Coronavirus

[cwericb]

Good luck Viking in trying to get straight answers. Trump supporters do not like to answer direct questions. I don’t know if they refuse to confront reality or what the reason is. However, they have a habit of changing the subject and deflecting as much as they can.

 

Or they will misquote you contorting the question so they can come up with an answer. For example: You said... “your leader lies pretty much every time he speaks”. Greg twists that into you said  "everything he says is a lie". Certainly different statements. Anyone who listens to Trump’s rants knows that he rarely makes a speech that don’t contain some lies.

 

 

[Gregmal]

Druckenmiller says stay inquisitive and be open minded. Along this vein, can the Trump supporters (perhaps those who recently posted) please answer each of the 7 questions below. Each is a ‘yes‘ or ‘no’ question. I am hoping your answers will inform and teach me something. Thanks in advance :-)

 

1.) Trump does not lie at a historic rate - far, far greater than other political figure in US history. This is a yes or no question.

2.) Trump is an ardent supporter of science? Yes or no?

3.) Trump has not tried to intimidate and muzzle the CDC and other departments tasked with handling the pandemic? Yes or no?

4.) Trump has worked very effectively with all states to create a cohesive national strategy to deal with the pandemic? Yes or no

5.) Trump has worked very effectively with the Democrats to come up with a unified approach to deal with the pandemic? Yes or no?

6.) Trump has been a champion in role modelling and promoting the two activities that will have the greatest impact in controlling the virus: wear a mask and social distancing. Yes or no?

7.) Trump has done an admirable job in supporting the 200,000 families who have lost a loved one so far during the pandemic? Yes or no?

 

“1.) your leader lies pretty much every time he speaks - so nothing he says can now be trusted. [/size]Please read this point a second and third time. It is REALLY important especially when dealing with a pandemic... for those of you who seem to have forgotten :-)

2.) your leader does not believe in science. Please read this point a second and third time. It is also REALLY important when dealing with a pandemic.

3.) your leader muzzles / intimidates / politicizes the health apparatus normally charged with managing the pandemic. This is also really important then dealing with a pandemic.

4.) your leader refuses to work with all states and local governments to create a unified approach to dealing with the pandemic (communication, actions etc). This is really important.

5.) your leader is unable to work with other political parties to create a unified approach to dealing with the pandemic. This is also really important.

6.)  your leader refuses to champion the two activities that will have the greatest impact in controlling the virus: wear a mask and social distance. This is also really important.

7.) your leader is not compassionate: in the US hundreds of thousands of people have died and many hundreds of thousand will die in the coming months... the virus is a humanitarian disaster and Trump is focussed primarily on... getting himself reelected. His actions in dealing with the pandemic are informed by whether or not they are going to get him reelected. Despicable is the only way to describe this.”

 

Funny how when confronted with irrefutable facts such as the above, Trump supporters seem to disappear or change the subject. But if they do comment the excuse is ‘... well, Biden would be worse’ even though none of the above 7 points seem apply to Biden.

 

 

LOL and then cwericb finds a way to say that isn't what was said or implied..... #irrefutablefact! #200K!

[KCLarkin]

In the end the virus always wins. There is no magic and there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent this in any country in any part of the world.

 

Our resident nihilist awakens. I'll send a postcard to my brother-in-law in Vietnam to share the bad news. He keeps saying they don't have Covid there.

[cwericb]

Viking said... “your leader lies pretty much every time he speaks”

is not the same as saying

"everything he says is a lie".

 

1) You misquoted Viking. You do this frequently and I have corrected you previously when you have misquoted me as well. If you use quotes to quote someone than do it accurately and don’t try to twist what they say.

2) You changed the meaning of what he said

3) If I have to explain the difference again, here goes...

 

When Trump makes his speeches, most of them contains at least one lie. One would have to be pretty gullible to think otherwise*. But you said Viking said "everything he says is a lie" and that is quite different.

 

* I believe fact checkers have now documented over 20,000 lies he has told - search it yourself.

