COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Tired Tyres]

Captain Sir Tom Moore has passed away after contracting COVID at the age of 100.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-dies-at-100-after-testing-positive-for-covid

Captain Sir Tom Moore rose to fame last year as he set about raising £1000 for NHS charities before his 100th birthday by walking lengths of his garden.

His campaign went viral and ended up raising a staggering £38.9 million, an effort for which he was ultimately knighted last year.

Sadly, he contracted coronavirus last week and passed away today. RIP Sir Tom.

That was not nice to see on TV. He did more universal good in less than a year than most of the rest of us can manage in a lifetime.

 

[Danoff]

My connection sucks. Solar flares?

Hang on, I think I found the list:

 

[UKMikey]

My connection sucks. Solar flares?

Jewish space lasers.

 

[Brett]

Had I not dragged my feet on getting registered at a clinic, I would have been receiving the first dose of vaccine next Friday. Assuming more appointments open up the following week, I should be able to grab one.

 

[Joey D]

Preprint study regarding the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Here's the NYT story regarding it:
The AstraZeneca vaccine is shown to drastically cut transmission of the virus.

Or you can read the preprint here:
Single Dose Administration, And The Influence Of The Timing Of The Booster Dose On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine

The gist of it is, the study found a 67% reduction in positive swabs from people who've received one dose of the vaccine and a 76% reduction over a three month period. Does it mean we're out of the woods? Not by a long shot, but it's at least showing that the vaccines are working and we're trending in the right direction.

Also, another preprint has suggested that if you've had COVID, you may only need one dose

Here's the NYT story on it:
Had Covid? You May Need Only One Dose of Vaccine, Study Suggests

And the preprint:
Robust spike antibody responses and increased reactogenicity in seropositive individuals after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine

So what does this mean? Well, for starters if people who've had COVID only need one shot, that means two people recovered from COVID can be vaccinated for every one person who didn't have it. It means the supply can go further, which given our logistical cluster right now might be a good thing.

====

If you're eligible for the vaccine, please consider getting it. You might feel like crap for a few days, but it's worth it for the greater good of society. If you want to be able to go out to eat, drink at a bar, or simply walk around without a mask, this is our best bet at doing so right now. I'm pretty much in 5-6 hours of meetings every day regarding vaccines and I'm happy to give you any information I have access to if you have questions. I'm by no means an expert, but I can at least get you information that might help clear anything up that comes from experts, or at least people who have degrees in this sort of thing.

I'm sure there are other people here that can also give you information as well, whether they're experts, COVID enthusiasts (or whatever you call someone who spends way too much time reading about it), or just people who've done the research. There are a ton of misconceptions regarding the vaccines and the only way to clear those up is to battle it with accurate information supported by studies.

 

[Danoff]

Preprint study regarding the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Here's the NYT story regarding it:
The AstraZeneca vaccine is shown to drastically cut transmission of the virus.

Or you can read the preprint here:
Single Dose Administration, And The Influence Of The Timing Of The Booster Dose On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) Vaccine

The gist of it is, the study found a 67% reduction in positive swabs from people who've received one dose of the vaccine and a 76% reduction over a three month period. Does it mean we're out of the woods? Not by a long shot, but it's at least showing that the vaccines are working and we're trending in the right direction.

Also, another preprint has suggested that if you've had COVID, you may only need one dose

Here's the NYT story on it:
Had Covid? You May Need Only One Dose of Vaccine, Study Suggests

And the preprint:
Robust spike antibody responses and increased reactogenicity in seropositive individuals after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine

So what does this mean? Well, for starters if people who've had COVID only need one shot, that means two people recovered from COVID can be vaccinated for every one person who didn't have it. It means the supply can go further, which given our logistical cluster right now might be a good thing.

