is off, or the message is blurred... because as I recall a few years ago the CEO of USA was a bit of a vaccine skeptical. Funny how someone words has a impact on the populace actions much later one.

 

For some reasons, some people fight innovations that have been proven again and again... and again. If the trials have been done in proper form I'll get me, my parents and my family vaccinated without questions. Why would anybody do otherwise? Don't we want to walk in a store breeding freely and see the smile of our neighbors when they feel great? It's in our best interest... just prove to all of us that the diligence has been done and that it's not some kind of banana republic scheme to win our votes.

 

BeerBaron

 

You just need to look here to come to the conclusion that the rollout of the vaccine will be difficult:

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/vovid-19-vaccine-give-it-a-shot-or-mot/

 

I would think that they give first dibs to first responders (nurses have many mandatory vaccinations anyways), then essential workers and have mandatory vaccinations for school (unless they choose online).

 

I would also think about talking to economist about a good incentive program. Maybe cash incentives? There is a risk that A homeless person gets three shots for cash, but I would rather have that than many of them being superspreaders. Time to think this through, imo.

[mattee2264]

 

I think easiest is to make a vaccination certificate akin to a passport. If you need a vaccine certificate to get into bars, restaurants, travel on planes, and go to work then people will still have the freedom of choice to refuse a vaccine but will find life incredibly limiting.

 

 

[StubbleJumper]

In the meantime, if present trends continue, it appears that, by the time the vaccines come, only a minority of people will want them. Only 51% of adults would get it today.

 

 

Why?

Many reasons including trust, politicization of issues, confused messages etc

Based on what SJ mentioned last July (in relation to the younger cohorts): "You can appeal to people's sense of solidarity and goodwill to their fellow man all you want, but in the end, people will make a decision based on their own individual risk and benefit." So maybe many are using an inverse Pascal's wager to decide: what I have got to lose (rare side effect) versus no significant gain with the vaccine from an immunity standpoint. There is little to gain from a vaccination program where such a high percentage of the group is taking an individual perspective on this. i wonder if we should just decide on our own what is good for all of us. At noon today, i participated in a webinar from public health and the 'expert' said that this was one of the biggest challenges that they had to deal with during the community spread.

 

 

 

Strangely enough, if a fully effective vaccine were available today, a 51% immunization rate might just be adequate to achieve herd immunity in the US.  If you believe that one-third of Americans have already had covid, and if half of the other two-thirds choose to get immunized, that would result in about two-thirds of the population being resistant to covid, which is roughly what might be required to send that R0 below 1 on a long-term basis.

 

As time passes, I increasingly expect that a large portion of young adults will abstain from the immunization, and unless school boards make the shot mandatory, I suspect that a considerable portion of parents will not have the shot given to their children.  If the meta-analysis summarized in Table 4 of this paper is anywhere close to correct, it would be completely understandable that people in their 20s might not lose any sleep about not getting the vaccine: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v4.full.pdf+html 

 

 

SJ

[cwericb]

Self test for Covid 19

 

1) Pour a shot of whisky, gin or rum into a glass.

2) See if you can smell it.

3) If you can smell it then drink it.

4) If you can taste it, it is reasonable to assume you are currently free of the virus.

 

I tested myself nine times last night and I was virus free each time, thank goodness.

 

I will test myself again today because I have developed a headache which can also be a symptom.

[Castanza]

 

I think easiest is to make a vaccination certificate akin to a passport. If you need a vaccine certificate to get into bars, restaurants, travel on planes, and go to work then people will still have the freedom of choice to refuse a vaccine but will find life incredibly limiting.