[Viking]

Viking, out of respect, as unlike many others you are a high quality poster who does contribute to this forum in a positive way.. I will attempt to address your question but kind of point out that I was mainly referring to cwericb's claim that the opinion(which you are entitled to) you stated, was an "irrefutable fact". As cubsfan sarcastically pointed out, it isn't really a yes/no question. No more so than "is chocolate ice cream better than vanilla, yes or no?". Or stating that "the new Haagen Dazs flavor has a historic amount of chocolate in it!"....Its subjective and laden with interpretations. Unless:

 

1. "historic rate", "far greater than other political figure in US history"...do you have data outlining the number and type of lies told by all 45 presidents? Is this just what they say in public, or also private? How was this data obtained and is it consistent in its application amongst all 45 presidents?

 

2. Ardent supporter of science....Honestly, I have no clue. Like I said, I dont know the dude and at best these are just interpretations we make based off the information that gets fed to us. I mean, I dont even know whether or not people I do know consider themselves staunch scientists or supporters of science. Its kind of an odd thing and not exactly relevant to most things unless you are a scientist by career or hobby. You know who is a scientist and ardent supporter of it? Anthony Fauci. Who for a long time was adamantly against wearing masks. Yet is a hero to the anti Trump crowd...except for when he speaks positively of Trump, then he is ignored.

 

I could do the same for 3-7 but I think you get my point. Facts are indeed irrefutable and indisputable. The Yankees currently lead Toronto 7-1. Fact. Gerrit Cole is an overrated bum who benefited from playing for a cheating organization and now gets tons of run support playing for a team that buys all its championships and thats why he is currently the winning pitcher for the game.....see how one is clean and clear and the other is tainted by adjectives and subjective interpretation?

 

Greg, it cracks me up. Much of my family thinks i am a right wing lunatic :-)

 

In terms of Trump i simply cannot understand the logic people use.

 

You ask for proof that he lies at a historic rate. Below is one link. It is irrefutable that Trump lies at a historic rate. Many web sites have documented this (are they perfect? Do they sketch an accurate picture of his behaviour? Yes). Many people have looked in to this. If someone wants to answer this question it is very easy.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

 

Anyways, i am just trying to understand the logic of Trump supporters. And until someone provides some i will continue to shake my head in disbelief. But i will try and remain inquisitive and open minded :-)

 

‘When the student is ready the teacher appears.‘ I am trying to be the student when it comes to understanding Trump supporters. But i guess i am not ready yet.

 

PS: do i think Biden has the onset of dementia? Perhaps. Is Trudeau a poor leader? Yes. Leaders are not perfect. But please, be rational. Call a spade a spade.

 

[Cigarbutt]

LOL...

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.

If "if's" and "and's" were pots and pans,

There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

If ands and buts were candy and nuts

Every day would be Christmas.”

What is truly fascinating is that (the poster who thinks this discussion is reaching unbelievable surrealism) went to the trouble of posting the graphic portraying the 7-day rolling new cases per million population, which shows pretty clearly that the US, the Netherlands, Spain and France are all currently in the same boat when it comes to new covid cases.  Denmark, Canada and the UK are rapidly heading towards that boat...

 

It should be pretty obvious by now that the posters in this thread who suggested in March that the lock-down measures undertaken by a great many countries could only temporarily hold down the spread of covid.  In most countries, the lock-down measures were relaxed in May/June and look where they are at today.  They are exactly back to where they started in March.  The difference now is that I suspect that very few of those countries will find the popular support among the population to implement another aggressive lock-down.  In short, my guess is that those countries will largely come around to the US approach of having a relatively high tolerance to the spread of the virus.

SJ

SJ, i'll stick to the data and there are three underlying assumptions that need to be seriously questioned here.

1-This 'wave' is the same as other 'waves'.

We've learned that this assumption has not held mostly so far and often to a very significant degree. The mortality/morbidity per 'case' profile of each 'wave' has improved due to many known and unknown factors, with the obvious known factors being: more testing (lower percent positives), implication of younger cohorts and 'we' (medical, right, left and central) are getting better at this over time, in terms of cost-effective measures. Even in the US (where 'improvements' were perhaps less planned and coordinated), if you agree that there were three 'waves' (with waves 2 and 3 being commingled), the percent positive peaks went from 21% to 8-9% to 5-7%, with mortality profiles improving over time. This is likely to continue unless there develops a significant seasonal factor or if the virus mutates in a significantly detrimental way (unlikely).