====

If you're eligible for the vaccine, please consider getting it. You might feel like crap for a few days, but it's worth it for the greater good of society. If you want to be able to go out to eat, drink at a bar, or simply walk around without a mask, this is our best bet at doing so right now. I'm pretty much in 5-6 hours of meetings every day regarding vaccines and I'm happy to give you any information I have access to if you have questions. I'm by no means an expert, but I can at least get you information that might help clear anything up that comes from experts, or at least people who have degrees in this sort of thing.

I'm sure there are other people here that can also give you information as well, whether they're experts, COVID enthusiasts (or whatever you call someone who spends way too much time reading about it), or just people who've done the research. There are a ton of misconceptions regarding the vaccines and the only way to clear those up is to battle it with accurate information supported by studies.

I'm gonna take you up on that.

The vaccine situation is so confusing. I'm constantly bouncing back and forth between whether the goal of vaccination is to curtail the spread or to curtail death - obviously two very different things. If the goal is to curtail the spread, then a vaccine which leaves people getting symptomatic or even asymptomatic cases (but eliminates death) is not nearly as good as one that doesn't do that. If the goal is to prevent death, then I'm not entirely sure why people are getting the second dose of any of these - given that I think (could be wrong) they're highly effective against death with one dose.

I suppose you could argue that it's a mix of goals, and that's probably correct, but it's a weird mix - possibly a changing set of priorities as vaccination goes forward. Different demographics at risk for different things as the vaccination effort continues would result in different vaccination strategy.

All of this leads up to a question of why we're vaccinating people who have already had covid. What's the mortality rate for someone on their second round of covid? It's got to be quite a bit lower than on the first. For one thing, this group of people by definition already survived covid once. For another, they've got some kind of level of immune response for it. So presumably they're not at great risk. Shouldn't we stick that vaccine into the arm of someone who hasn't had it?

If the goal is to prevent the spread, I could see more of an argument for vaccinating people who have had it. For one thing, this group of people by definition didn't manage to avoid it the first time. Chances have to be higher that they'll fail to avoid it the second time. Meanwhile someone who hasn't had it has managed to avoid it and might continue to do so.

Preventing the spread might be very important when you have a vulnerable unvaccinated population. But as we tick off the most vulnerable members of society with some level of immunity, preventing the spread has to decrease in priority - maybe it doesn't go away, spreads are how you get variants, but at least it should diminish. I'd think this would result in us moving people who have already had covid to the absolute back of the line.

OTOH!

I get why we might not do that even if it's optimal. For one, it slows down the vaccination process to check whether people have had it (or ask). For another, it's probably not based on 100% accurate data. Some people might not be sure, or might have had a false positive or false negative.

Ok, I rambled enough to need to summarize my questions:
- What is the goal of vaccination
- Why are we vaccinating people who have had covid
- Is a vaccine with a 70% effectivity rate significantly less useful than one with a 95% effectivity rate, and if so, why would we waste glass vials on them?

 

[Outspacer]

COVID enthusiasts (or whatever you call someone who spends way too much time reading about it), or just people who've done the research

'Nerds' for the former? I don't know. For me, consuming more information is a way to control worrying I think. I don't think there's much difference between those two groups, since doing any research takes more time than is really justified - all that's really needed for most people is to not believe that all senior medical figures are conspiratorial lizards be wary of falling prey to conspiracy theories!

There are a ton of misconceptions regarding the vaccines and the only way to clear those up is to battle it with accurate information supported by studies.

I read earlier that a poll in France indicated that only 56% would take up an offer of having a vaccine, although the number might be rising slowly. Comparable poll in Britain back in November showed that 67% would be likely to take the Pfizer vaccine, and much higher than that, 81%, in the over-65s. (Which tallies with 80.3% of Brits over 65 having had a Flu jab this season, the highest ever).

Stat dump over, I'm not convinced that misconceptions can be cleared away much by study data. What will happen though is that virtually all of these people will end up knowing someone who has had the vaccine and not exploded, and that will change (some of) their minds. Also, it's not important for them to believe that the vaccine will do any good, as long as they take it ("oh, I might as well, I won't die" is fine).

