CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)
Discussion
RSTurboPaul said:
Not sure if this is posted already but Lancet reporting 5.2% prevalence in testing, framed (of course 
) as 'herd immunity is impossible without a vaccine':
https://twitter.com/i/events/1280194458722562049?s...
I don't understand how they can frame it in that way. If many (most?) are asymptomatic and have no detectable antibodies after catching the actual live virus, surely they will see the exact same outcome after receiving a shot of dead virus in a vaccination? In which case, why do we need a vaccine??
Vaccines generally do a much better job of eliciting an immune response than the pathogen they mimic. Usually through the addition of adjuvants to prime the immune system or through directly engineering the antigen or through specific dosing regimens. If I wanted long term immunity to SARS-CoV2 I'd go for a vaccine over infection. ) as 'herd immunity is impossible without a vaccine':https://twitter.com/i/events/1280194458722562049?s...
I don't understand how they can frame it in that way. If many (most?) are asymptomatic and have no detectable antibodies after catching the actual live virus, surely they will see the exact same outcome after receiving a shot of dead virus in a vaccination? In which case, why do we need a vaccine??
Suffice to say that if 30-40% of those vaccinated show no response to a vaccine and another similarly large percentage only show a very weak non protective response then it won't get approved anyway.
isaldiri said:
Elysium said:
There are some quite dramatic differences between the two countries. Yet the one that did not lockdown and that had significantly higher levels of movement has seen fewer deaths per million.
Lousy comparison to make comparing the UK to Sweden, surely even you recognize that.. Compare Sweden to Finland/Denmark/Norway (like y'know their immediate neighbours) and if you can still say no lockdown and higher levels of movement has fewer deaths per million perhaps it might have a little more substance.
1. That Sweden had a lockdown in all but name
2. That the UK did not have a proper lockdown
I don't accept the proposition that it is invalid to compare Sweden beyond its immediate neighbours.
sim72 said:
Elysium said:
There are some quite dramatic differences between the two countries. Yet the one that did not lockdown and that had significantly higher levels of movement has seen fewer deaths per million.
Yet a lot more cases per million, which probably tells you something. RTB said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Not sure if this is posted already but Lancet reporting 5.2% prevalence in testing, framed (of course ) as 'herd immunity is impossible without a vaccine':
https://twitter.com/i/events/1280194458722562049?s...
I don't understand how they can frame it in that way. If many (most?) are asymptomatic and have no detectable antibodies after catching the actual live virus, surely they will see the exact same outcome after receiving a shot of dead virus in a vaccination? In which case, why do we need a vaccine??
Vaccines generally do a much better job of eliciting an immune response than the pathogen they mimic. Usually through the addition of adjuvants to prime the immune system or through directly engineering the antigen or through specific dosing regimens. If I wanted long term immunity to SARS-CoV2 I'd go for a vaccine over infection. ) as 'herd immunity is impossible without a vaccine':https://twitter.com/i/events/1280194458722562049?s...
I don't understand how they can frame it in that way. If many (most?) are asymptomatic and have no detectable antibodies after catching the actual live virus, surely they will see the exact same outcome after receiving a shot of dead virus in a vaccination? In which case, why do we need a vaccine??
Suffice to say that if 30-40% of those vaccinated show no response to a vaccine and another similarly large percentage only show a very weak non protective response then it won't get approved anyway.
Elysium said:
This is an updated analysis of the risk from COVID in England and Wales based on the ONS data published yesterday. I am using deaths based on date of occurence, which is the most pessimistic view:
As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
This data also includes all people with underlying health conditions...As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
Your analysis would make lockdown appear even more nonsensical if you could separate out those with underlying conditions.
Elysium said:
sim72 said:
Elysium said:
There are some quite dramatic differences between the two countries. Yet the one that did not lockdown and that had significantly higher levels of movement has seen fewer deaths per million.
Yet a lot more cases per million, which probably tells you something. Sweden did care homes badly, but not as badly as the UK
Swedes are generally healthier
There appears to be a larger CFR amongst BAME people, and Sweden has a smaller percentage
As there was only a mild lockdown a lot more of their cases were younger people
Their testing was better than ours
Swedes actually do what they're f*cking told to
Elysium said:
The events of the last few months are like a global version of the Milgram experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The vast majority of people will show unquestioning obedience to authority figures, even when it is obvious that will cause significant harm to others.
