2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Silvanus]

Fine, I'll do it you lazy bum. All the states you explicitly mentioned with big red arrows pointed at the exactly never that they experienced a sustained decrease in cases.

I'm literally looking at graphs in which the rise in cases slows, and then speeds up. It's actually really notable on the Utah one specifically.

Wat? You're trying to be pedantic on the phrase "herd immunity", but you're throwing out the entire meaning of the phrase. Me telling you that a certain portion of a population needs to acquire immunity in order for herd immunity to be established... that's just the definition of the phrase. Why do you find it questionable to suggest that a place that had a local epidemic of covid-19 would resist outbreaks after where a place that largely avoided the virus does not? You're not going to win an argument just fighting about the terminology instead of the concepts behind them, but you're especially not going to win if you've lost sight of those meaning altogether.

It's not "pedantic": "herd immunity" has a specific and distinct meaning. When you talk about herd immunity for a whole string of posts, and then give a summary of your "entire argument" which doesn't talk about herd immunity but rather just generally about acquired immunity resisting outbreaks... that's not pedantry. Those are different arguments.

Nobody is disputing that a location which suffered particularly badly would be likelier to develop higher levels of antibodies. That's obvious. Nobody is disputing that higher levels of antibodies will convey some level of protection from infection. These are both just obvious statements.

That's doesn't constitute herd immunity. Herd immunity is a specific concept, indicating a threshold of immunity that conveys communal protection to the extent that outbreaks are near-impossible. It's very rarely been accomplished.

Herd immunity is the condition where the reproductive rate of the virus is less than or equal to 1 under normal conditions, specifically because a threshold of people are immune. I'm claiming that plenty of places have already established that condition. Obviously I'm not all knowing, I don't know if there's like a specific building in New York where people have locked themselves in the whole time or something like that and a small outbreak is still possible, but do not expect more major outbreaks of the virus in NYC ever. That's what I'm saying. If you want me to stop describing less impacted places as "approaching herd immunity" because you think it's the wrong phrasing, you're going to have to first admit that you understand and agree with what I'm saying.

That threshold has not been reached. The only evidence you've pointed to thus far has been a general decrease in deaths and hospitalisations, as well as the flattening infection rate-- all of which can be down to a thousand myriad factors. You're attributing it specifically to immunity with extremely poor evidence: a level of acquired immunity that's way, way below what any expert says is necessary; and a completely baseless assumption that 80% of people have an innate immunity which hasn't been demonstrated or proven at all.

 

[Agema]

If people in places like Spain were better at driving down the virus than Californians, why did they experience giant spikes while California effectively held the growth rate almost flat for months? The obvious answer is that they weren't better.

Weren't they?

Spain entered lockdown after covid-19 was already rampant and it got clobbered. However, since then, cases are down to a few hundred a day, and deaths under ten. That's some impressive work. California, however, has merely held at a few thousand cases a day and about 50-100 deaths. It's unlikely to be about how many have the disease, because other countries with low number total infected have done much better than California and heavily driven down cases too, like South Korea and Japan.

It seems to me that California maybe got moving quickly to prevent an initial explosion in cases, but the measures have always been relatively loose (either what measures have been required, or public adherence to them). Other places managed to clamp down very firmly (whether hit badly or not) - almost certainly because their infection control was significantly more rigorous than California's.

* * *

I think this sort matters because in practice, countries have to clamp down one way or another. It can start when it's got a few hundred cases a day or a few thousand or a few tens of thousands - that leaves them with trajectories like South Korea (very good), Germany (pretty good), or the UK and USA (bad). They've all suffered big lockdowns with huge economic cost, but the latter two saved a huge number of lives. What's not to like about that?

 

[Saint of M]

Weren't they?

Spain entered lockdown after covid-19 was already rampant and it got clobbered. However, since then, cases are down to a few hundred a day, and deaths under ten. That's some impressive work. California, however, has merely held at a few thousand cases a day and about 50-100 deaths. It's unlikely to be about how many have the disease, because other countries with low number total infected have done much better than California and heavily driven down cases too, like South Korea and Japan.

It seems to me that California maybe got moving quickly to prevent an initial explosion in cases, but the measures have always been relatively loose (either what measures have been required, or public adherence to them). Other places managed to clamp down very firmly (whether hit badly or not) - almost certainly because their infection control was significantly more rigorous than California's.