- Is a vaccine with a 70% effectivity rate significantly less useful than one with a 95% effectivity rate, and if so, why would we waste glass vials on them?

I guess that depends on your definition of 'significantly'. In the end what we need is 'enough' - enough people taking an effective enough vaccine such that any outbreaks are rare, and limited in their effect.

Regarding spread, a less effective vaccine could be just as useful if balanced by more people taking it. We've yet to hear the full results regarding preventing spread vs preventing infection, but it's looking like efficacy for the former will be notably higher than the latter. Also, it's clearly better to vaccinate as quickly as possible to reduce the risk of variants arising.

Regarding death, vaccines have shown far higher efficacy at preventing death and serious illness than that for preventing infection. But those that remain unvaccinated they would still be at risk - the modelling required to give an answer on how much vaccination needs to be done with what efficacy to prevent spread enough to reduce the risk to those people to an acceptable level without any restrictions like mask-wearing in place (the ultimate goal, after all) is beyond me (as is defining acceptable level of risk etc etc).

 

[Danoff]

Regarding spread, a less effective vaccine could be just as useful if balanced by more people taking it.

Could be. But if it's offsetting a better vaccine (which is definitely possible due to competition over overlapping supply chains), it only does a disservice.

We've yet to hear the full results regarding preventing spread vs preventing infection, but it's looking like efficacy for the former will be notably higher than the latter.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that, do you have a link?

 

[Outspacer]

Could be. But if it's offsetting a better vaccine (which is definitely possible due to competition over overlapping supply chains), it only does a disservice.

I see what you mean, fair point. However, I think still the main aim should be 'enough' rather than best, per my previous defintion, although obviously better is better, or might get us to 'enough' faster!

edit: so I guess if the question is what to fill vials with (and there is a choice - AZ is months away from approval in the US) if there's a shortage of vials, you'd use the one with the highest efficacy, so long as you can expect to be able to supply the second dose of the same vaccine within whatever timeframe has been authorised. Probably other logistical factors would come into play as well.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that, do you have a link?

BBC article, typical mess of the story itself and ten tonnes of background COVID info. Clicking through to the study (pdf) (same one that Joey linked), the main reason to assume so would be based on:

There were 130 cases of asymptomatic infection occurring more than 14 days after the booster
dose (COV002 UK cohort only). In the SDSD cohort there was no evidence of protection with
VE of 2.0%, 95%CI (-50.7%, 36.2%, 41 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 versus 42 control cases). However,
in the LDSD cohort there were 47 cases and VE was higher at 49.3%, 95%CI (7.4%, 72.2%, 16
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 versus 31 control cases). (Table 1)

Overall reduction in any PCR+ was 54.1% (44.7%, 61.9%), indicating the potential for a
reduction of transmission with a regimen of two SDs.

Protection against primary symptomatic COVID-19 with a single SD vaccine was modelled
against time since the first dose and showed no evidence of waning of protection in the first 3
months after vaccination (Figure 2A). A single standard dose of vaccine provided protection
against primary symptomatic COVID-19 in the first 90 days of 76%, (95%CI, 59%, 86%), but
did not provide protection against asymptomatic infection in the same period (VE 16%, 95% CI -
88%, 62%). (Table 2)

However, overall cases of any PCR+ were reduced by 67% (95%CI 49%, 78%) after a single SD
vaccine suggesting the potential for a substantial reduction in transmission.

In other words, if I'm reading it right, those who did still get infected had a much reduced viral load. I think we already know that a reduced viral load reduces transmission.

Although those numbers are specifically about the AZ vaccine, I doubt there's any reason to think that other vaccines won't also have stats that are somewhat similar in pattern.

 

[Joey D]

What is the goal of vaccination

Ideally, it's to get to some sort of herd immunity but more realistically it's to keep people out of the hospital so we can take care of other patients. The vaccination effort will likely fall flat in the US and we won't have enough people get it to develop a herd immunity. However, even if we're at 40% of the population vaccinated, that's still a potential reduction in the number of people who will get sick or sick enough to end up needing critical care. With healthcare resources freed up, we will be able to treat people who might otherwise be turned away.

