COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[homer]

Could be coincidental. I'd be curious to know how this drop compares to other states that had similar surges:

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2020/10/09/covid-19-cases-az-spiked-151-after-statewide-stay-home-order-and-dropped-75-following-local-mask-man/5911813002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&cid=twitter_azcentral

 

"COVID-19 cases in Arizona spiked 151% after a statewide stay-at-home order expired and dropped 75% following local mask mandates, a new report says."

[tmwiese55]

Pretty sure Arizona re-closed bars/restaurants after their big spike around mid summer too. At least they were going to, not sure if someone sued to block it or something. Not sure how that lined up with masks timing.

[Jimbo]

Nice. Thing that pops in my head though, based on how I read that data in there, is who knows how many are getting it but never being tested since they have little to no symptoms but then go home or out in the world and pass, as well as among the kids and trickle down from there out to rest of the world. Of course, no way to know either if they got there or somewhere else so can't blame schools regardless. There's just no way to know that as of now, which is fine, either way that's good news so far. Sure seems to be a correlation with the current spikes going on, but of course correlation doesn't mean causation for sure.

 

That kind of goes back to something we talked about a few days ago and kind of pre-screen type testing as opposed to after the fact, which would get to better data on what that article was looking at. But overall I get the vibe or impression that protocols and such are being very much adhered to in schools, as much as one can reasonably expect. So hopefully that's doing it's part to keep in check. plus, going in we knew this was the least vulnerable demographic so you can in theory be ok with some of it being passed around there(like in the possible unknowns I mentioned) while letting kids be kids. Just then need the rest of the world to kind of take some it more seriously too like it seems the schools are.

 

As an example, I just had a friend who is a teacher who had no reason to think he had it. Went to get tested so he could go to see his parents knowing he's negative, turns out he had it. With kids you'd think this is very possible. But all they can do is keep trying and keep tracking as much as they can.

 

Last week on Wisconsin Public Radio they had on the Director of Emergency Services at Bellin (Green Bay). To paraphrase, the biggest contributor to the recent spike is "communal" as in, Grandma got sick because Johnny came over to play.

[Jimbo]

Last week I met up with my message therapist and she picked my brain, inquiring how much longer the masking and SD thing will go on. I guessed two years - another year to finalize the vaccination and a year to manufacture the serum and develop the supply network.

 

This morning I went to my first annual physical in two years and my primary also brought up the subject. She independently agreed, one year to make the vaccine and another year for the needed 70% of Americans to get the shot.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Last week I met up with my message therapist and she picked my brain, inquiring how much longer the masking and SD thing will go on. I guessed two years - another year to finalize the vaccination and a year to manufacture the serum and develop the supply network.

 

This morning I went to my first annual physical in two years and my primary also brought up the subject. She independently agreed, one year to make the vaccine and another year for the needed 70% of Americans to get the shot.

 

If accurate, and I don't think it's far off, everything we're doing now is a complete waste of time as far as trying to coerce people to comply. Whatever portion is still going along with things now will be significantly smaller in 6 months or a year.

[tmwiese55]

 

Nice. Thing that pops in my head though, based on how I read that data in there, is who knows how many are getting it but never being tested since they have little to no symptoms but then go home or out in the world and pass, as well as among the kids and trickle down from there out to rest of the world. Of course, no way to know either if they got there or somewhere else so can't blame schools regardless. There's just no way to know that as of now, which is fine, either way that's good news so far. Sure seems to be a correlation with the current spikes going on, but of course correlation doesn't mean causation for sure.

 

That kind of goes back to something we talked about a few days ago and kind of pre-screen type testing as opposed to after the fact, which would get to better data on what that article was looking at. But overall I get the vibe or impression that protocols and such are being very much adhered to in schools, as much as one can reasonably expect. So hopefully that's doing it's part to keep in check. plus, going in we knew this was the least vulnerable demographic so you can in theory be ok with some of it being passed around there(like in the possible unknowns I mentioned) while letting kids be kids. Just then need the rest of the world to kind of take some it more seriously too like it seems the schools are.

 

As an example, I just had a friend who is a teacher who had no reason to think he had it. Went to get tested so he could go to see his parents knowing he's negative, turns out he had it. With kids you'd think this is very possible. But all they can do is keep trying and keep tracking as much as they can.