* * *

I think this sort matters because in practice, countries have to clamp down one way or another. It can start when it's got a few hundred cases a day or a few thousand or a few tens of thousands - that leaves them with trajectories like South Korea (very good), Germany (pretty good), or the UK and USA (bad). They've all suffered big lockdowns with huge economic cost, but the latter two saved a huge number of lives. What's not to like about that?

Didn't it get so bad in Spain they had to use Ice Rings as makeshift morgs to keep the bodies from rotting and spreading more disease before they could be dealt with properly?

 

[tstorm823]

I'm literally looking at graphs in which the rise in cases slows, and then speeds up. It's actually really notable on the Utah one specifically.

So now the number of cases increasing slower is the same as the number of cases dropping, eh? Words have that little meaning to you?

Please, forget the argument and follow the logic for 30 seconds here. These sates instituted measures that slowed the virus successfully, either through the serious measures in California, or through more modest measures combined with geographical luck for the other 3. Because they successfully slowed the virus, they experienced relatively few infections for multiple months straight. Because they experienced relatively few infections, when they reopened, they experienced a spike, due to insufficient immunity to the virus. The rise in cases slowing down is exactly my point. California did a great job holding back the virus, and the consequence of that is no herd immunity in sight.

That threshold has not been reached. The only evidence you've pointed to thus far has been a general decrease in deaths and hospitalisations, as well as the flattening infection rate-- all of which can be down to a thousand myriad factors. You're attributing it specifically to immunity with extremely poor evidence: a level of acquired immunity that's way, way below what any expert says is necessary; and a completely baseless assumption that 80% of people have an innate immunity which hasn't been demonstrated or proven at all.

I've laid out my arguments thoroughly. You can disagree all you want, but if you consider that baseless, that's just you not understanding.

Spain entered lockdown after covid-19 was already rampant and it got clobbered. However, since then, cases are down to a few hundred a day, and deaths under ten. That's some impressive work.

It's comments like this that rile me up the most. No, that isn't impressive work. They screwed it up royally and huge numbers died as a result. Go ahead and compliment South Korea, they drove R below 1 through sheer force. Compliment some island nations that clamped it down and kept it at bay. Spain isn't down because of their efforts to fight the virus, they're down because it's running out of people susceptible to infection. You're refusing to believe that, and I don't know if you'll ever be convinced, but that's the truth.

Oh by the way, this came out last week. Evidence of even more people being immune based on a different mechanism. I know the answer just from statistics, I'll let scientists work out the "why".

Coronavirus: Immunity may be more widespread than tests suggest

A Swedish study found twice as many people had protective T-cells as tested positive for antibodies.

www.bbc.com

 

[Silvanus]

So now the number of cases increasing slower is the same as the number of cases dropping, eh? Words have that little meaning to you?

Are you being serious?

If there are fewer new cases on day B than day A, that's a drop in the number of daily cases, and a drop in the rate of infection. This has been discussed and used as a barometer for the trajectory of the virus in pretty much every report available.

Please, forget the argument and follow the logic for 30 seconds here. These sates instituted measures that slowed the virus successfully, either through the serious measures in California, or through more modest measures combined with geographical luck for the other 3. Because they successfully slowed the virus, they experienced relatively few infections for multiple months straight. Because they experienced relatively few infections, when they reopened, they experienced a spike, due to insufficient immunity to the virus. The rise in cases slowing down is exactly my point. California did a great job holding back the virus, and the consequence of that is no herd immunity in sight.

I've laid out my arguments thoroughly. You can disagree all you want, but if you consider that baseless, that's just you not understanding.

I'm not misunderstanding anything. What you've put there is a relatively obvious statement of accepted facts about acquired immunity, and how it leads to antibodies that drive down later infection rates.

Nobody disputes that higher infection rates lead to higher levels of antibodies. That's bleeding obvious. It's not the same thing as "herd immunity", which is a specific concept distinct from general immunity.

 

[Agema]

It's comments like this that rile me up the most. No, that isn't impressive work. They screwed it up royally and huge numbers died as a result.

I only wish you took the same attitude to your own government, but I guess you've got a president to protect.

Yeah, it went really badly before they got a grip on it. But at least they got a grip on it. Also, just 11.3% covid-19 seropositive in Madrid. Mm.

