Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[alfred russel]

As I say this is just from what I've read but there's no observable evidence that the rate of infection in the first wave is having an effect on the second wave. It's not that there's reinfections but the population immunity isn't showing up in transmission rates yet. This is different than what some epidemiologists like Sunetra Gupta were predicting would happen.

Like with everything else it becomes incredibly difficult to "prove" anything because every location is unique. We can't run double-blind controlled clinical trials on national transmission rates. That shouldn't prevent common sense.

[Sheilbh]

Like with everything else it becomes incredibly difficult to "prove" anything because every location is unique. We can't run double-blind controlled clinical trials on national transmission rates. That shouldn't prevent common sense.

Sure. But I think there's a difference between proof of something and evidence that's observable which isn't conclusive but may give an indication one way or the other. I'm not convinced by the sense of choosing policies without some basis in evidence.

[alfred russel]

Like with everything else it becomes incredibly difficult to "prove" anything because every location is unique. We can't run double-blind controlled clinical trials on national transmission rates. That shouldn't prevent common sense.

Sure. But I think there's a difference between proof of something and evidence that's observable which isn't conclusive but may give an indication one way or the other. I'm not convinced by the sense of choosing policies without some basis in evidence.

Sheilbh, there is a mountain of evidence. Ie, basically every other viral disease. And then specific to covid-19, there are antibodies produced in people who have been infected, and that very few of them ever get infected again.

I mean--I'm not sure where you are going with this. It seems you are not accepting that epi curves exist for covid-19.

On the other hand, if the disease has an uncontrolled "r" of 3, I'm not sure what you expect to see in a population with 20% infection. That would only reduce the "r" there to 2.4. Control would still be dependent on people taking countermeasures. Since it seems rather universal in the west that populations are backing off their personal countermeasures as we enter winter and approach christmas, it doesn't seem odd that some of the places with initially tough outbreaks are having tough outbreaks again. 20% isn't nearly high enough to keep the disease at bay on its own.

[crazy canuck]

Like with everything else it becomes incredibly difficult to "prove" anything because every location is unique. We can't run double-blind controlled clinical trials on national transmission rates. That shouldn't prevent common sense.

Sure. But I think there's a difference between proof of something and evidence that's observable which isn't conclusive but may give an indication one way or the other. I'm not convinced by the sense of choosing policies without some basis in evidence.

Sheilbh, there is a mountain of evidence. Ie, basically every other viral disease. And then specific to covid-19, there are antibodies produced in people who have been infected, and that very few of them ever get infected again.

I mean--I'm not sure where you are going with this. It seems you are not accepting that epi curves exist for covid-19.

On the other hand, if the disease has an uncontrolled "r" of 3, I'm not sure what you expect to see in a population with 20% infection. That would only reduce the "r" there to 2.4. Control would still be dependent on people taking countermeasures. Since it seems rather universal in the west that populations are backing off their personal countermeasures as we enter winter and approach christmas, it doesn't seem odd that some of the places with initially tough outbreaks are having tough outbreaks again. 20% isn't nearly high enough to keep the disease at bay on its own.

A mountain of evidence?  Great.  Perhaps you could link it rather than drone on about your own pet theories.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, there is a mountain of evidence. Ie, basically every other viral disease. And then specific to covid-19, there are antibodies produced in people who have been infected, and that very few of them ever get infected again.

I mean--I'm not sure where you are going with this. It seems you are not accepting that epi curves exist for covid-19.

On the other hand, if the disease has an uncontrolled "r" of 3, I'm not sure what you expect to see in a population with 20% infection. That would only reduce the "r" there to 2.4. Control would still be dependent on people taking countermeasures. Since it seems rather universal in the west that populations are backing off their personal countermeasures as we enter winter and approach christmas, it doesn't seem odd that some of the places with initially tough outbreaks are having tough outbreaks again. 20% isn't nearly high enough to keep the disease at bay on its own.

I don't dispute any of that - my point is just there's not enough evidence that the level of infection in London or other cities has a strong enough effect for that to shape policy. Nowhere has reached a point of population immunity that it has a material, observable impact that we can base decisions on. That's it.

That point'll come in the next few months.

Edit: And the other point is there were quite prominent epidemiologists such as Sunetra Gupta who were strongly arguing that some locations, like London, were close to herd immunity so stricter social distancing measures were not necessary. I think that's not the case at this point and we probably shouldn't listen to them too much unless they actually have good evidence with them.

[alfred russel]

A mountain of evidence?  Great.  Perhaps you could link it rather than drone on about your own pet theories.

Have you read any of the papers I've linked to in this thread? Or are you just being a dumbass again?

[alfred russel]

I don't dispute any of that - my point is just there's not enough evidence that the level of infection in London or other cities has a strong enough effect for that to shape policy. Nowhere has reached a point of population immunity that it has a material, observable impact that we can base decisions on. That's it.

