1539 replies to this topic

[hotbit]

OK this is just an opinion (Oct. 14) of one journalist/activist and a scientists but to me it has been pretty a cold shower on the "winning" and almost semi-god approach touted for the Swedish health authorities:

https://time.com/589...virus-disaster/

 

 

Why cold shower? The way authors use data is questionable. Check the chart titled COVID-19 tests administered per 1,000 people (rolling 7-day average).

They comment:

 

Sweden tested 20% the number of people per capita compared with Denmark, and less than both Norway and Finland; Sweden has often had among the lowest test rates in Europe. Even with increased testing in the fall, Sweden still only tests only about one-fourth that of Denmark.

They focus on Denmark, but testing, as you can see on the chart, in Norway and Finland was not much different than in Sweden. It just shows the bias.

Lets see some data for the period of 1-21 October (last 3 weeks): Deaths (covid related):

 

Country      Per 1M *              Per/1M-per/1Day *                Total deaths / M

Sweden     4.5     0.2     586

UK             29.7   1.4     649

USA          46.     1 2.2   686

Poland      37.     1 1.8   102

Norway     0.9     0.04     51

Denmark  6.9     0.3      119

Finland     3.6     0.2       64

 

 
* 3 weeks 1-21 October.

Interestingly. while total (covid related) deaths in Sweden is close to UK and US numbers, so far in October it's 7 to 10 times lower! Current daily rate of deaths in Denmark, at 0.3 is higher than in Sweden at 0.2 deaths per day per million population.
Another interesting observation is related to Poland. This country was quite successful in suppressing March/April pandemic, or  maybe change in seasons helped more than policies? But while number of total deaths since the start of pandemic are more like in some Nordic countries, still even less than for Denmark, current daily deaths and new cases are at the highest numbers this year, close to UK and US numbers.

EDIT: Tried to reformat the table, but not easy here ;(

Edited by hotbit, 22 October 2020 - 03:47 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Deaths for the 0-64 year age range
 
2019 deaths (unweighted, week 1 to 40) = 567,105
2020 deaths (unweighted, week 1 to 40) = 632,369
2020 deaths - 2019 deaths = 65,264 more 2020 deaths
 
https://data.cdc.gov...at=true target=

 
 
For that to be meaningful you'd want to take data for a number of years prior to 2020 (at least 10 and 20 would be better), normalize for total population, and compute the standard deviation.  That data is somewhat noisy from year to year.
 
I looked at US total deaths per year and it shows a surprising upward trend.  Some of that is population growth. And some of it may actually be declining health in the population. Here's a graph up to 2018. 
 
We clearly have a significant number of excess deaths in 2020.  But the 300k number is a (probably slight) overstatement.  You need to take the trend line up to 2019, project the number of 2020 deaths, and then look at the excess deaths beyond that.  Haven't tried to do the math but I'm sure it's still well above 200k, but not quite the 300k you see in the media that you get from just doing the raw subtraction.  Over 18 years you see a growth of 436k deaths per annum.  So about 24,000 deaths year over year growth.  So maybe knock 24k off the raw number.

Sorry for the lightly colored graph. That's the way it came off the CDC website.  Source here.


 
Also, I notice the the death rate is pretty flat up to 2009 where it starts to take off (wonder why?).  If you take the last 10 years of that data, the year over year growth rate in the number of deaths is 40.2k per year.  Raw data here:

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 October 2020 - 02:00 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

BTW - I figured out what a lot of that growth in death rate is.  Some of it is population growth.  But, most of it appears to be the Baby Boomer cohort moving into their higher mortality rate years.  In 2009 the leading edge of the Baby Boom turned 63.  Today that edge is 74.  Since there is a bulge in our population demographics it makes sense that you'd see a bump in the death rate as they start hitting those latter years.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 October 2020 - 06:17 PM.

[hotbit]

BTW - I figured out what a lot of that growth in death rate is.  Some of it is population growth.  But, most of it appears to be the Baby Boomer cohort moving into their higher mortality rate years.  In 2009 the leading edge of the Baby Boom turned 63.  Today that edge is 74.  Since there is a bulge in our population demographics it makes sense that you'd see a bump in the death rate as they start hitting those latter years.