Oh by the way, this came out last week. Evidence of even more people being immune based on a different mechanism. I know the answer just from statistics, I'll let scientists work out the "why".

Coronavirus: Immunity may be more widespread than tests suggest

A Swedish study found twice as many people had protective T-cells as tested positive for antibodies.

www.bbc.com

You know, bluntly, just about nothing. You've just decided what the answer is in advance and grab at only the evidence that defends it. If you're right, you're more so in the way a clock is right twice a day.

Spain went into lockdown on the 13th March. Deaths peak at the beginning of April and then decline - which is exactly what you'd expect with ~2 weeks between infection and death. Or as you'd have it, lockdown arrived magically at just the same point Madrid hit some sort of herd immunity, just like I guess everywhere hit some kind of herd immunity about 2-3 weeks after lockdown, including the places barely hit at all.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you being serious?

If there are fewer new cases on day B than day A, that's a drop in the number of daily cases, and a drop in the rate of infection. This has been discussed and used as a barometer for the trajectory of the virus in pretty much every report available.

Are you understanding the graphs? Those aren't total cases over time, those are graphs of new cases each day. Excepting the statistical noise day to day, the number has never gone down any of those places. When it was flatter, that wasn't the number going down. That was the number increasing each day, just at a slower acceleration than before and after.

Yeah, it went really badly before they got a grip on it. But at least they got a grip on it. Also, just 11.3% covid-19 seropositive in Madrid. Mm.

Your number supports my argument.

You know, bluntly, just about nothing. You've just decided what the answer is in advance and grab at only the evidence that defends it. If you're right, you're more so in the way a clock is right twice a day.

I know the statistics on infections and deaths coming out of places. I deduced my theories from that information. I know, bluntly, just about nothing about why the virus behaves that way or why immune systems behave that way, but I don't need to. I've found the "what" of what is happening. The "why" is beyond my understanding or resources, but that doesn't mean that I identified the patterns by accident.

Spain went into lockdown on the 13th March. Deaths peak at the beginning of April and then decline - which is exactly what you'd expect with ~2 weeks between infection and death. Or as you'd have it, lockdown arrived magically at just the same point Madrid hit some sort of herd immunity, just like I guess everywhere hit some kind of herd immunity about 2-3 weeks after lockdown, including the places barely hit at all.

Sweden didn't lock down the same way. Deaths peaked within a week of Spain. New York locked down starting March 18th, didn't peak for over 4 weeks.You've got one vague data point. And the idea that stricter quarantine is the difference doesn't explain reopening not increasing the infection rate across Europe.

Adults In Spain Get A Bit Of Sunshine As Coronavirus Lockdown Partially Lifts

Last week, children there got to play outside for the first time in weeks. Now adults are taking advantage of the same opportunity in droves, as authorities allowed a few hours of recreation Saturday.

www.npr.org

That article is from Spain lifting restrictions. That picture of people out and about, near each other mostly without masks, is from 2 months ago, when there were still thousands of cases a day there. You have no explanation for how that can go on for 2 months not only without a resurgence, but with case rates continuing to fall down to almost nothing. I do.

 

[Agema]

I know the statistics on infections and deaths coming out of places. I deduced my theories from that information. I know, bluntly, just about nothing about why the virus behaves that way or why immune systems behave that way, but I don't need to. I've found the "what" of what is happening. The "why" is beyond my understanding or resources, but that doesn't mean that I identified the patterns by accident.

The "what" is plain to see: infections in various places going up or down. The statistics are straightforward, pretty much nobody is confused about them, and it doesn't take any skill to recognise them.

The only interesting question is "why", and that why depends entirely on the nature of the virus, people's immune systems, government regulations, behaviour, etc. You are absolutely proposing a "why", on a basis that you admit yourself you don't understand and - more crazily - that you don't need to.

 

[tstorm823]

The "what" is plain to see: infections in various places going up or down. The statistics are straightforward, pretty much nobody is confused about them, and it doesn't take any skill to recognize them.

And yet you're still arguing with me. The inverse relationship between magnitude of total infections and current reproductive rate is straightforward and obvious, and you're not admitting it exists.

 

[Agema]

And yet you're still arguing with me. The inverse relationship between magnitude of total infections and current reproductive rate is straightforward and obvious, and you're not admitting it exists.