 

Yeah, maybe they can make it shaped like a little gold star and require people to wear it on their person visible for all.... ::)

[Guest cherzeca]

isolation of a promising antibody molecule:  https://www.scribd.com/document/476146747/Pi-is-009286742031148-x#from_embed

[Guest cherzeca]

didn't two Nobel prize winners independently say this as well (though not in a report like this):  https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/whistleblower-dr-yan-releases-report-suggesting-coronavirus-was-lab-modified/

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

isolation of a promising antibody molecule:  https://www.scribd.com/document/476146747/Pi-is-009286742031148-x#from_embed

Yes, this is quite exciting (for CV and all other infectious diseases) but we are still very early in the game. You may want to note that this is passive immunity versus active immunity from a vaccine. The antibodies or pieces of antibodies that are neutralizing and that are to-be-laboratory-produced, if and when proven, will be useful in only pockets of disease activity where protection is felt to be necessary based on specific criteria (risk of, or recent exposure, once sick etc). Passive immunity is very short term. Neutralizing antibodies arising as a result of a vaccine (if and when proven) will also tend to go away rapidly but some 'memory' (this is really fascinating stuff) is likely to remain within our dear B-cells.

There are a lot of bright and motivated people working on this and the odds are that something good will come, somehow, as part of the efforts. For the financially inclined, passive vs active immunity is like liquidity vs solvency when dealing with distress. Both are important but solvency is more encompassing. Maybe the Fed will backstop the synthetic antibodies.

 

didn't two Nobel prize winners independently say this as well (though not in a report like this):  https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/whistleblower-dr-yan-releases-report-suggesting-coronavirus-was-lab-modified/

This post of yours is absolutely interesting to me but not for the intent that was premeditated. The real reason for the response is found below, as a follow-up to Spekulatius' post. You appear to be bright and knowledgeable and you even showed what seemed to be authentic empathy at some point so your post is a head-scratcher for me, at least to some degree. Last century, i got some scientific training and learned to think of the data first and then to deal with credibility and that's what i'll do below as a response to your post but i also completed post-graduate law training (i think you're a lawyer) and learned to combine data and credibility assessment simultaneously with the proviso that the expert needs to be certified as such first, at least under formal circumstances. It's hard to certify you as an expert with the info, as submitted.

You had brought up the idea before and some comments had been made including in relation to one of the Nobel laureates that you refer to. The serious data i've looked at for this continue to suggest that the virus was not modified in the lab but this is still work in progress

""In order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory," he added."

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-launches-full-scale-investigation-wuhan-lab

Pentagon suggests otherwise:

https://futurism.com/neoscope/us-military-unlikely-covid-19-created-lab-bioweapon

It’s a big enough disaster to investigate closely and maybe even go down some rabbit holes, but the way the virus got started as well as Occam’s razor and existing genetic evidence suggests that this virus got its start in nature.

It's hard to disprove theories which can be unfortunate for alleged conspiracies of various sorts.

1st step: evidence

Most of the genomic work that came out suggests that the mutations were natural (although not 100% sure).

A good example (quite 'scientific' but included as some may be interested; i know Gregmal for instance has an interest in advanced genomics):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

2nd step: source

The main source, Mr Luc Montagnier, after the work that led to the Nobel prize, has become REALLY bizarre. He has postulated about the use of antibiotics for autism, DNA "teleportation" and especially about the "memory" of water. (bad-taste joke removed here)

The second Nobel laureate you refer to (Dr. Honjo) had to make the record straight:

https://infotagion.com/factcheck-did-nobel-prize-winner-say-covid-19-came-from-a-lab/

 

As far as the third source, here's a tidbit from Wikipedia (not the best source but enough for me at this point):

"Later in September Yan published a research paper named "Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route." In the paper's abstract, it stated that "SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus" and that it could have been created in lab within 6 months.[26][27] One reason for scepticism is that the paper was published under the Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation in New York, which is owned by Guo Mengui, who is a friend of anti-Chinese US citizen and far-right evangelist, Steve Bannon."

 

...

You just need to look here to come to the conclusion that the rollout of the vaccine will be difficult:

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/vovid-19-vaccine-give-it-a-shot-or-mot/

I would think that they give first dibs to first responders (nurses have many mandatory vaccinations anyways), then essential workers and have mandatory vaccinations for school (unless they choose online).

I would also think about talking to economist about a good incentive program. Maybe cash incentives? There is a risk that A homeless person gets three shots for cash, but I would rather have that than many of them being superspreaders. Time to think this through, imo.