65% of Milgrams subjects were willing to deliver a potentially lethal electric shock to an unknown person as part of an 'experiment'. They were wiling do this when there was no moral imperitive or particular importance to their decisions. They just wanted to comply.
With SARS-CoV-2 we have layered on social responsibility, fear of death and a messed up version of morality. In that situation it seems that very few people are willing to defy authority figures, no matter how stupid the 'advice'. In the early days of lockdown this group was vanishingly small. I could find almost no sign online that anyone was worried about collateral damage and the impact on human rights. I found it deeply shocking.
As the evidence comes out, we are seeing lockdown advocates make desperate efforts to justify their original decisions. That is why the narrative moved away from 'flattening the curve' to the need to reduce deaths. As deaths have reduced they have started to talk about cases being the problem, despite the reality that the disease is very mild for most people. As that becomes unarguable, they are shifting the narrative to the imagined long term harm caused to COVID-19 survivors, wildly extrapolating from edge cases.
It should be obvious to any intelligent adult that sacrificing our rights of free movement, closing the NHS to non-COVID patients and shutting down great swathes of the economy will have incrediblly damaging consequences, which are very likely to outstrip any benefits. People ignored that because experts told them to. They are ignoring that now because we are wired to make decisions emotionally and then justfiy them rationally after the event.
Lord Sumption made his living on the back of his clear critical thinking. That's why he immediately saw the problem.
The lockdown zealots are like those poor people in Milgrams experiment. If the experts tell them to sacrifice sick kids and cancer patients, to separate elderly people at the end of their lives from their families, to drive mentally ill people to suicide, to create a dystopian future based on separation and despair, then they will do so. Unthinkingly. And they will argue black is white to justify it.
To quote again this is where we are going.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The vast majority of people will show unquestioning obedience to authority figures, even when it is obvious that will cause significant harm to others.
65% of Milgrams subjects were willing to deliver a potentially lethal electric shock to an unknown person as part of an 'experiment'. They were wiling do this when there was no moral imperitive or particular importance to their decisions. They just wanted to comply.
With SARS-CoV-2 we have layered on social responsibility, fear of death and a messed up version of morality. In that situation it seems that very few people are willing to defy authority figures, no matter how stupid the 'advice'. In the early days of lockdown this group was vanishingly small. I could find almost no sign online that anyone was worried about collateral damage and the impact on human rights. I found it deeply shocking.
As the evidence comes out, we are seeing lockdown advocates make desperate efforts to justify their original decisions. That is why the narrative moved away from 'flattening the curve' to the need to reduce deaths. As deaths have reduced they have started to talk about cases being the problem, despite the reality that the disease is very mild for most people. As that becomes unarguable, they are shifting the narrative to the imagined long term harm caused to COVID-19 survivors, wildly extrapolating from edge cases.
It should be obvious to any intelligent adult that sacrificing our rights of free movement, closing the NHS to non-COVID patients and shutting down great swathes of the economy will have incrediblly damaging consequences, which are very likely to outstrip any benefits. People ignored that because experts told them to. They are ignoring that now because we are wired to make decisions emotionally and then justfiy them rationally after the event.
Lord Sumption made his living on the back of his clear critical thinking. That's why he immediately saw the problem.
The lockdown zealots are like those poor people in Milgrams experiment. If the experts tell them to sacrifice sick kids and cancer patients, to separate elderly people at the end of their lives from their families, to drive mentally ill people to suicide, to create a dystopian future based on separation and despair, then they will do so. Unthinkingly. And they will argue black is white to justify it.
At a fair rate of knots too.
For some any amount of liberty is too much and it should be rationed for only the socially woke robots.
RTB said:
Vaccines generally do a much better job of eliciting an immune response than the pathogen they mimic. Usually through the addition of adjuvants to prime the immune system or through directly engineering the antigen or through specific dosing regimens. If I wanted long term immunity to SARS-CoV2 I'd go for a vaccine over infection.
Suffice to say that if 30-40% of those vaccinated show no response to a vaccine and another similarly large percentage only show a very weak non protective response then it won't get approved anyway.
Talking of vaccines - if I could ask, would you personally have any reservations about the mRNA vaccines compared to the inactivated/attenuated vaccines that at least have been made from 'known' vaccine production procedures given the relatively much shortened vaccine trial periods? Or do you think if/when they are judged to be approved for release even the new fancy vaccine types would have proven sufficiently safe despite the short trial times?Suffice to say that if 30-40% of those vaccinated show no response to a vaccine and another similarly large percentage only show a very weak non protective response then it won't get approved anyway.