No, the point everyone else is making to you can be summed up by the old saying "correlation does not imply causation".

 

[tstorm823]

No, the point everyone else is making to you can be summed up by the old saying "correlation does not imply causation".

No, the point everyone else is making is "correlation does not imply correlation". You're rejecting even the notion that those things will correlate, and trying to apply explanations that make the correlation coincidental.

Correlation =/= causation is the answer when things ARE related, but not causally. You're not conceding the relationship, and instead offering explanations of causation that don't correlate in the first place.

 

[Agema]

No, the point everyone else is making is "correlation does not imply correlation". You're rejecting even the notion that those things will correlate, and trying to apply explanations that make the correlation coincidental.

They're disagreeing with you bandying around the term "herd immunity" inaccurately, because that refers to a threshold level of population immunity which is going to prevent outbreaks and force the number of new infections to decline. Whereas you seem to be misapplying it in a more general sense that the more people are immune, the less the infection will be able to spread, which is a concept no-one disagrees with.

Alternatively, you want to argue herd immunity is occurring because starts at about 10-20% having covid-19 antibodies, and everyone else thinks that is... let's just say "extremely optimistic". That is not a correlation argument, it's a causation argument. It matters because correllations are basically meaningless without considering causation: that's why you keep shunting us articles about immunity, because you want your correllation to mean something. People don't buy your causation argument, because there are too many confounding factors, unknowns, and skeptical experts disagreeing.

To illustrate why the correllation is problematic anyway we can imagine a theoretical graph of locations, comparing total number of cases (possibly via a proxy, like number of deaths) and then examine the current trend of spread. After all, if places hardest hit have low current infection rates, then places lightly hit should have higher infection rates. Is this true? The answer is either no, or only with very weak consistency - because there are obviously places lightly hit with very low infection rates.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

They're disagreeing with you bandying around the term "herd immunity" inaccurately, because that refers to a threshold level of population immunity which is going to prevent outbreaks and force the number of new infections to decline. Whereas you seem to be misapplying it in a more general sense that the more people are immune, the less the infection will be able to spread, which is a concept no-one disagrees with.

Alternatively, you want to argue herd immunity is occurring because starts at about 10-20% having covid-19 antibodies, and everyone else thinks that is... let's just say "extremely optimistic". That is not a correlation argument, it's a causation argument. It matters because correllations are basically meaningless without considering causation: that's why you keep shunting us articles about immunity, because you want your correllation to mean something. People don't buy your causation argument, because there are too many confounding factors, unknowns, and skeptical experts disagreeing.

To illustrate why the correllation is problematic anyway we can imagine a theoretical graph of locations, comparing total number of cases (possibly via a proxy, like number of deaths) and then examine the current trend of spread. After all, if places hardest hit have low current infection rates, then places lightly hit should have higher infection rates. Is this true? The answer is either no, or only with very weak consistency - because there are obviously places lightly hit with very low infection rates.

There's very little to be made of these infection curves outside of giving a glimpse of how much or little of the virus is floating around in that country, state, city, etc. Everyone is doing testing differently, everyone locked down (or didn't) differently (Spain was far more locked down than the US for example), everyone is opening up differently, every civilian population is behaving differently. Sure, more people that have had it and have immunity, the more the spread will be slowed but to say NYC can go back to normal and not have another massive outbreak is as you say "extremely optimistic". Nobody's curve is going to be following a normal infection spread because everybody implemented measures to stop that from happening. And, the main thing affecting the curves is almost certainly not due to built immunity.

Oh by the way, this came out last week. Evidence of even more people being immune based on a different mechanism. I know the answer just from statistics, I'll let scientists work out the "why".

Coronavirus: Immunity may be more widespread than tests suggest

A Swedish study found twice as many people had protective T-cells as tested positive for antibodies.

www.bbc.com

Even by that, you still will have had to have been infected to have that immunity. Nothing has come out saying anyone is innately immune to the virus.

 

[tstorm823]

Even by that, you still will have had to have been infected to have that immunity. Nothing has come out saying anyone is innately immune to the virus.

You would have to have been exposed, not necessarily infected. Infection means that the virus has entered your body and is multiplying. If the virus enters and is destroyed before it starts manufacturing more of itself, it isn't an infection. Not that it's important to the statistical argument.