Cash incentives may be a step too far but who knows? In selected circumstances, there are sound strategies that can apply when the outcome is clearly one-sided in order to optimize behavior and decision-making without compromising personal autonomy (eg vaccines, organ donation etc). Nudging strategies (look for libertarian vs paternalistic nudges) that include default options with possible opting out can be interesting. Many people (a growing number...) hold strong beliefs against vaccines but many are simply lazy or indifferent and then issues such as availability, cost, simplicity can make a significant difference. Most people tend to show spontaneous sympathy (even empathy and even benevolence) under the right circumstances. Simple strategies can result in win-win scenarios.

The worrisome part (that's the real reason behind this long post) is the post-truth populist era that we've entered and that's playing out under Covid. It's normal that some people reject options such as vaccines based on some kind of rational process. That's OK. The problem is when a critical mass of people (that includes some very intelligent folks) start to develop motivated resistance based on raw intuition when level 2 deliberate thinking is required. An unfortunate result may be that some people may become more entrenched in their beliefs when exposed to genuine high-quality evidence (have you seen this in social media? :) ). It's called the backfire effect and it results from distorted reasoning. This tribal way to think is reinforced by simple and repetitive (and wrong) easy answers. i've come to believe that this is becoming a huge problem. A potential solution may involve to patiently and respectfully deal with the issue by politely sharing knowledge and analysis, one by one. To delay or defuse the trigger, i hope that an appeal to reason may be helpful. i would call this a nudge to reason, to slowly but surely reverse the drift.

[Guest cherzeca]

@cigar. I don't understand your response, but that is ok.  my only point is that this virologist who had to escape from china knows the lay of the land in these laboratories and I think her argument requires attention in the context of what these labs were doing.  I do not know microbiology well enough to discern viral natural mutation v human intervention (though she certainly does), but I do believe that introducing Bannon into this conversation is an absurd diversion.

[Cigarbutt]

@cigar. I don't understand your response, but that is ok.  my only point is that this virologist who had to escape from china knows the lay of the land in these laboratories and I think her argument requires attention in the context of what these labs were doing.  I do not know microbiology well enough to discern viral natural mutation v human intervention (though she certainly does), but I do believe that introducing Bannon into this conversation is an absurd diversion.

Hmmm... :)

So, more absurd diversion based on the fact that the 'scientist' used essentially unsubstantiated claims, went through a non-peer-reviewed process and published the study in a non-scientific journal funded by a party who is closely aligned with somebody voicing unusual opinions and who recently got arrested for fraud:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8738733/Study-claiming-covid-Chinese-lab-published-groups-founded-Steve-Bannon.html

i think the word absurd applies but not in relation to the diversion you describe.

Are you (like your Scientist-in-Chief yesterday) also confusing herd immunity with herd mentality?

-----

In related news, Google just announced a deal with Singapore (i have mixed feelings about the Singapore model and about this deal but it's interesting) whereby good behaviors including vaccinations will be rewarded using some kind of nudge strategy, extending a strategy that was used during the pandemic in order to contain spread:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-16/singapore-to-pay-citizens-for-keeping-healthy-with-apple-watch

[LC]

@cigar. I don't understand your response, but that is ok.  my only point is that this virologist who had to escape from china knows the lay of the land in these laboratories and I think her argument requires attention in the context of what these labs were doing.  I do not know microbiology well enough to discern viral natural mutation v human intervention (though she certainly does), but I do believe that introducing Bannon into this conversation is an absurd diversion.

 

Her claim is as follows:

 

SARS-COV-2 has a "furin cleavage site" (I am getting far out of my depth here) which the closest previous coronavirus (SARS-COV) did not have.

 

Here is a decent explanation: https://www.virology.ws/2020/02/13/furin-cleavage-site-in-the-sars-cov-2-coronavirus-glycoprotein/

 

This is the relevant portion:

 

Examination of the protein sequence of the S glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 reveals the presence of a furin cleavage sequence (PRRARS|V). The CoV with the highest nucleotide sequence homology, isolated from a bat in Yunnan in 2013 (RaTG-13), does not have the furin cleavage sequence. Because furin proteases are abundant in the respiratory tract, it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 S glycoprotein is cleaved upon exit from epithelial cells and consequently can efficiently infect other cells. In contrast, the highly related bat CoV RaTG-13 does not have the furin cleavage site.