2-The spread is inevitable

It is useless to debate that this fatalistic approach would have meant very different results in relation to many previous viral episodes. Also, some countries have been able to achieve spread containment, at least so far and for a significant period of time. See below and remember to look at the left hand scale and compare to similar graphs shown in a previous post:

3-Front-loading of deaths and morbidity will prove less costly than the differential limitations on economic activity.

At this point, this remains an unproven assumption. Whether this is part of a grand plan or an outcome of improvisation, it appears that Spain, France, UK and the US have taken the lead in terms of human costs (unevenly distributed). The sustainability approach has not been proven up to this point.

[cwericb]

In the end the virus always wins. There is no magic and there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent this in any country in any part of the world.

 

Our resident nihilist awakens. I'll send a postcard to my brother-in-law in Vietnam to share the bad news. He keeps saying they don't have Covid there.

 

Just for Othopa's info our small Canadian Province has had

57 cases,

57 recovered cases,

zero active cases,

zero hospitalizations,

zero community spread,

and zero deaths.

Applying US figures we should have had 100 deaths to date.

[Gregmal]

Viking, out of respect, as unlike many others you are a high quality poster who does contribute to this forum in a positive way.. I will attempt to address your question but kind of point out that I was mainly referring to cwericb's claim that the opinion(which you are entitled to) you stated, was an "irrefutable fact". As cubsfan sarcastically pointed out, it isn't really a yes/no question. No more so than "is chocolate ice cream better than vanilla, yes or no?". Or stating that "the new Haagen Dazs flavor has a historic amount of chocolate in it!"....Its subjective and laden with interpretations. Unless:

 

1. "historic rate", "far greater than other political figure in US history"...do you have data outlining the number and type of lies told by all 45 presidents? Is this just what they say in public, or also private? How was this data obtained and is it consistent in its application amongst all 45 presidents?

 

2. Ardent supporter of science....Honestly, I have no clue. Like I said, I dont know the dude and at best these are just interpretations we make based off the information that gets fed to us. I mean, I dont even know whether or not people I do know consider themselves staunch scientists or supporters of science. Its kind of an odd thing and not exactly relevant to most things unless you are a scientist by career or hobby. You know who is a scientist and ardent supporter of it? Anthony Fauci. Who for a long time was adamantly against wearing masks. Yet is a hero to the anti Trump crowd...except for when he speaks positively of Trump, then he is ignored.

 

I could do the same for 3-7 but I think you get my point. Facts are indeed irrefutable and indisputable. The Yankees currently lead Toronto 7-1. Fact. Gerrit Cole is an overrated bum who benefited from playing for a cheating organization and now gets tons of run support playing for a team that buys all its championships and thats why he is currently the winning pitcher for the game.....see how one is clean and clear and the other is tainted by adjectives and subjective interpretation?

 

Greg, it cracks me up. Much of my family thinks i am a right wing lunatic :-)

 

In terms of Trump i simply cannot understand the logic people use.

 

You ask for proof that he lies at a historic rate. Below is one link. It is irrefutable that Trump lies at a historic rate. Many web sites have documented this (are they perfect? Do they sketch an accurate picture of his behaviour? Yes). Many people have looked in to this. If someone wants to answer this question it is very easy.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

 

Anyways, i am just trying to understand the logic of Trump supporters. And until someone provides some i will continue to shake my head in disbelief. But i will try and remain inquisitive and open minded :-)

 

‘When the student is ready the teacher appears.‘ I am trying to be the student when it comes to understanding Trump supporters. But i guess i am not ready yet.

 

PS: do i think Biden has the onset of dementia? Perhaps. Is Trudeau a poor leader? Yes. Leaders are not perfect. But please, be rational. Call a spade a spade.