 

Last week on Wisconsin Public Radio they had on the Director of Emergency Services at Bellin (Green Bay). To paraphrase, the biggest contributor to the recent spike is "communal" as in, Grandma got sick because Johnny came over to play.

 

 

Gotcha. Well I guess I don't know why if X person can give it to Y person in an individual space such as at grandmas house then why X person wouldn't also be able to give to other people in schools, bars or whatever social settings. But Johnny can't trace it back to such a thing because he doesn't know if anyone there had it. I guess I'm just saying at this point it seems impossible to track such a thing one way or the other to draw too stark a conclusion. I guess for the schools though the explanation could be the safety stuff they have in place is hopefully working and hopefully that info in the article holds true in other studies/data. And of course it would be impossible to limit to 0 so hopefully it keeps it all in check as that info is supporting.

 

Just had a elementary teacher friend Friday have to deal with a kid sent to school for a few days even though parent was sick while waiting for test results, parents test came back positive. People just have to do better than that as now the whole class has to deal with it. If the kid tests positive then quarantine etc. Parents explanation was, 'can't live scared and in fear', hmm wonder where that came from, and now the potential for the other kids to deal with crappy remote teaching for 2 weeks.

 

Man, 2 years seems daunting huh. But I guess thinking about it it makes sense that even once the vaccine starts getting out there we'll still be doing this for a while as it'll take time for enough people to get it and numbers to get lower and lower so we'll have to mask/distance as it happens. Still, I'm hoping for "slowly but surely" gradual progress on that type of stuff. Kind of as if yea we wear masks alot and have more space built into things but at least we're actually stuff. Kind of worried about the next few months with the current uptick and coming colder weather. But hopefully that's the end of the bottom and moves forward from there. We'll see.

[Machu Peach]

Production of the seasonal flu vaccine starts in February and most lots are available around October (the first lots become available in July and August). Vaccination rates for the general population is around 50% and for people over 65 it's around 65%. The majority of these vaccinations occur in the fall, but they continue to immunize people into January. This 6-8 month period is due to the use of hen eggs (good ol' 1940s technology (I'm not joking, 1940s tech is still being used to make flu vaccines)) in the manufacturing process. There have been attempts to replace the egg-method with a much faster cell-based manufacturing process, but funding for vaccines (particularly non-HIV vaccines) is poor and there's an attitude of don't-fix-what-sorta-works.

 

Given that it's unknown exactly what type of vaccine will be approved it's hard to predict how long it'll take to manufacture. Most of the leading vaccines candidates use either a viral vector or mRNA approach. Neither approach would take as long to manufacture as an egg-based method. However both are dependent on the availability GMP-quality bioreactors and GMP-trained staff. I assume these are being reserved, manufactured, and trained, but I'm not involved in the process.

 

Logistically, distributing and administering a vaccine in the US is extremely quick. The flu vaccine is largely distributed and administered over a 2 month period from mid October-mid Dec and the only reason it even takes that long is that the general population, and even vulnerable populations, are largely indifferent to getting it.

 

It's certainly possible that any potential COVID vaccine would take longer to administer than the seasonal flu vaccine because of lack of public engagement due to vaccine skepticism. That's why it's so damaging for mainstream politicians to be peddling that nonsense and why the CDC director is an idiot who should resign in disgrace.

[FVBrewerFan]

Production of the seasonal flu vaccine starts in February and most lots are available around October (the first lots become available in July and August). Vaccination rates for the general population is around 50% and for people over 65 it's around 65%. The majority of these vaccinations occur in the fall, but they continue to immunize people into January. This 6-8 month period is due to the use of hen eggs (good ol' 1940s technology (I'm not joking, 1940s tech is still being used to make flu vaccines)) in the manufacturing process. There have been attempts to replace the egg-method with a much faster cell-based manufacturing process, but funding for vaccines (particularly non-HIV vaccines) is poor and there's an attitude of don't-fix-what-sorta-works.

 

Given that it's unknown exactly what type of vaccine will be approved it's hard to predict how long it'll take to manufacture. Most of the leading vaccines candidates use either a viral vector or mRNA approach. Neither approach would take as long to manufacture as an egg-based method. However both are dependent on the availability GMP-quality bioreactors and GMP-trained staff. I assume these are being reserved, manufactured, and trained, but I'm not involved in the process.

 

Logistically, distributing and administering a vaccine in the US is extremely quick. The flu vaccine is largely distributed and administered over a 2 month period from mid October-mid Dec and the only reason it even takes that long is that the general population, and even vulnerable populations, are largely indifferent to getting it.

 

It's certainly possible that any potential COVID vaccine would take longer to administer than the seasonal flu vaccine because of lack of public engagement due to vaccine skepticism. That's why it's so damaging for mainstream politicians to be peddling that nonsense and why the CDC director is an idiot who should resign in disgrace.

 

Very interesting, thank you. Yes, I'm not quite sure where some of these numbers are coming from above. It's not going to take anywhere close to 2 years to manufacture the vaccine and distribute. At the same time, someone mentioned time frame for 70% vaccination rate. That one's easy- never.

[nate82]

I think a 60+% rate is actually extremely good considering in the US it is nearly impossible to get 50% agreement on almost anything unless you are polling the approval ratings for congress as a whole that one has been sitting around 80+% disapproval going on about 20 years now.

[tmwiese55]

Interesting, thanks. Especially on the egg thing, wasn't aware of that at all.

 

I'd generally agree considering everything these days getting that many to get on board in the kind of 'first wave' would be pretty good. then obviously once they don't see anything bad happen hopefully it goes up more and more. Funny too on the only thing people agree on is something they dislike or something negative.

 

I hated the way Kamala answered that question on the debate. There was a way to make a point there in regards to politicians tinkering with the process/scientists, but I think she failed on it badly and came off as undermining. Curious though on the CDC director comment and what you meant? Seems something like him undermining the public confidence somehow? Last I remember him on the topic he was saying how a vaccine wouldn't be out until spring/summer and then trump rebuked right away that it'll be much quicker.

[igor67]

A big wrinkle in the vaccine distribution process is going to be what is the effectiveness of the first vaccine or 2 approved. While there are so many vaccines in development the odds of at least one being useful is pretty high, it is also unlikely that the first ones across the finish line have the same type of effectiveness we see in other approved vaccines. This could definitely lead to a situation with a need to administer a second round at some later point to bring things down to acceptable levels. That isn't intended to be pessimistic, as even an imperfect vaccine distributed to high needs groups might not enable everything back to normal, but a lot closer.

[Machu Peach]

'Effectiveness' of a vaccine can mean multiple things. If you're talking about the ability to induce a protective immune response, I expect that pretty much any vaccine approved would induce good initial antibody titers and good T cell response. Whether those features offer protection? It's very likely it will for a good percentage of people if they pick the right target(s). Having good monoclonal antibodies gives me a lot of confidence on that front.

 

If you're talking about longevity of response... yea, that's tough to know. The rushed timeline of the vaccine makes it impossible to tests vaccine responses over time. One can make guesses based on the vaccine platform, but for reasons that are mostly poorly understood, some antigens just don't work as well as others. That said, I'd be quite surprised if protection is less than a year or two, no matter the platform.

[Machu Peach]

I hated the way Kamala answered that question on the debate. There was a way to make a point there in regards to politicians tinkering with the process/scientists, but I think she failed on it badly and came off as undermining. Curious though on the CDC director comment and what you meant? Seems something like him undermining the public confidence somehow? Last I remember him on the topic he was saying how a vaccine wouldn't be out until spring/summer and then trump rebuked right away that it'll be much quicker.

 

The CDC Director said that masks offer better protection than vaccines. Every infectious disease expert I've spoken with agrees that that is a stupid and harmful statement.

[FVBrewerFan]

I hated the way Kamala answered that question on the debate. There was a way to make a point there in regards to politicians tinkering with the process/scientists, but I think she failed on it badly and came off as undermining. Curious though on the CDC director comment and what you meant? Seems something like him undermining the public confidence somehow? Last I remember him on the topic he was saying how a vaccine wouldn't be out until spring/summer and then trump rebuked right away that it'll be much quicker.

 

The CDC Director said that masks offer better protection than vaccines. Every infectious disease expert I've spoken with agrees that that is a stupid and harmful statement.

 

And the CDC just reported 85% of positive cases were people who always or usually wear masks.

 

Not surprising, WHO and many countries, experts all now saying lockdowns are causing more health risks than Covid.

[PeaveyFury]

 

And the CDC just reported 85% of positive cases were people who always or usually wear masks.

 

Not surprising, WHO and many countries, experts all now saying lockdowns are causing more health risks than Covid.

 

Links?

[nate82]

 

And the CDC just reported 85% of positive cases were people who always or usually wear masks.

 

Not surprising, WHO and many countries, experts all now saying lockdowns are causing more health risks than Covid.

 

Links?

 

Don't know where the CDC one is coming from but the WHO one is widely known.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/10/11/covid-hospitalizations-up-11-state-records-who-questions-lockdowns/5960078002/

[PeaveyFury]

 

And the CDC just reported 85% of positive cases were people who always or usually wear masks.

 

Not surprising, WHO and many countries, experts all now saying lockdowns are causing more health risks than Covid.

 

Links?

 

Don't know where the CDC one is coming from but the WHO one is widely known.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/10/11/covid-hospitalizations-up-11-state-records-who-questions-lockdowns/5960078002/

 

Helpful context on the actual statement, which was made by one WHO doctor rather than the organization itself:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

And the CDC just reported 85% of positive cases were people who always or usually wear masks.

 

Not surprising, WHO and many countries, experts all now saying lockdowns are causing more health risks than Covid.

 

Links?

 

The only thing I could find with the CDC info was this: https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-study-covid-masks

 

That source is somewhat dubious, though. Also, the author of the story doesn't seem to grasp that the whole concept of wearing a mask is to protect others rather than protect yourself.

[Machu Peach]

 

And the CDC just reported 85% of positive cases were people who always or usually wear masks.

 

Not surprising, WHO and many countries, experts all now saying lockdowns are causing more health risks than Covid.

 

Links?

 

Link to the CDC study cited. It's actually a very interesting study for several reasons, though I'm always skeptical of self reported results.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

 

Link to the WHO quote/interview. It's WHO's Special Envoy on COVID-19, “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

Link to the CDC study cited. It's actually a very interesting study for several reasons, though I'm always skeptical of self reported results.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

 

Right ... it's the human condition. Someone gets sick, and the doctor asks if they have been wearing a mask regularly, a large number of them are going to say yes, rather than admit to being irresponsible.

[homer]

I've been reading some interesting studies on viral load and how it's been steadily decreasing in positive tests as the pandemic has gone on. The amount of virus you have could be a predictor as to how sick you get (e.g. need to go to an ICU) or if you die. As the death rate per case seems to be dropping as well, and as I understand it is not 100% correlated with the younger people testing positive, some are thinking this lower viral load per positive case is a factor.

 

Why is the viral load dropping? Could be the virus itself is changing (a virus doesn't want to kill too many people or it will cease to exist) or that masks and social distancing are doing enough to not stop the spread of positivity but they are doing enough to drop the viral load that people are exposed to.

 

Also, is this dropping viral load a blip or a trend? Time will tell.

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/09/falling-covid-19-viral-loads-may-explain-lower-rates-icu-use-deaths

[tmwiese55]

I saw the WHO lockdown thing a few days ago. My take wasn't that they're saying it doesn't work, they're saying we have to find a balance and ways to live without doing it as that's unsustainable for a number of reasons. Things like masks, keeping distance, no big group things like sporting events, proactive or preemptive testing so that we can keep living and economies don't crumble etc. Which I'd generally agree, can't do the April type stuff for a year plus, have to find a middle ground. They're not saying 'eff it just go back to normal its better that way' or saying it wouldn't slow the spread.

 

Got an update on the elementary teacher last night. Currently has 4 kids pulled out due to symptoms and/or parents with failed tests. None of those 4 kids are being tested (or at least to the school's knowledge or requirement) and the kids still in the class aren't being tested. It's essentially a policy of we don't want to know because they don't want to shut down a whole class. How this compares to other schools handling, who knows, but that's the new plan there and this is in the fox valley area smaller town where they're being hammered right now. Seems to be new for them too from what I understood or at least different form the original plan going in. Tough to count or track positive tests in schools when you don't test.

 

Couple other things to recent talks here. a confirmed reinfection in US and so me breakdown of it all: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/10/12/covid-reinfection-virus-can-strike-twice-worse-second-time-nevada-man/5965917002/

 

Excess deaths stats, I've never really seen this in mainstream media before and most folks I've talked to never heard of, probably has too strong of conclusions drawn in some of the phrasings but the data is interesting: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-pandemic-has-claimed-far-more-lives-reported-study-n1242970

[Fear The Chorizo]

Why is the viral load dropping?