 

Whether or not the furin cleavage site within the S glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 is actually cleaved remains to be determined. Meanwhile, it is possible that the insertion of a furin cleavage site allowed a bat CoV to gain the ability to infect humans. The furin cleavage site might have been acquired by recombination with another virus possessing that site. This event could have happened thousands of years ago, or weeks ago. Upon introduction into a human – likely in an outdoor meat market – the virus began its epidemic spread.

 

 

Dr. Yan asserts that this cleavage site was introduced into a lab (see her report, pg. 13) as there are no known other coronaviruses which contain both (1) this cleavage site and (2) a similar-enough sequence identity. She claims the closest coronavirus with this furin site has no more than 40% similar sequencing, referencing a whitepaper ("Furin, a potential therapeutic target for COVID-19", preprinted on chinaXiv). I could not access this whitepaper.

 

The article I reference above suggests this furin site could have been acquired in some other (i.e. naturally-occurring) manner.

 

I simply don't have the expertise to discern between the two, perhaps another forum member can pick it up from here.

 

Here are some references which may be useful:

https://jvi.asm.org/content/84/7/3134

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/15/884/5781085

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966842X16000718

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/27/eabb9153

 

 

[Investor20]

@cigar. I don't understand your response, but that is ok.  my only point is that this virologist who had to escape from china knows the lay of the land in these laboratories and I think her argument requires attention in the context of what these labs were doing.  I do not know microbiology well enough to discern viral natural mutation v human intervention (though she certainly does), but I do believe that introducing Bannon into this conversation is an absurd diversion.

Hmmm... :)

So, more absurd diversion based on the fact that the 'scientist' used essentially unsubstantiated claims, went through a non-peer-reviewed process and published the study in a non-scientific journal funded by a party who is closely aligned with somebody voicing unusual opinions and who recently got arrested for fraud:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8738733/Study-claiming-covid-Chinese-lab-published-groups-founded-Steve-Bannon.html

i think the word absurd applies but not in relation to the diversion you describe.

Are you (like your Scientist-in-Chief yesterday) also confusing herd immunity with herd mentality?

-----

In related news, Google just announced a deal with Singapore (i have mixed feelings about the Singapore model and about this deal but it's interesting) whereby good behaviors including vaccinations will be rewarded using some kind of nudge strategy, extending a strategy that was used during the pandemic in order to contain spread:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-16/singapore-to-pay-citizens-for-keeping-healthy-with-apple-watch

 

This virologist does seem to have relevant background.  She published both in animal transmission of viruses and coronaviruses.  So whether Covid-19 came from bats to humans or not, she does seem to have expertise in that area.

 

Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters

By Prathanporn Kaewpreedee, Malik Peiris, Hui-ling Yen, Li-Meng Yan

nature.com

 

Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19

By Yang Liu, Li-Meng Yan, LKS Faculty, Tian-Xin Xiang

thelancet.com

 

https://muckrack.com/li-meng-yan/articles

 

[Gregmal]

Without any take on what the women is saying...all I would add is that it is ultra dangerous to simply write off people who are being silenced because the media is trying to discredit them. Twitter today blocked the women. What a shitshow that is becoming. If we dont like what you have to say, we censor you. Playing with fire with that.

[LC]

Additionally, two studies show the furin cleavage site may not be as important as Yan’s work implies:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0184-0

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00783/full

 

Since all the mutations were identified from live viral strains in COVID-19 patients, our results revealed that the furin cleavage site may not be required for SARS-CoV-2 to enter human cells in vivo, which agrees with the in vitro experimental results showing that SARS-CoV-2, with deletion of the furin cleavage site, could still enter the cell lines of humans, African green monkeys, and bay hamsters (Walls et al., 2020). Therefore, we speculate that our observed mutants may represent a new subgroup of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus with reduced tropism and transmissibility, which requires further experimental validations. Analyzing clinical symptoms and infectiousness of the COVID-19 patients with those mutant strains may be also important in future studies. If tropism and transmissibility of those mutant strains were indeed reduced, they might serve as potential live-attenuated vaccine candidates

[Cigarbutt]

...