Dr Z said:
Herd immunity by natural infection is a stupid idea, and should be treated with all the contempt one can muster.
But so is freaking out about relatively small spikes of a virus that is pretty targeted in who it affects seriously and constantly ordering lockdowns causing very considerable disruption. As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
isaldiri said:
But so is freaking out about relatively small spikes of a virus that is pretty targeted in who it affects seriously and constantly ordering lockdowns causing very considerable disruption.
As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
You are talking like this a crackpot idea, rather than the primary strategy of most nations on earth?As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
Similarly, most health experts don’t share your opinion re the threat.
Leicester looks under control. Scotland 2 cases a day. It’s not that hard if everyone pulls together.
Why do you want to let rip so much? Do you think it would actually achieve anything positive from this point in the game?
sambucket said:
isaldiri said:
But so is freaking out about relatively small spikes of a virus that is pretty targeted in who it affects seriously and constantly ordering lockdowns causing very considerable disruption.
As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
You are talking like this a crackpot idea, rather than the primary strategy of most nations on earth?As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
Similarly, most health experts don’t share your opinion re the threat.
Leicester looks under control. Scotland 2 cases a day. It’s not that hard if everyone pulls together.
Why do you want to let rip so much? Do you think it would actually achieve anything positive from this point in the game?
I can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
sambucket said:
You are talking like this a crackpot idea, rather than the primary strategy of most nations on earth?
Similarly, most health experts don’t share your opinion re the threat.
Leicester looks under control. Scotland 2 cases a day. It’s not that hard if everyone pulls together.
Why do you want to let rip so much? Do you think it would actually achieve anything positive from this point in the game?
Not sure it's any use trying to discuss this with you who want to alcatraz the whole UK and go full on wuhan and sealing people in their homes but I'll try.Similarly, most health experts don’t share your opinion re the threat.
Leicester looks under control. Scotland 2 cases a day. It’s not that hard if everyone pulls together.
Why do you want to let rip so much? Do you think it would actually achieve anything positive from this point in the game?
Because a single large, even if fairly vicious wave of infections (attentuated as best as we can by keeping the over 70s away) is considerably preferable to the death by a thousand cuts of keeping the population permanently living in fear of 'the next wave' by way of suppression. My personal belief since the whole thing came up was that sars-cov2 will in time join the other 4 hcovs as an endemic virus that we can live with. It's simply not something like easily transmissible MERS or airborne ebola that would warrant wholesale long term changes to our life.
sambucket said:
Elysium said:
Eradication through lockdown and border control is not the primary strategy of 'most nations' and it is a crackpot idea.
I can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
I’m not sure there is enough common ground to discuss this honestly! You seem to live on a different planet to me. I can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
I’ll just read for a bit.
Elysium said:
Eradication through lockdown and border control is not the primary strategy of 'most nations' and it is a crackpot idea.
I can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
If you are serious I can supply a list and pie chart of all the nations that are aiming for zero covid? Let me knowI can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
isaldiri said:
Not sure it's any use trying to discuss this with you who want to alcatraz the whole UK and go full on wuhan and sealing people in their homes but I'll try.
Because a single large, even if fairly vicious wave of infections (attentuated as best as we can by keeping the over 70s away) is considerably preferable to the death by a thousand cuts of keeping the population permanently living in fear of 'the next wave' by way of suppression. My personal belief since the whole thing came up was that sars-cov2 will in time join the other 4 hcovs as an endemic virus that we can live with. It's simply not something like easily transmissible MERS or airborne ebola that would warrant wholesale long term changes to our life.
You are ignoring the bigger picture, and the larger impact of the virus on economic and health systems. Because a single large, even if fairly vicious wave of infections (attentuated as best as we can by keeping the over 70s away) is considerably preferable to the death by a thousand cuts of keeping the population permanently living in fear of 'the next wave' by way of suppression. My personal belief since the whole thing came up was that sars-cov2 will in time join the other 4 hcovs as an endemic virus that we can live with. It's simply not something like easily transmissible MERS or airborne ebola that would warrant wholesale long term changes to our life.
As someone else said winter flue doesn’t kill many but it’s the ongoing pressure that is the disruptive thing.
Are you not concerned about the company you keep, trump and bolsonaro etc?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff