The new Corona virus, should we worry?

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,634
Reaction score
3,593
Points
113
First, show your data and your math. Second, given a season in which a significant portion of the earth's people were not intermingling, and most of the rest were wearing masks in public and staying away from public events, all I can say about that is that will result in some strange statistics that fall way outside of control limits.
Data (was posted here yesterday and you responded to it):
Math:
400,000 - 165 = 399,835/400,000 = 0.9996 (99.96% drop).

I would expect a big drop. This, however, is not “strange statistics”; this is a statistical impossibility. Either flu hospitalizations are being misreported or the NPR data is wrong.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,640
Reaction score
1,862
Points
113
Data (was posted here yesterday and you responded to it):
Math:
400,000 - 165 = 399,835/400,000 = 0.9996 (99.96% drop).

I would expect a big drop. This, however, is not “strange statistics”; this is a statistical impossibility. Either flu hospitalizations are being misreported or the NPR data is wrong.
Do you really know your statistics and your virology and your immunology? If so, then why would something like this, assuming the data are accurate, make you think it was "impossible"? Do you think the conditions for spread of flu in 2020/2021 were of the same population as those in previous years? They must, if you are to expect statistics to align. Comparison of populations of data in which there are known, significant differences should not lead to an expectation of similarity. You cannot apply a t-test to this past year's data and expect to show similarities to past years, as it comes from an entirely different population of data.

I think what the data all-but-prove is that masks and social distancing are likely much more effective to prevent the widespread transmission of seasonal flu than they are for the far more virulent Covid-19. Moreover, this data may support my personal "initial dose" hypothesis, where I believe one's outcome to any exposure to a virus is directly affected by the initial dose and location of viral entry (thus, masks cut down on overall illness from respiratory viruses due to lesser initial concentration of virus and less penetration into the lungs).
 
Last edited:

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,634
Reaction score
3,593
Points
113
Do you really know your statistics and your virology and your immunology? If so, then why would something like this, assuming the data are accurate, surprise you? Do you think the conditions for spread of flu in 2020/2021 were of the same population as those in previous years? They must, if you are to expect statistics to align. Comparison of populations of data in which there are known, significant differences should not lead to an expectation of similarity. There is nothing statistical about this past year's data, as it comes from an entirely different population of data.
So, back to my question: do you find a 99.96% drop to be reasonable?
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,640
Reaction score
1,862
Points
113
So, back to my question: do you find a 99.96% drop to be reasonable?
First, you'll have to (please) re-read my post. I edited it since your reply. Second, I shrug my shoulders on this one. Sure, I find a 99.96% drop (assuming that number is correct) reasonable, given my post.

For an analogue, does use of condoms greatly reduce susceptibility to transfer of HIV and other venereal diseases? Why should wearing of a mask not greatly reduce susceptibility to transfer of respiratory diseases?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
18,634
Reaction score
3,593
Points
113
First, you'll have to (please) re-read my post. I edited it since your reply. Second, I shrug my shoulders on this one. Sure, I find a 99.96% drop (assuming that number is correct) reasonable, given my post.

For an analogue, does use of condoms greatly reduce susceptibility to transfer of HIV and other venereal diseases? Why should wearing of a mask not greatly reduce susceptibility to transfer of respiratory diseases?
Thanks. Our opinions diverge.
1. I agree masks and distancing could greatly reduce spread of the flu.
2. I don’t find it reasonable to think it could reduce it 99.96% even if everyone was diligent with their mask wear & distancing.
3. We all know not everyone is.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
1,941
Points
113
Olsterholm was just on MPR talking about variants. I didn't catch all of it, but basically he said the worst may be yet to come. The high point in January will be the new baseline come end of March, just as the high point this summer is the new baseline now. I know people on this board like to dismiss Olsterholm, but he's pretty much nailed everything so far. We simply cannot make enough vaccines fast enough to combat the variants. So now I'm worried again. Not just for the virus, but for how people with react if we have to tighter things back up again.
He's been saying this for several weeks now and compared it to a category 5 hurricane offshore. Since he started saying this, new daily cases and deaths in the US have decreased by 50%.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Olsterholm was just on MPR talking about variants. I didn't catch all of it, but basically he said the worst may be yet to come. The high point in January will be the new baseline come end of March, just as the high point this summer is the new baseline now. I know people on this board like to dismiss Olsterholm, but he's pretty much nailed everything so far. We simply cannot make enough vaccines fast enough to combat the variants. So now I'm worried again. Not just for the virus, but for how people with react if we have to tighter things back up again.
He is convinced there is a giant surge coming which is why he’s leading the charge to delay second doses (which is opposed by Fauci and other experts). Osterholm may be right but there are certain assumptions involved...I guess we’ll find out. At least he isn’t hand-drawing completely made up case curves like Topol (to my knowledge).

 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
I'm a knowledgeable person regarding the Kennedy assassination. If I told you that no one knows whether or not there was a second shooter, would I or wouldn't I be spreading conspiracy theories? Maybe you don't know what a conspiracy theory is, or don't realize you are hyping one? Suffice to say there is a consensus theory about the viruses' origins. An alternative theory is that it came from a Chinese lab. There is scant evidence for the Chinese lab theory, and it makes for a great conspiracy theory because there is little to no chance that this conspiracy theory can 100% be proven wrong, so it will probably live forever. All of that is characteristic of a conspiracy theory.

Worse, no matter if there is ever severely strong evidence that the origins of this were indeed all "natural", there is little to no chance of you ever being persuaded. You are convinced in the conspiracy theory. Again, all of that is characteristic of a conspiracy theory.
No, there isn’t. Do you know what a hypothesis is? Serious question.

Worse, you continue to state I’m “convinced” the accident hypothesis is correct, when it is merely plausible and has significant circumstantial evidence as support. I am very open to the zoonotic jump/mutation theory, which actually has less supporting evidence at the current time. You are correct in that we may never know for sure. I’ll be content to raise awareness around this absurd branch of virology.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Do you really know your statistics and your virology and your immunology? If so, then why would something like this, assuming the data are accurate, make you think it was "impossible"? Do you think the conditions for spread of flu in 2020/2021 were of the same population as those in previous years? They must, if you are to expect statistics to align. Comparison of populations of data in which there are known, significant differences should not lead to an expectation of similarity. You cannot apply a t-test to this past year's data and expect to show similarities to past years, as it comes from an entirely different population of data.

I think what the data all-but-prove is that masks and social distancing are likely much more effective to prevent the widespread transmission of seasonal flu than they are for the far more virulent Covid-19. Moreover, this data may support my personal "initial dose" hypothesis, where I believe one's outcome to any exposure to a virus is directly affected by the initial dose and location of viral entry (thus, masks cut down on overall illness from respiratory viruses due to lesser initial concentration of virus and less penetration into the lungs).
Do you? Do you realize the 165 hospitalizations are only those reported by the sentinel Flusurv-NET hospitals? These serve less than 10% of Americans. Also, the total 400k hospitalizations are a yearly estimate for the entire nation. The 165 has to be extrapolated and massaged by regional activity to arrive at final estimates and the season isn’t over. The more relevant number is the cumulative rate of 0.6 per 100k thru early Feb. This will grow, most likely, but the rate is still still way, way less than usual. Conceivably in the ~90s% less. Kids out of school, no handshakes, better hygiene, distancing, remote work, less leisure and business travel, conferences are probably all playing a role. Pretty crazy, really.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,535
Reaction score
2,128
Points
113
FWIW - I was supposed to receive my first dose of Pfizer vaccine this Friday.

Got a call from my local clinic. Apparently the bad weather on the East Coast messed up the shipment of vaccine, so now I will be getting my first dose next Friday.

at least that's what the clinic told me. I suppose there could be some deep, dark conspiracy lurking somewhere.

Or, they might be telling me the truth.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Two of the fave ‘talkers on this site. I’m going to side with Osterholm on this one. Maybe he wakes up next to a horse head, maybe not, pending Chris’s recurrent Covid-19 status


 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
FWIW - I was supposed to receive my first dose of Pfizer vaccine this Friday.

Got a call from my local clinic. Apparently the bad weather on the East Coast messed up the shipment of vaccine, so now I will be getting my first dose next Friday.

at least that's what the clinic told me. I suppose there could be some deep, dark conspiracy lurking somewhere.

Or, they might be telling me the truth.
Where is Rick Swenson when you need him.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,156
Reaction score
740
Points
113
He is convinced there is a giant surge coming which is why he’s leading the charge to delay second doses (which is opposed by Fauci and other experts). Osterholm may be right but there are certain assumptions involved...I guess we’ll find out. At least he isn’t hand-drawing completely made up case curves like Topol (to my knowledge).

Yeah, Olsterholm talked about this yesterday. He said the first dose seems effective enough to delay the second dose and get more people a first dose. With limited supply, you're basically trading effectiveness for broader distribution. He said his group sent an emergency letter to I assume Fauci explaining this shift.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Yeah, Olsterholm talked about this yesterday. He said the first dose seems effective enough to delay the second dose and get more people a first dose. With limited supply, you're basically trading effectiveness for broader distribution. He said his group sent an emergency letter to I assume Fauci explaining this shift.
He is quoting numbers/percentages that have huge confidence intervals which is why other experts are saying stick to the known science. He is saying a first dose is 80-92% effective but the data that is based on is very shaky, non-randomized, low N (not many participants). A first dose could actually be 50% effective, or less. The antibody titier may not be high enough, long enough. It may not precipitate the vigorous T cell memory we want. This is all particularly true in the 65+ yo population he wants to protect, who are known to have weaker immune responses to vaccines (which is why they receive a stronger influenza vaccine). Danger, Will Robinson. It’s an experiment.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,761
Points
113
Danger, Will Robinson. It’s an experiment.
Action is almost always better than inaction.

Should the US have waited to enter WWII until a decades long series of simulations and research was conducted to "prove" that we should do that?


I get the feeling that you just want to prevent government action in any way you can.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,761
Points
113
Olsterholm was just on MPR talking about variants. I didn't catch all of it, but basically he said the worst may be yet to come. The high point in January will be the new baseline come end of March, just as the high point this summer is the new baseline now. I know people on this board like to dismiss Olsterholm, but he's pretty much nailed everything so far. We simply cannot make enough vaccines fast enough to combat the variants. So now I'm worried again. Not just for the virus, but for how people with react if we have to tighter things back up again.
I just think the SA variant and any new ones that crop up can be taken care of with a "tune up" on the existing vaccine.

That should be allowed to happen with no trials. It's the same vaccine. It's the same virus, minor change.

Maybe you need a 3rd (or 2nd) booster shot, when the SA variant becomes the worldwide dominant.

Maybe that will be a yearly thing.


I just don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. I think we're very quickly getting to the point where the daily spread is dying down. The wild fire is running out of dead brush to burn. If we can get it down to a low enough level, it can be controlled.


Then again, I'm just a lay person. These are just guesses.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,156
Reaction score
740
Points
113
He is quoting numbers/percentages that have huge confidence intervals which is why other experts are saying stick to the known science. He is saying a first dose is 80-92% effective but the data that is based on is very shaky, non-randomized, low N (not many participants). A first dose could actually be 50% effective, or less. The antibody titier may not be high enough, long enough. It may not precipitate the vigorous T cell memory we want. This is all particularly true in the 65+ yo population he wants to protect, who are known to have weaker immune responses to vaccines (which is why they receive a stronger influenza vaccine). Danger, Will Robinson. It’s an experiment.
Right. He's willing to trade something that is 50-92% effective to get ~twice as many people the first dose vs. something that's 80%+ effective to half as many people. With his predicted wave coming, he thinks getting as many people as possible that first dose is more effective than the current two-dose regimen.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Action is almost always better than inaction.

Should the US have waited to enter WWII until a decades long series of simulations and research was conducted to "prove" that we should do that?


I get the feeling that you just want to prevent government action in any way you can.
I’m actually a proponent of experimentally-proven, statistically sound science. There are still some scientists out there pushing for that. Not as many as in 2019, but the numbers are rebounding slowly.

Perhaps we should tell seniors to restrict themselves to their homes for the next 12 months, for their safety of course...Maybe forever if COV2 and influenza stick around. The two dose vaccine was only something like 84-92% effective in the 75+ yo subset....best to be 100% safe. Thousands of lives saved.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Right. He's willing to trade something that is 50-92% effective to get ~twice as many people the first dose vs. something that's 80%+ effective to half as many people. With his predicted wave coming, he thinks getting as many people as possible that first dose is more effective than the current two-dose regimen.
But his math and assumptions of efficacy in that age group are riddled with huge error bars to the point it could be counterproductive. He’s assuming efficacy in a group without a lot of backing. It’s not like Fauci, Moffit, and others haven’t looked at the data. They have access to the original 400+ page FDA application.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,519
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
I just think the SA variant and any new ones that crop up can be taken care of with a "tune up" on the existing vaccine.

That should be allowed to happen with no trials. It's the same vaccine. It's the same virus, minor change.

Maybe you need a 3rd (or 2nd) booster shot, when the SA variant becomes the worldwide dominant.

Maybe that will be a yearly thing.


I just don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. I think we're very quickly getting to the point where the daily spread is dying down. The wild fire is running out of dead brush to burn. If we can get it down to a low enough level, it can be controlled.