 

This happens with many viruses as they mutate/evolve in order to survive - they essentially become more contagious but wind up causing less severe symptomatic responses/death. I recall reading something in Houston indicating that's what they were seeing with the virus during their big spike as well. It's likely the main reason why New York still has over 2X the COVID-related deaths in the US compared to any other state even though states like CA, TX, and FL now have had many more confirmed cases (aside from the fact we've mostly stopped intentionally sending infected patients into nursing homes to recover). NY had it's initial major outbreak occur with the virus when it was causing higher viral loads in infected people, leading to a higher percentage of worse outcomes.

 

Another thing that I wish would be better understood is how high the US' PCR testing cycle threshold is compared to that of other countries - many US labs have cycle thresholds in the upper 30's or even 40, while countries like Germany and Korea normally cut off their PCR testing after 32 cycles. More cycles leads to more positive COVID tests based on dead virus RNA fragments from a previous unknown infection that aren't capable of transmission/infection - along with false positives simply due to equipment sensitivity and lab contamination issues. Because of that, simply comparing confirmed cases between many countries becomes apples-oranges.

 

I saw that Johnson & Johnson just had to pause their vaccine trial to sort out an unexplained illness in a participant - I think the biggest problem big pharma is going to have with a COVID-19 vaccine is that by the time it's approved and ready for widespread distribution, it's not going to have the impact of preventing infection to the point of satisfying people who are looking to stop the virus' spread by a one-time vaccine alone. There is too much evidence that indicates COVID antibodies don't remain indefinitely, meaning a COVID vaccine will need to be seasonally or routinely administered - and people around the world will continue getting infected with COVID even if there are widespread vaccinations. If that's the case and we are dealing with a virus that is already at a diminished potency based on mutations and expected evolution, a vaccine becomes less effective overall.

 

A safe vaccine will help attain herd immunity faster than not having one at all - but then again the term 'herd immunity' doesn't mean infections and occasional death with COVID will stop. Herd immunity is essentially a point where the potential for exponential/uncontrolled virus spread doesn't happen - It's encouraging that the case spikes across the US this summer and fall have not come close to resulting in the number of severe hospitalizations/deaths that would have been projected based on what happened in the northeast US in March-April. For example if you look at the flu year in/year out, one could say the US, which has reasonably high percentage of its population that gets vaccinated has herd immunity any given winter - but seasonal flu deaths still range from ~15K-50K any given year depending on many factors. Could we lower that number each winter by always taking the measures currently in place for COVID? Sure, but we wouldn't have a society anymore and everyone would eventually go insane - that's the point of people in the WHO currently saying lockdowns and intentional economic/societal shutdowns can't be the indefinite answer until a vaccine shows up.

 

With regard to the whole 85% of people who get infected always wear mask...honestly I think I see more than 85+% of people with masks on in public indoor spaces where I live, so I'm not surprised by that number at all - masks don't prevent you from getting infected with the virus, they help prevent people who already have the virus from being superspreaders out in public IF they properly wear one. Even without superspreaders, infections will inevitably happen - wearing a piece of fabric that would've been destined for the Tshirt factory last fall isn't going to prevent COVID transmission for whoever's wearing it if there are COVID particles in the air they are breathing.

[Machu Peach]

There are actually very interesting findings in the linked CDC study. Many are focused on the mask issue because it's all political and people have chosen their 'teams', but masks barely mentioned in the discussion because the findings aren't all that interesting or informative.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Link to the CDC study cited. It's actually a very interesting study for several reasons, though I'm always skeptical of self reported results.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

 

Interesting stuff in this study:

 

However, case-patients were more likely to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 2 weeks before illness onset than were control-participants. Further, when the analysis was restricted to the 225 participants who did not report recent close contact with a person with known COVID-19, case-patients were more likely than were control-participants to have reported dining at a restaurant or going to a bar/coffee shop..... Adults with confirmed COVID-19 (case-patients) were approximately twice as likely as were control-participants to have reported dining at a restaurant in the 14 days before becoming ill. In addition to dining at a restaurant, case-patients were more likely to report going to a bar/coffee shop

 

Hence, people testing positive are indeed people who are engaging in 'riskier' behaviors.

 

Also worth noting that those that tested positive after visiting a bar only had 15% report that there was legitimate mask wearing compliance for the other patrons, and only 40% for restaurants.