 

Yea look, Ive said it before and have no problem saying it again. Trump is POS human being, from what I can ascertain. But the character of a politician has never effected my life. Their policies do. The laws that parties impose upon people do. Taxes do. If nothing else, this is one pretty huge lesson to be learned from COVID. NYC will be learning it the hard way for the next decade most likely. Ive never personally given any weight to what a president/senator/governor has said or thought. I dont care. I live my life and try to drown out the noise. When it comes to supporting a position, the options in America are democrat or republican. If there was an instance where an independent or third party has a chance, I would heavily consider that. Until then, its ham sandwich or boca burger....Neither my favorite but make do with what we have.

[RichardGibbons]

Yes, the people who were saying that Denmark was the best model are pretty quiet these days.  Denmark is at ~500 cases per day about now, for a population of a shade under 6 million people.  So, take Denmark and multiply by about 60, and that would be similar to the US.  So, 500 x 60 = 30,000 (still lower than the current number of new cases in the US, but not appreciably).  All of the people claiming that Sweden was misguided and that Denmark's test and traceback approach was dialed-in are pretty quiet in September.

 

Hmm, Denmark vs Sweden.  Why would anyone choose to just have Denmark's trashed economy when they can instead have Sweden's equally trashed economy and but also five times the death rate? (Note the grey dots, the Scandinavian countries that are the best comparatives for Sweden.)

 

 

Like, is it really that important to Trump fans that a bunch of extra people die without actually improving the economy? And if you're going to say, we "we should be like that country", why wouldn't you just choose South Korea? A tiny death rate and a robust economy. What's not to like?

[Spekulatius]

Ok, I live near NH and the economy for all practical purposes is open. As far as restaurants, they allowed indoor dining for quite some time (I am not sure it was ever really closed) and now at 100% capacity. Pretty much else is allowed to be open too. Live free or die...

 

When you look at the reality on what is happening though then most places running friction of their capacity. Many places are takeout out only. Hotels are pretty empty on most parts (we travelled last month). We also travelled though upstate NY and it’s pretty much the same. There are probably more restriction in upstate NY but essentially, the feel is pretty much the same. We did find that in either location, business were pretty adherent to wearing masks etc. and other precautions.

 

Now NH in a way is a lot Sweden ex their capital Stockholm, Imo. NH also has done quite well on so far with this epidemic, which is probably due to low population density, but also due to socioeconomic factors (low percentage of minorities within population etc). We live in MA near the NH border and enjoy the relative freedom, but would the same work in NYC it areas with a totally different socioeconomic profile? I kind of doubt it and the data shows otherwise. I also think it is not  really straightforward to assume what works in one country/area will just work in another with the same results.

[Cigarbutt]

For those interested in the 'data' perspective, there is an event today that discusses some interesting topics.

It's possible to register or even to spend about 5 minutes reading a summary of the papers. One of the papers for example discusses the economic impact vs deaths equation, a topic RichardGibbons mentioned two posts before.

https://www.brookings.edu/events/bpea-fall-2020-covid-19-and-the-economy/

[KJP]

Yes, the people who were saying that Denmark was the best model are pretty quiet these days.  Denmark is at ~500 cases per day about now, for a population of a shade under 6 million people.  So, take Denmark and multiply by about 60, and that would be similar to the US.  So, 500 x 60 = 30,000 (still lower than the current number of new cases in the US, but not appreciably).  All of the people claiming that Sweden was misguided and that Denmark's test and traceback approach was dialed-in are pretty quiet in September.

 

Hmm, Denmark vs Sweden.  Why would anyone choose to just have Denmark's trashed economy when they can instead have Sweden's equally trashed economy and but also five times the death rate? (Note the grey dots, the Scandinavian countries that are the best comparatives for Sweden.)

 

 

Like, is it really that important to Trump fans that a bunch of extra people die without actually improving the economy? And if you're going to say, we "we should be like that country", why wouldn't you just choose South Korea? A tiny death rate and a robust economy. What's not to like?

 

The difference in death rates in what I assume to be roughly comparable countries is very interesting.  Can anyone link to what they believe to be sound analyses of, for example, Greece v. Italy or Austria v. France?  Similarly, Korea or Japan vs. United States?  I apologize if these have already been posted; I haven't scrolled through the whole thread.

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

...

The difference in death rates in what I assume to be roughly comparable countries is very interesting.  Can anyone link to what they believe to be sound analyses of, for example, Greece v. Italy or Austria v. France?  Similarly, Korea or Japan vs. United States?  I apologize if these have already been posted; I haven't scrolled through the whole thread.