I know rationing care didn't or rather still isn't happening in other states, but it did happen here. You don't want that to happen. We've even seen it with the vaccine distribution with having more demand than supply. There have been incidents where police or security has needed to be called to defuse what equates to an angry mod. And this is just for a preventative shot mind you. Now imagine what it would be like if you were told that one of your family members wasn't going to get care because there just wasn't room. While some people would understand, others would fly off the handle and potentially shoot up a hospital.

Assuming the vaccine works better than expected and those who get it can go years without a booster while still protecting against new variants, we will probably reach herd immunity. If it doesn't, COVID will end up being similar to the flu where you still see a huge uptick in sick people during "flu season" and you'll still have tens of thousands of people dying each year because of it.

Why are we vaccinating people who have had covid

Essentially it comes down to that we have no idea how long natural immunity lasts. Someone who had COVID in April might not have sufficient antibodies right now to protect them from getting it again. There were some early studies that suggested that natural immunity might not stick around for a long time, but since then there's only been a handful of studies that I've seen that have anything to do with long-term immunity. In the absence of data, we're erroring on the side of caution, but I can see that changing as more and more studies are done.

It's likely that the COVID vaccine ends up being like the flu shot where you need to get it at least once a year. Add in the new variants that are popping up and it makes this prospect far more likely.

Is a vaccine with a 70% effectivity rate significantly less useful than one with a 95% effectivity rate, and if so, why would we waste glass vials on them?

Significantly less? Not really, but it's not as useful at protecting you. However, a vaccine that is 70% effective can reduce your viral load and potentially make you less sick. So say you get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, you might still get COVID but it might just knock you on your ass for a couple of days rather than putting you in the hospital. Ideally, no we wouldn't want a vaccine that's below a certain threshold, but thanks in part to the lack of supply, we're almost willing to take anything remotely promising.

I mean I get why Pfizer and Moderna aren't sharing their formula to increase production, but at the same time, it's really hindering our ability to pump out vaccines.

 

[Danoff]

Ideally, it's to get to some sort of herd immunity but more realistically it's to keep people out of the hospital so we can take care of other patients. The vaccination effort will likely fall flat in the US and we won't have enough people get it to develop a herd immunity. However, even if we're at 40% of the population vaccinated, that's still a potential reduction in the number of people who will get sick or sick enough to end up needing critical care. With healthcare resources freed up, we will be able to treat people who might otherwise be turned away.

The statistics might be a little misleading on this one. My guess, and this is pure conjecture, is that the group of people who have gotten covid, or are going to get covid in the next few months, overlaps a good bit with the group of people who wouldn't have gotten the vaccine. So there may be a statistical bias among the people who have no exposure to covid getting vaccinated. This would help boost the herd immunity numbers beyond what might be expected from a survey.

 

[ryzno]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...cebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social

I'm stuck on putting this here or the funny/strange news thread...

 

[Touring Mars]

Piers Corbyn, climate change/COVID denier and brother of the former opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been arrested in London for distributing leaflets that compare the UK's vaccination programme to Auschwitz.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...omparing-covid-vaccine-programme-to-auschwitz

Corbyn has been a vocal opponent of lockdown measures, and has already been arrested for participating in anti-lockdown protests...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-52693383

Utter 🤬

 

[Biggles]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...cebook.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social

I'm stuck on putting this here or the funny/strange news thread...

I'm not sure why you would think that very detailed & thoughtful article is either funny or strange. It is, after all, "the oldest profession" in the world. These women (& men) are dependent on the sex trade for their livelihood in a country that probably offers no "$2,000" pandemic stimulus.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure why you would think that very detailed & thoughtful article is either funny or strange. It is, after all, "the oldest profession" in the world. These women (& men) are dependent on the sex trade for their livelihood in a country that probably offers no "$2,000" pandemic stimulus.

Thailand offered 5,000 baht ($170 USD) from April through September, which is more than some Americans got.

 

[TB]

3,000 miles in a metal tube with a bunch of strangers.
Through two of the busiest airports in the US. Twice.
Countless times out to eat with people I'm never around.
Some of which are non-mask wearers.

Covid test just came back negative.

With all the traveling, I was truly worried about this one.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

Thailand offered 5,000 baht ($170 USD) from April through September, which is more than some Americans got.

Not to these people though. Their profession is illegal although overlooked but there's not coming stimulus money to them.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Ursula Von de Leyen response in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...er-leyen-uk-covid-vaccine-speedboat-eu-tanker

 

[Danoff]

Colorado is ticking along at 20k vaccinations per day:

635k total vaccines administered, with about 162k of those going into the same person, so we can figure almost 500k different people vaccinated. That's about 8% of the state population of 5.7M. The adult population is roughly 4M. If we're looking to get to 70% of the adult population, that'd be 2.8M. If we're looking at 2 shots per person, that's 5.6M doses needed. We've administered 0.635M doses currently, so 5M left. At 20k doses per day we're looking at 50 days per million or 250 days to go. Today is day 36 of 2021. Day 286 of 2021 is October 13.

Edit:

Of course this figure should speed up quite a bit going forward. It might not, could slow down.

 

[Outspacer]

Ursula Von de Leyen response in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...er-leyen-uk-covid-vaccine-speedboat-eu-tanker

So the five days allowed for countries to agree is the reason it took three months longer to present anything for them to agree to?!

As far as I was aware, the EMA and the UK's MHRA made their decisions based on the same study data, presumably presented to each of them at about the same time. Did the EMA demand some further information that slowed them down or did they just take longer to decide? Probably a rhetorical question, since I assume any delay caused by waiting for further information would have been worth her mentioning.

 

[Danoff]

Flu trackers are putting cases around basically summer levels for the US, when we should be spiking right now:

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/fluportaldashboard.html

Compared to last year, it's like the seasonal spike is just gone. Our efforts to suppress COVID are wildly effective against Flu it would seem... and are holding covid to just wiping out hundreds of thousands of people in this country (424k as of this post, which is almost 7 times the worst estimates of flu mortality for 2019-2020). It's worth noting that we've had half as many cases of COVID-19 as we had cases of flu in 2019-2020. So 7 times as many dead from half as many infections.

FWIW, the first covid death in the US looks like it was Feb. 6th 2020. So I guess that's when our 2020-2021 COVID-19 "season" starts?

Alright so here we are coming up on February 6th (one year since the first US death). What are the numbers for the one year mark? 467k. So between the above post and this one we have lost an additional 43,000 people. That post was made on January 23. Between January 23 and February 5th COVID has killed more Americans than the estimates for the entire 2018-2019 flu season (and most other flu seasons). Keep in mind that this is during a period where our precautions are so stringent that we have essentially wiped out this year's flu season.

How long is that... 13 days. In 13 days COVID killed more people than the whole of the 2018-2019 flu season. The total for the year, 467k, is more than all of the flu seasons listed on that webpage combined. That goes back a decade.

 

[Joey D]

Another small win

 

[TB]

How long is that... 13 days. In 13 days COVID killed more people than the whole of the 2018-2019 flu season. The total for the year, 467k, is more than all of the flu seasons listed on that webpage combined. That goes back a decade.

"This is a flu. This is like a flu."

 

[Danoff]

"This is a flu. This is like a flu."

I think I'm still trying to live this post from February 2020 down.

You think a hyped up flu will be catastrophic to Africa? They have real issues to worry about, like 200 million cases of malaria. Not our little first-world panic attack.

Edit: AIDS and Malaria took a little less than a million Africans in 2018 (based on the estimates I've seen).

Source. Source. Source.

As of today based on at least one website, COVID has killed about 90k people in Africa. So that definitely doesn't rank it in line with the danger posed by HIV or Malaria, so I was kinda right on that one. But still... that post hasn't aged gracefully.

 

[JKgo]

COVID has killed about 90k people in Africa

Not sure where you got this number from, but whatever you can find online, I can assure you that it's wildly under the estimate.

South Africa alone (where I am) has reported nearly 45,000 COVID-related deaths as of yesterday. That's just one country, with arguably the best healthcare system in whole of the continent. And this number is being disputed even now, as our excess death compared to the year before is (last time I checked) was three times higher at something like 100k.

For instance, Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa with over 200 million people, have reported less than 2k death out of over 110k total infected. That... doesn't sound right no matter how you slice it.

 

[Danoff]

Not sure where you got this number from, but whatever you can find online, I can assure you that it's wildly under the estimate.

South Africa alone (where I am) has reported nearly 45,000 COVID-related deaths as of yesterday. That's just one country, with arguably the best healthcare system in whole of the continent. And this number is being disputed even now, as our excess death compared to the year before is (last time I checked) was three times higher at something like 100k.

For instance, Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa with over 200 million people, have reported less than 2k death out of over 110k total infected. That... doesn't sound right no matter how you slice it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53181555

I assume the demographics are a bit different in some African nations. So Nigeria has a 24 year shorter life expectancy than the US (54 years) (amazingly, it doesn't get wildly better after you reach age 10. I'd have expected it to rise much faster given that this eliminates infant mortality). In the US many of the people who are dying are well past the Nigerian life expectancy. South Africa has the largest share of African deaths reported for COVID.

Edit:

About 0.4% of Nigeria's population is over 70. The vast majority of COVID deaths worldwide are over that age. Somewhere around 8% of the US population is over 70.

 

[JKgo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53181555

From the article:

South Africa was just one of eight countries on the continent that the BBC found in a recent investigation had adequate death registration systems. So coronavirus deaths across Africa as a whole are likely to be under-recorded.

Of the bigger countries, South Africa has been doing the most and Nigeria doing relatively few tests per capita, according to Our World in Data, a UK-based project which collates Covid-19 information.

South Africa has the largest share of deaths reported for COVID.

I wouldn't be surprised if this had less to do with SA's better reporting infrastructure, and with people living in the other Sub-Saharan countries dying "less" from COVID19.

Edited after realising that I shouldn't post something while dead-tired from a day's work...

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was down to SA's better reporting infrastructure, rather than people living in the other Sub-Saharan countries dying "less" from COVID19.

It doesn't strike me as particularly out of line that Nigeria would have fewer COVID deaths. COVID hospitalizations and deaths go up dramatically with age. Nigeria is facing health crises from diseases that are killing people before they can become old enough to die of COVID*.


* This is meant to be taken in a statistical sense. I'm aware that people of any age can die of COVID.

 

[JKgo]

Nigeria is facing health crises from diseases that are killing people before they can become old enough to die of COVID.

This may be true, but is it true enough to offset near twenty-fold difference between SA and Nigeria? I'm not sure about that.

To reiterate, this figure could be down to the issue of under-reporting rather than actual less COVID19 deaths. Nigeria has triple the population of SA, yet only has one-tenth of the total infected reported. Consider the population density - Nigeria sits above 210 per square kilometer, compared to SA's less than 48. Statistically, they should have more infected, which should mean higher death numbers even after taking into account the lower average age of the population, but they don't, not officially.

 

[Danoff]

This may be true, but is it true enough to offset near twenty-fold difference between SA and Nigeria?

Could be.

To reiterate, this figure could be down to the issue of under-reporting rather than actual less COVID19 deaths.

Definitely could be that as well.

Statistically, they should have more infected, which should mean higher death numbers even after taking into account the lower average age of the population

Citation needed

Are you sure about this? Because the statistics are heavily biased worldwide. 20x is not out of bed with worldwide figures.