Additionally, two studies show the furin cleavage site may not be as important as Yan’s work implies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0184-0

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00783/full

...

Thanks for the effective search and select exercise that allowed to gain (over just a few minutes) a helpful perspective. i decided, instead of spending hours in order to perhaps form the beginning of a useful opinion, to do something else*. i will rely on the experts on this one. It's not appropriate to silence somebody, with credentials or not, but it does not mean that one can't ignore what she's saying. By rapidly taking the microphone and not going through the painful peer-review process, the value of her work pretty much went to zero. i continue to think there is some responsibility related to sharing info with others and the burden of proof should be high when submitting unusual, controversial or poorly substantiated claims. Also, if the question of 'fault' is raised as to the proximate cause, doesn't that mean that the same degree of ruthlessness should be applied about less than optimal mitigating measures applied after or is this only about diversion?

The following is interesting also for perspective:

https://theconversation.com/heres-how-scientists-know-the-coronavirus-came-from-bats-and-wasnt-made-in-a-lab-141850

*Instead, i did a 144.8 km ride which i really appreciate and which, as luck would have it sometimes, finished by linking up with a bunch of millennials, some of whom Peloton fans. i won't tell you about the finish but my legs hurt today.

-----

The blame game perhaps is related to persisting and uncomfortable trends. Global trends seem to indicate that this will be with us for a while (although likely with a more benign course) and may even develop a seasonal pattern. This should be a slowly mutating virus so vaccines are likely to catch up and with rising herd immunity, our focus is likely to go elsewhere. American trends are also interesting and recent data suggests that the virus has permeated through the continent to an unusual degree. Here are two interesting links:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/09/11/covid-19s-summer-surge-into-red-america-sets-the-stage-for-novembers-election/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_medium=email&utm_content=95240983&utm_source=hs_email

https://reason.com/2020/09/16/how-much-difference-do-covid-19-lockdowns-make/

The first link has a left predisposition but is submitted because of its factual content and the political 'message' can be put aside. The data shows how the foreign virus has been allowed to infiltrate the US fabric.

The second link questions the value of lockdowns with a potential analytical weakness related to the underappreciation that a poorly coordinated and confused containment and spread-mitigation strategy may have significant marginal effects on mortality and morbidity. With this virus, the tension between individualism and the common good has played out and it seems that Sweden had a special predisposition to transfer some of the personal individualism into personal responsibility, at least in a relatively homogeneous way. For both Sweden and the US, the strategy (confused or not) has resulted in a significant front-loading of deaths and will become a superior strategy over time only if certain assumptions are met (vaccines don't work, social unrest etc).

[mattee2264]

 

Risks of a second lockdown seem to be rising and in the UK they are already talking seriously about a two week circuit breaker nationwide lockdown to coincide with the school holidays. I imagine the rest of Europe will take similar measures.

 

Problem is that lockdowns are generally accepted as having been successful in reversing the tide. But no real effort was made to properly enforce more moderate measures such as social distancing over the summer which are more viable long term solutions.

 

So looks like a winter of rolling lockdowns which is the whole situation that governments were desperate to avoid.

 

Imagine that future lockdowns will be designed to impose less damage on the economy and mostly involve social restrictions such as curfews, closing bars and pubs, stopping non-essential travel and mingling between households. So impact will be more localized. But still pretty frustrating.

 

I gather cases are rising fast in the USA as well although you guys seem to have a lot more tolerance for high daily case rates.

 

How do you all see things developing in the coming months....in terms of health outcomes, economy etc.

[KCLarkin]

Risks of a second lockdown seem to be rising and in the UK they are already talking seriously about a two week circuit breaker nationwide lockdown to coincide with the school holidays. I imagine the rest of Europe will take similar measures.

 

Similar situation developing in Canada, though we are a bit delayed.

[dwy000]

I don't understand the rapidly declining mortality rate.  Case levels in Europe have exploded to levels similar or way higher than the peaks of April but death rates are a tiny fraction.  Belgium and the Netherlands are experiencing case levels above the peaks of April but deaths are consistently countable on one hand.