Short version: easy answer of your choice.

 

Long version: your question(s) is (are) impossible to answer satisfactorily. Since this is a topic where we deal with incomplete information and the process can be compared to investment analysis (boiling down a question to key inputs), here's some data dealing with this evolving and un-finished business.

 

The link below is interesting because it allows you to choose countries and to compare:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy

 

The part below that goes from 1:36:25 to 1:52:20 (presentation by Chad Jones and Jesus Fernandez) suggests conceptual tools to assess the trade-off (if there is one) between economic cost and deaths and is food for thought when trying to balance policy vs luck impact. The four-quadrant concept is interesting: good-good, good-bad, bad-good, bad-bad. Trying to copy the good-good may be a reasonable idea.

https://www.brookings.edu/events/bpea-fall-2020-covid-19-and-the-economy/?utm_campaign=Events%3A%20Economic%20Studies&utm_medium=email&utm_content=95916435&utm_source=hs_email

 

You may want to consider that the virus story has several chapters and the four-quadrant concept (good-good etc) can also be used along the initial containment-subsequent community spread mitigation and along the initial phase vs sustainability which is still an evolving story with still not fully settled evidence.

 

If you like to reduce factors into key ingredients, here's a list supported by some solid evidence (not necessarily listed in an order of importance):

-area close to major high-traffic international airports

-population density and cluster of highly populated agglomerations

-demographic profile: age, risk factors and multi-generational homes

-institutional setup of chronic care institutions (physical, human resources, equipment and protocols)

-cultural factors, including already present attitudes and behaviors as well as readiness to adopt collective policies and effectively comply with them

-the actual policies (from simple and basic to more extensive 'lockdowns')

-good or bad luck

 

Given the exponential character of the disease (both at the individual and collective levels), it's useful to use a viral load concept (how much disease enters the population), a risk factor concept (how the population has adapted already or is ready to adapt), an immune reaction concept (how a population spontaneously reacts to the disease) and the medical care concept (how proper and timely treatment (policy) may make a difference). Given the exponential character, timing and uniformity of application may be incredibly significant when a certain set of risk factors are assembled.

 

Comparing Greece with Italy is interesting. The following suggests that, like Czech and others, Greece responded rapidly, effectively and uniformly to the initial phase. However, recent developments show that Greece's recent response (like Czech and others) points to significant pain ahead.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-greece-learned-from-italys-and-spains-mistakes-and-used-rapid/

 

Comparing Austria-Germany to Spain-France is interesting. It looks like this will be good-good vs bad-bad when comparing both 'waves'.

 

Japan is a special case and their result may reflect their older but much healthier population, their strong institutional support for the elderly, some kind of innate immunity, established cultural traits for natural social distancing and masks and likely a higher readiness to socially conform to centrally-planned adjustments.

 

The US has been discussed in the previous 771 pages.

 

So there are many uncontrollable variables and luck factors but it seems that historical path-dependency is not destiny and a strategy is unlikely to work if you don't have one.

 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

Thailand is also an example of a not so rich country that had managed VOVId-19 well:

It is not mentioned here directly, but Thai people in the City often wear masks anyways. Thailand also has subsidized Basic health care affordable even for poor people. While I doubted some numbers, my wife is from Thailand and she told me that numbers are definitely low, based on what she is hearing from her friends living there. People have taken this seriously since February when cases from Chinese travelers propped up.

[orthopa]

In the end the virus always wins. There is no magic and there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent this in any country in any part of the world.

 

Our resident nihilist awakens. I'll send a postcard to my brother-in-law in Vietnam to share the bad news. He keeps saying they don't have Covid there.

 

When you start the go fund me for the canadian victims memorial wall let me know. Post the link if you started it already.

[orthopa]

Thailand is also an example of a not so rich country that had managed VOVId-19 well:

It is not mentioned here directly, but Thai people in the City often wear masks anyways. Thailand also has subsidized Basic health care affordable even for poor people. While I doubted some numbers, my wife is from Thailand and she told me that numbers are definitely low, based on what she is hearing from her friends living there. People have taken this seriously since February when cases from Chinese travelers propped up.