Then again, I'm just a lay person. These are just guesses.
I actually agree with you...what are we going to do now?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,761
Points
113
I actually agree with you...what are we going to do now?
Stay the course, I suspect. Try to ramp up vaccine production as fast as possible. Convince as many people to get it as possible, make their lives for getting it as easy as possible. Keep testing, test more even.

Start opening back up. No matter what happens, we can't live under the ground for much longer.

No matter how it goes, I really think we need to be pretty close to full speed ahead, economically, by the latter half of this summer. The sooner, the better. We'll just have to live with the virus as best we can. Which should be pretty good, going foward, with how much progress we've made. We are light years ahead of where we were last spring, obviously. It's pretty close to good enough, in my lay opinion.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,761
Points
113
I’m actually a proponent of experimentally-proven, statistically sound science. There are still some scientists out there pushing for that. Not as many as in 2019, but the numbers are rebounding slowly.

Perhaps we should tell seniors to restrict themselves to their homes for the next 12 months, for their safety of course...Maybe forever if COV2 and influenza stick around. The two dose vaccine was only something like 84-92% effective in the 75+ yo subset....best to be 100% safe. Thousands of lives saved.
The spectrum is "impulsively do whatever comes to your mind with no caution" on one end, and "take no action until you're perfectly certain of the outcome" on the other.

The optimal is usually somewhere in the middle of any spectrum.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,727
Reaction score
1,482
Points
113
Yeah, Olsterholm talked about this yesterday. He said the first dose seems effective enough to delay the second dose and get more people a first dose. With limited supply, you're basically trading effectiveness for broader distribution. He said his group sent an emergency letter to I assume Fauci explaining this shift.
Yeah, I don't really like this approach. I don't want to be one of the ones who finally gets the damned shot, only to be told, "eh, maybe step aside and take your half dose". That's a stupid plan. Figure out how to get the full dose to people and stop dicking around.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,156
Reaction score
740
Points
113
But his math and assumptions of efficacy in that age group are riddled with huge error bars to the point it could be counterproductive. He’s assuming efficacy in a group without a lot of backing. It’s not like Fauci, Moffit, and others haven’t looked at the data. They have access to the original 400+ page FDA application.
Olsterholm said the variants are multiplying faster than expected. I think that's why he sent his emergency letter to Fauci, et al. -- the assumptions have changed.

I realize Olsterholm's views don't always align with other experts, including some at Mayo. But he's never been shy about sticking his neck out on predictions, and he's usually right.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,156
Reaction score
740
Points
113
Yeah, I don't really like this approach. I don't want to be one of the ones who finally gets the damned shot, only to be told, "eh, maybe step aside and take your half dose". That's a stupid plan. Figure out how to get the full dose to people and stop dicking around.
Olsterholm explicitly addressed this in his interview. He said if you signed up for the two-dose regimen, by all means continue with that. He's saying we should change it going forward.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,727
Reaction score
1,482
Points
113
Olsterholm said the variants are multiplying faster than expected. I think that's why he sent his emergency letter to Fauci, et al. -- the assumptions have changed.

I realize Olsterholm's views don't always align with other experts, including some at Mayo. But he's never been shy about sticking his neck out on predictions, and he's usually right.
If you heard him on Barriero in March, and he had a normal human being as President at the time, AND he had that President's ear, the mitigation would have been a LOT more aggressive and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, not to mention livelihoods. That's not TDS. He warned in no uncertain terms in the strongest possible language. I posted after that appearance on Barriero in this thread. I was belittled by the usual suspects.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,727
Reaction score
1,482
Points
113
Olsterholm explicitly addressed this in his interview. He said if you signed up for the two-dose regimen, by all means continue with that. He's saying we should change it going forward.
I see. Yeah, still don't like it, but "maximize utility" and all that. The real solution is to solve the logistical issues. But that is obviously tricky, especially in this country.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,676
Reaction score
4,761
Points
113
Or, for example:

the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is just one shot. Ramp up the hell out of that. Give that to most people.

Save the two-shot "hyper-effective" vaccines for the elderly and at risk pools.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
5,156
Reaction score
740
Points
113
If you heard him on Barriero in March, and he had a normal human being as President at the time, AND he had that President's ear, the mitigation would have been a LOT more aggressive and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, not to mention livelihoods. That's not TDS. He warned in no uncertain terms in the strongest possible language. I posted after that appearance on Barriero in this thread. I was belittled by the usual suspects.
Yeah, the interview he did with Joe Rogan is what got me -- and still does. IIRC, he said 400,000 US deaths even with mitigation back when there was less than 100 deaths total. :oops:
 
Top Bottom