 

Point being that it will be extremely hard for governments to argue for new lockdowns and economic closures if hospitals are not being overwhelmed and very few people are dying. 

 

Is it just timing?  Is this the new normal?

[RichardGibbons]

Point being that it will be extremely hard for governments to argue for new lockdowns and economic closures if hospitals are not being overwhelmed and very few people are dying. 

 

This is a very good point that I fear will be lost as a result of the politicalization of the pandemic (at least in North America. I'm not sure about other places.)

[LC]

There is speculation (see the prior 2 posts I have made in this thread) that there is a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2 which is less deadly than the initial strain in Mar/Apr.

[muscleman]

I'd like to provide some updates on the Chinese vaccines. It is currently in phase 3 trial. But there are already under half a million "elite" people who got the shots.

I have a friend who got a shot and said he had diarrhea for a whole week. He did not test for antibodies.

The other friend's boss got a shot and tested for antibodies and it was negative.  >:(

They both took the type of vaccine that contains the dead virus, not the vector one. My friends thought the dead virus one is more promising than the vector one so they took that.

[dwy000]

There is speculation (see the prior 2 posts I have made in this thread) that there is a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2 which is less deadly than the initial strain in Mar/Apr.

 

Okay.  But whether it is a mutated strain, more young people, better treatment...whatever the rationale, unless there is strong evidence that the rate is going to jump up again, the idea of having new lockdowns makes no sense (and plays right into Trump supporters' hands). 

 

The UK had less deaths each day this week than the week before the lockdown was lifted.  Canada had 1 death yesterday.  If there is talk of new lockdowns based upon that data we have thrown science out the window in the other direction.

[LC]

unless there is strong evidence that the rate is going to jump up again, the idea of having new lockdowns makes no sense

 

There is no strong evidence when predicting the future of COVID.

 

We have mixed evidence:

 

a virus with some flu-like characteristics (which may gain viral strength during traditional flu season) ;

a "second-wave" which hit the US in June-Aug ;

a lack of a "second wave" in most of Europe ;

vaccine progress which to date seems mixed (historically vaccines require aprox 18 months to develop, if at all possible)

 

When presented with conflicting evidence, usually the responsible decision is to "play it safe". At least that is my perspective, yours may differ.

[Castanza]

unless there is strong evidence that the rate is going to jump up again, the idea of having new lockdowns makes no sense

 

There is no strong evidence when predicting the future of COVID.

 

We have mixed evidence:

 

a virus with some flu-like characteristics (which may gain viral strength during traditional flu season) ;

a "second-wave" which hit the US in June-Aug ;

a lack of a "second wave" in most of Europe ;

vaccine progress which to date seems mixed (historically vaccines require aprox 18 months to develop, if at all possible)

 

When presented with conflicting evidence, usually the responsible decision is to "play it safe". At least that is my perspective, yours may differ.

 

“Playing it safe” should be reserved for situations where the outcome is more binary. A we’ve seen so far, lockdowns affect far more than just the spread of the virus. I mean, wasn’t the objective to “flatten the curve” as to not overwhelm hospital systems?

 

[Viking]

Here is one forecast from IMHE (University of Washington) of what we may see in the US in the coming months. They expect an increase in cases/deaths by November and into December. Bottom line, the situation will get worse in all Northern Hemisphere countries, driven primarily by seasonality. How well basic measures, like mask wearing, social distancing etc, are followed will be another important factor.

 

- http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/Projects/COVID/briefing_US_091120.pdf

 

Projections

• We expect the daily death rate in the US, because of seasonality and declining public vigilance, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December. Cumulative deaths expected by January 1 are 415,090; this is 222,522 deaths from now until the end of the year.

• The large increase in daily deaths expected in late November and December is driven by continued increases in mobility, declines in mask use, and – most importantly – seasonality. We estimate the likely impact of seasonality by examining the trends in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. For example, Southern Hemisphere countries such as Argentina, Chile, southern Brazil, and South Africa had much larger epidemics than expected based on mobility, testing, and mask use. The statistical association between COVID-19 transmission rates and pneumonia seasonality patterns is strong and is the basis for our estimate of the magnitude of the seasonal increase that is expected.