 

China is a super rich country too. They have had what 10 people die of covid in total?

[Cigarbutt]

Thailand is also an example of a not so rich country that had managed VOVId-19 well:

It is not mentioned here directly, but Thai people in the City often wear masks anyways. Thailand also has subsidized Basic health care affordable even for poor people. While I doubted some numbers, my wife is from Thailand and she told me that numbers are definitely low, based on what she is hearing from her friends living there. People have taken this seriously since February when cases from Chinese travelers propped up.

China is a super rich country too. They have had what 10 people die of covid in total?

Taken from a good quality NYT article published some time ago, referring to the process in place when schools re-opened in Thailand:

Taken recently in a place where things are great again:

If given a choice, i'd pick the US, based on a weighted approach, but does that mean that we can't learn from each other?

[Cigarbutt]

Policy design and application during Covid has been tricky. As usual, it's about achieving some kind of tradeoff between the primitive and individual instincts, critical for survival and the unalienable rights to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak, critical for civilized survival.

 

https://www.aier.org/article/coase-and-covid-the-spectrum/

TL;DR: As usual, the individual option should be the default option, even by instinct.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6939e1.htm?s_cid=mm6939e1_e&ACSTrackingID=DM38812&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR%20Early%20Release%20-%20Vol.%2069%2C%20September%2023%2C%202020&deliveryName=DM38812&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top#F2_down

TL;DR: In some places, spread in the younger group (20-49) involved frontline people where exposure is not necessarily benign and that spread preceded spread in older cohorts, suggesting a very obvious free market failure.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the event of economic hardship.

In terms of raw material that can feed reflection, the following contains updated and objective data about excess mortality. Even if policy was applied by instinctual design, there is nothing that says we can't learn from the episode. as this will continue to be work in progress.

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

[Spekulatius]

^ Speaking of opening schools, our school notified us about an “ exposure case” for our son at school (meaning that a student with a seat close to him tested positive ), so now he needs to stay at home for the next 2 weeks and go to fully remote during this time. Based on how this works (4-5 classes/student and typically 4-6 surrounding students in each), it means about 20 students might be quarantined for 2 weeks for every student testing positive. I don’t think that schools are going to remain open when a second wave occurs with this setting.

 

Luckily our state (MA) has pretty good testing setups, my son and I went to a testing station yesterday and the result came back negative this morning. It won’t change anything with respect to quarantining though.

 

A work in progress indeed.

[Spekulatius]

Here are the results of the antibody study mentioned in the newspaper. It looks like the sampling is done on dialysis patients, so I wonder how biased this sample is. I would guess that dialysis patients have a higher odds of being COVID-19 positive than the general population (due to socioeconomic factors and minorities being over resented in dialysis patients) , but perhaps the authors corrected for this.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

 

Anyways, at less than 10% positivity rates, the herd immunity is a long way off.

[Liberty]

https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-43fe5ca3fba1d4ebc05949a11643e03b

 

 

“In a well ventilated environment, “6 feet (of separation) is pretty good if everybody’s got a mask on and nobody stays directly downwind of an infected person for very long..”

[Liberty]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-09-28/christian-drosten-germany-s-dr-fauci-worries-about-second-wave-of-covid

 

Drosten is even more famous in Germany than Fauci is in America, thanks to a wildly successful podcast he introduced in February. Das Coronavirus-Update rocketed to the top of Germany’s podcast rankings, reliably outperforming programs devoted to sex, crime, and even soccer. Its format is simple: As often as five times a week, he spends an hour answering questions about basic science, the latest Covid research, and how societies might navigate the pandemic. Since starting the show, he’s cut back on contact with the press, reserving most of his comments for the podcast. He declined an interview for this story.

 

 

[Investor20]

Here are the results of the antibody study mentioned in the newspaper. It looks like the sampling is done on dialysis patients, so I wonder how biased this sample is. I would guess that dialysis patients have a higher odds of being COVID-19 positive than the general population (due to socioeconomic factors and minorities being over resented in dialysis patients) , but perhaps the authors corrected for this.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

 

Anyways, at less than 10% positivity rates, the herd immunity is a long way off.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281

The secondary attack rate to contacts who were spouses of index cases was 27.8% compared with 17.3% for other adult members in the households.