To illustrate why the correllation is problematic anyway we can imagine a theoretical graph of locations, comparing total number of cases (possibly via a proxy, like number of deaths) and then examine the current trend of spread. After all, if places hardest hit have low current infection rates, then places lightly hit should have higher infection rates. Is this true? The answer is either no, or only with very weak consistency - because there are obviously places lightly hit with very low infection rates.

The pattern is a bell curve. You get low infection rates at both ends of the bell curve. And I'm not denying some places have prevented an epidemic from occurring through preventative measures and strict tracking.

I could make up that graph for you, but it'll be slightly more work than MS Paint, so to not waste effort, I'd like to agree on what I'm graphing before doing it. My instinct wants to put deaths/million against current R, but R=~0 at 3 points on a bell curve, which could be confusing. And case counts based on positive tests is a bit questionable to compare across spaces. I could do current daily cases relative to average daily cases, but over what time period to calculate the average I don't know immediately.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You would have to have been exposed, not necessarily infected. Infection means that the virus has entered your body and is multiplying. If the virus enters and is destroyed before it starts manufacturing more of itself, it isn't an infection. Not that it's important to the statistical argument.

That's not what the article was saying:
"This was seen even in people who had mild or symptomless cases of Covid-19...

It's likely those people did mount an antibody response, but either it had faded or was not detectable by the current tests."

 

[Fieldy409]

Melbourne is getting steadily rising cases.

Victoria records its highest single-day rise in coronavirus cases since pandemic began

Of the state's 191 new cases, 37 are linked to known outbreaks and the remaining 154 are under investigation — meaning health officials are still tracing the source of the infection.

www.google.com

There are these towers full of housing for poor people, renting from the government to prevent homelessness basically. Very cramped. They're all qurantined inside of them. Some are claiming they've been given expired food. People have tried to escape.

 

[Gordon_4]

Perhaps it's just because I listen to Hardcore History and Dan Carlin made an episode on how easy it was for this to happen over 15 years ago, so I'm not surprised by that.

We're still doing far better than we did with the Spanish Influenza, so it's a bit comforting for me to know that we've at least improved our ability to deal with this, but it still hasn't run its course so we'll see if that continues in the long run.

I’d fucking hope we’re doing better than a pandemic from a century ago that hit at the tail end of what was then the worst armed conflict the world had ever seen that left millions of people malnourished, in squalid conditions and severely physically and psychologically compromised and of course lacking the past eighty years or so of advances in basically every scientific study relevant to the battling of such a thing.

 

[Saint of M]

Ok, hopefully moving along from this fight, and commenting on "Spain did things Differently than the United States" it would have to depend on the state. Despite Trump saying this was a war and he was now a wartime president, he's done jack about it, and leaving each state to deal with it. Thus we have things like Florida which has allowed things to go back to normal, to California which is on its second Shelter In Place everything is on lockdown again.

You also have how its effected different areas. Densely populated areas seem to be hit hard as more people can spread it, while less dense area like Idaho haven't. Other that see lots of traffic despite density, like Utah, also seem to have some peeks.

 

[Silvanus]

Are you understanding the graphs? Those aren't total cases over time, those are graphs of new cases each day. Excepting the statistical noise day to day, the number has never gone down any of those places. When it was flatter, that wasn't the number going down. That was the number increasing each day, just at a slower acceleration than before and after.

I've already provided direct data showing the new cases per day going down, and then going back up, using 7-day averages to avoid day-to-day "statistical noise".

I'm gonna drop out of this conversation now, because it feels like it's going in circles. You seem to have at least stopped talking about herd immunity and started talking about immunity in general providing protection; so long as that conflation is dropped, I'm happy enough. The more outlandish claims about 80% innate immunity have gone by the wayside too.

 

[tstorm823]

I've already provided direct data showing the new cases per day going down, and then going back up, using 7-day averages to avoid day-to-day "statistical noise".

No, you didn't. You gave data that mostly showed the states that had dropped leveling off after the drop (you know, like a bell curve), and explained it poorly. Things that are green on the left and orange on the right are states that dropped and went to flat, not things that dropped and then increased. I wanted you to find me a graph instead of that percent change heat map because a graph would make you look at the actual patterns in a way that can't be easily confused or misconstrued.