That point'll come in the next few months.

Edit: And the other point is there were quite prominent epidemiologists such as Sunetra Gupta who were strongly arguing that some locations, like London, were close to herd immunity so stricter social distancing measures were not necessary. I think that's not the case at this point and we probably shouldn't listen to them too much unless they actually have good evidence with them.

At this point, I agree that I have no idea what you do from a policy perspective if 20% have some immunity versus 5%.

But if you are looking at evaluating current policies, if Czechs are getting hit worse than Britons it may not be that Czechs are now more lax--Czechs are operating at a disadvantage in that they have less immunity in the general population.

[crazy canuck]

A mountain of evidence?  Great.  Perhaps you could link it rather than drone on about your own pet theories.

Have you read any of the papers I've linked to in this thread? Or are you just being a dumbass again?

You are a text book example of confirmation bias.

[Sheilbh]

But if you are looking at evaluating current policies, if Czechs are getting hit worse than Britons it may not be that Czechs are now more lax--Czechs are operating at a disadvantage in that they have less immunity in the general population.

Okay - I don't think that's it or that population immunity is having a material effect (as I say the worst hit both times is Belgium).

I think with CEE it's probably a combination of fatigue for lockdown or distancing measures because they went in early in the first wave and more or less totally suppressed it, combined with complacency (on the part of governments) that they'd dealt with by getting through the first wave convincingly rather than preparing for an inevitable second wave.

[alfred russel]

You are a text book example of confirmation bias.

My posts are preserved in the thread. I'd be interested in hearing where I was wrong.

We went around in many circles on the fatality rate for those infected: I repeatedly said it would come in at less than 1%, and it looks like I'm vindicated (which I was just lifting from actual scientific studies rather than panicked news reports).

More than anything I repeatedly argued it was grossly inappropriate to close outdoor areas in the early days, with climbing areas noted in particular. I pointed out that unsustainable policies could not be maintained for the long haul.

Currently--the outbreak is worse in most areas than it was in March/April, but outdoor climbing areas are open. I'd point out that a quick check indicates that INDOOR climbing gyms are open right now in places like BC and London, not just Georgia.

[Sheilbh]

Currently--the outbreak is worse in most areas than it was in March/April, but outdoor climbing areas are open. I'd point out that a quick check indicates that INDOOR climbing gyms are open right now in places like BC and London, not just Georgia.

Yeah - I don't think gyms should be open now, but I think it was always a mistake to close outdoor spaces. We knew from a really early point that there's not much risk of transmission there and I find the outdoor mask wearing a bit bizarre.

[Tamas]

Yeah Dorsey, because probably it would have been fine to let you go hiking, all your claims and assumptions about this pandemic are now proven correct. 

I do quite honestly wish they just let you do your effin' hiking, this thread would be half its length.

[alfred russel]

Yeah Dorsey, because probably it would have been fine to let you go hiking, all your claims and assumptions about this pandemic are now proven correct. 

I'm not sure how many claims or assumptions I had beyond that.

Through mid April I probably had a hundred posts boiling down to: "the disease is not as deadly as you jokers are saying--the actual fatality rate is probably less than 1%--there is no logical reason to shut down most outdoor spaces and this level of lockdown is unsustainable and won't last long term."

Starting in late April when Georgia reversed basically 100% of restrictions and as the media began to report studies showing the fatality rate was likely under 1%, I claimed vindication, which started with push back that Georgia doing dumb stuff doesn't prove anything, but I think now it is clear that Georgia was just the leading edge of a trend.

Seriously--by the time the vaccine gets this rolled out this will probably have lasted a bit more than a year, and there could have been more effective community buy in if the initial lockdowns weren't so unnecessarily severe. We probably could have controlled covid a lot better with a lighter touch focusing on the really high risk activities.

[Sheilbh]

Seriously--by the time the vaccine gets this rolled out this will probably have lasted a bit more than a year, and there could have been more effective community buy in if the initial lockdowns weren't so unnecessarily severe. We probably could have controlled covid a lot better with a lighter touch focusing on the really high risk activities.

Yeah I think it depends. In lots of Europe, in New York things had got out of control and we needed lockdown to get them back under control. But I agree lots of places went in too soon and too hard in March-April when they had few cases and should have been looking to build up their testing capacity.

And I'm still baffled that no-one in the West adopted Japan's "3 Cs" guidance to avoid:
Closed spaces with poor ventilation.
Crowded places with many people near by.
Close-contact setting such as close-range conversations.

Because by March-April we knew that was where was high risk.

[Valmy]

South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan deal with these things more often than the West and did a good job this time in managing them. It is odd we did not just copy their tried and true methods.