 

https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-secondary-attack-rate/

It also estimated 32.5% (95% CI: 7.4 – 57.5%) of households with an index case had a secondary case. Spouses had statistically significant (P<0.001) increased secondary transmission (43.3% of spouses were infected) compared to other relatives of the index case (18.3%), and adult contacts had significant (P<0.001) increased transmission (31.0%) compared to children (15.7%).

 

 

Repeated studies have shown spouses of index case are infected less than 50%.  In two confirmed cases I know personally, in both families the spouse turned out to be negative.  In fact other family members got infected but not the spouse.

 

The explanation that is given for less than 50% of spouses of index case getting infected is that about 50% have built in immunity even before covid infection. You have to add the Covid antibody for seroprevalence studies to this to get the percent immune to Covid.

 

If you look at Florida, Texas, India.  All of them have turned around (India just starting) and in the seroprevalence studies in none of the places is it above 30%.

 

[StubbleJumper]

Here are the results of the antibody study mentioned in the newspaper. It looks like the sampling is done on dialysis patients, so I wonder how biased this sample is. I would guess that dialysis patients have a higher odds of being COVID-19 positive than the general population (due to socioeconomic factors and minorities being over resented in dialysis patients) , but perhaps the authors corrected for this.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

 

Anyways, at less than 10% positivity rates, the herd immunity is a long way off.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281

The secondary attack rate to contacts who were spouses of index cases was 27.8% compared with 17.3% for other adult members in the households.

 

https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-secondary-attack-rate/

It also estimated 32.5% (95% CI: 7.4 – 57.5%) of households with an index case had a secondary case. Spouses had statistically significant (P<0.001) increased secondary transmission (43.3% of spouses were infected) compared to other relatives of the index case (18.3%), and adult contacts had significant (P<0.001) increased transmission (31.0%) compared to children (15.7%).

 

 

Repeated studies have shown spouses of index case are infected less than 50%.  In two confirmed cases I know personally, in both families the spouse turned out to be negative.  In fact other family members got infected but not the spouse.

 

The explanation that is given for less than 50% of spouses of index case getting infected is that about 50% have built in immunity even before covid infection. You have to add the Covid antibody for seroprevalence studies to this to get the percent immune to Covid.

 

If you look at Florida, Texas, India.  All of them have turned around (India just starting) and in the seroprevalence studies in none of the places is it above 30%.

 

 

All of that is interesting, but none is particularly pertinent.

 

The study that Spekulatius quoted was conducted during July, but the authors could not specify a particular collection of dates.  In the absence of that, you need to assume that the data reflect mid-month, or July 16.  So, the study showed that on about July 16, 8.3% of 328 million people had antibodies, or about 27.2m people, IFF you believe that dialysis patients reasonably represent the general population (more on that later).  So if the sample were representative to the population, the study would suggest that 27m Americans had antibodies on July 16.  On July 16, there were 3.7m officially diagnosed cases of covid.  So, if the dialysis patients are representative of the general population, the true number of cases in the US would be 7.4:1 of the official number.

 

So, where are we today?  The US is now up to 7.3m official cases.  If you believe the 7.4x ratio that Spekulatius' study would suggest, that would suggest that ~54m people would have antibodies today.  So, that's a shade higher than 16% and herd immunity might be about 60%?  According to this particular study, that's the math.

 

Now, turning to representativeness of the dialysis group, we need to reflect on Spelulatius' assumption that these folks are representative.  Spek would suggest that the presence of visible minorities would make the group representative.  The countervailing behavioural assumption might be that any rational person with a comorbidity (dialysis requirement) would have been making extraordinary efforts to reduce their social circle to avoid covid.  What is more, one must also question the extent to which dialysis patients are employed, because workplaces are an important place of exposure.  If you are so sick that you require dialysis, are you sufficiently healthy to work.  I therefore question the representativeness.  The study is nonetheless valuable.  But, perhaps in your own mind you need to multiply the results by some sort of scalar to reflect the potential for lower contacts among the dialysis group.  So take the 16% antibody rate and gross it up as you see fit.  The "finish line" might be about 60%.

 

What is interesting about this study is that, if you believe that dialysis patients made a modicum of effort to reduce their personal contacts, a 10:1 ratio of antibodies to official cases might be supported by this study.  Unfortunately we won't know the truth of the situation for another couple of years.

 

 

SJ

[Investor20]

Here are the results of the antibody study mentioned in the newspaper. It looks like the sampling is done on dialysis patients, so I wonder how biased this sample is. I would guess that dialysis patients have a higher odds of being COVID-19 positive than the general population (due to socioeconomic factors and minorities being over resented in dialysis patients) , but perhaps the authors corrected for this.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32009-2/fulltext

 

Anyways, at less than 10% positivity rates, the herd immunity is a long way off.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281

The secondary attack rate to contacts who were spouses of index cases was 27.8% compared with 17.3% for other adult members in the households.

 

https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-secondary-attack-rate/

It also estimated 32.5% (95% CI: 7.4 – 57.5%) of households with an index case had a secondary case. Spouses had statistically significant (P<0.001) increased secondary transmission (43.3% of spouses were infected) compared to other relatives of the index case (18.3%), and adult contacts had significant (P<0.001) increased transmission (31.0%) compared to children (15.7%).

 

 

Repeated studies have shown spouses of index case are infected less than 50%.  In two confirmed cases I know personally, in both families the spouse turned out to be negative.  In fact other family members got infected but not the spouse.

 

The explanation that is given for less than 50% of spouses of index case getting infected is that about 50% have built in immunity even before covid infection. You have to add the Covid antibody for seroprevalence studies to this to get the percent immune to Covid.

 

If you look at Florida, Texas, India.  All of them have turned around (India just starting) and in the seroprevalence studies in none of the places is it above 30%.

 

 

All of that is interesting, but none is particularly pertinent. 

 

The study that Spekulatius quoted was conducted during July, but the authors could not specify a particular collection of dates.  In the absence of that, you need to assume that the data reflect mid-month, or July 16.  So, the study showed that on about July 16, 8.3% of 328 million people had antibodies, or about 27.2m people, IFF you believe that dialysis patients reasonably represent the general population (more on that later).  So if the sample were representative to the population, the study would suggest that 27m Americans had antibodies on July 16.  On July 16, there were 3.7m officially diagnosed cases of covid.  So, if the dialysis patients are representative of the general population, the true number of cases in the US would be 7.4:1 of the official number.

 

So, where are we today?  The US is now up to 7.3m official cases.  If you believe the 7.4x ratio that Spekulatius' study would suggest, that would suggest that ~54m people would have antibodies today.  So, that's a shade higher than 16% and herd immunity might be about 60%?  According to this particular study, that's the math.

 

Now, turning to representativeness of the dialysis group, we need to reflect on Spelulatius' assumption that these folks are representative.  Spek would suggest that the presence of visible minorities would make the group representative.  The countervailing behavioural assumption might be that any rational person with a comorbidity (dialysis requirement) would have been making extraordinary efforts to reduce their social circle to avoid covid.  What is more, one must also question the extent to which dialysis patients are employed, because workplaces are an important place of exposure.  If you are so sick that you require dialysis, are you sufficiently healthy to work.  I therefore question the representativeness.  The study is nonetheless valuable.  But, perhaps in your own mind you need to multiply the results by some sort of scalar to reflect the potential for lower contacts among the dialysis group.  So take the 16% antibody rate and gross it up as you see fit.  The "finish line" might be about 60%.

 

What is interesting about this study is that, if you believe that dialysis patients made a modicum of effort to reduce their personal contacts, a 10:1 ratio of antibodies to official cases might be supported by this study.  Unfortunately we won't know the truth of the situation for another couple of years.

 

 

SJ

 

To the question how many are still vulnerable, it is relevant how many are vulnerable with zero antibodies.

 

The most pertinent is that the weekly hospitalizations have dropped by 75% (8.2 on July 18 to 2.3 on Sep 19th per 100,000).

That is US in hospitalizations is about same in first week of March!

I still could not figure out how to include the image inside the post, but I attached the image.

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html