 

Your posts are really insightful!

A few weeks ago I've checked age related data for UK. It seems there is quite some big simplifications in covid related data & articles. Every year number of say 70+ year olds is getting bigger both as a total number and as a fraction of the total population. But for covid deaths or excess deaths they just take 5 year average and do not adjust to changing population structure.
Another big factor is how the health of 70+ year old in 2015 compares to health of 70+ year old people in 2020. Junk food diet is everywhere.
Another big factor is variance, 5% higher mortality might be just a random event, or a 'butterfly' event, where a tiny trigger cause a huge cascade if events.

[Daniel Cooper]

Well, I don't really argue that there aren't an excess deaths of something over 200k.  Just that you can't take this years deaths and subtract last years deaths and arrive at the correct number.  If in the US covid had never happened we'd probably have about 40k more deaths this year compared to last year anyway. So you have to take that into account. If you do so you arrive at something close to the "offical" covid death count.

 

279k - 40k = 239k 

 

The official count is 228k, so those numbers agree to about 4%, which is pretty good.

 

We have had flu seasons approaching this bad, but those were unusual.

 

The 1968 Hong Kong flu is estimated to have killed between 34k to 100k in the US, with most people landing on that upper end.  The US population in 1968 was 200.7 million.  Today it's 331 million.  If you normalize to today's population that '68 flu was 56k to 165k, again with most coming down on the higher end.

 

We'll probably end the year around 270k - 280k dead.  So definitely more than the '68 flu, but less than a factor of 2.

 

The really interesting thing is that the general population barely even registered the '68 flu.  I was but a wee tyke, but my mother doesn't remember there being anything unusual in '68 and she has an excellent memory. There were no lock downs and only passing notice by the media.  Basically, life went on.

 

Nothing even remotely approaches the 1918 pandemic.  If you adjust that for population, the US deaths in the '18 pandemic would be about 2.2 million today.

 

This virus is bad.  But humanity has been through worse and taken less notice at the time.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 October 2020 - 07:11 PM.

[Florin]

For that to be meaningful you'd want to take data for a number of years prior to 2020 (at least 10 and 20 would be better), normalize for total population, and compute the standard deviation.  That data is somewhat noisy from year to year.

 

This was meant to be a rough but good-enough estimate, and I doubt the percentage increase in excess death would change significantly if you take into account other factors.

 

For that to be meaningful you'd want to take data for a number of years prior to 2020 (at least 10 and 20 would be better), normalize for total population, and compute the standard deviation.  That data is somewhat noisy from year to year.
 
We clearly have a significant number of excess deaths in 2020.  But the 300k number is a (probably slight) overstatement.  You need to take the trend line up to 2019, project the number of 2020 deaths, and then look at the excess deaths beyond that.  Haven't tried to do the math but I'm sure it's still well above 200k, but not quite the 300k you see in the media that you get from just doing the raw subtraction.  Over 18 years you see a growth of 436k deaths per annum.  So about 24,000 deaths year over year growth.  So maybe knock 24k off the raw number.

According to the CDC, there's 231,952 to 311,882 excess deaths. 300k is the high side of that estimate.

The CDC's excess deaths stats are based on data starting from 2013 and probably take into account factors such as pop growth. But I highly doubt that the numbers would significantly change (percentage-wise) regardless of how far back you'd go provided that you'd avoid obvious issues like pop growth, deaths from wars, a bump in mortality caused by smoking that peeked in the 1990s, and the 1918 pandemic.

Edited by Florin, 22 October 2020 - 07:18 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Interesting tidbit - Neither Woodrow Wilson's 1918 nor his 1919 Presidential State of the Union Address to Congress mentioned the 1918 flu pandemic at all which ended up killing about 625k people in a country of 100 million.

 

The 1919 address was given in December that year after Wilson has been stricken by the flu in October and probably suffered a stroke as a result.  He was significantly incapacitated for the remained of his term in office and that 1919 address was almost certainly written by his wife and his staff.  It was sent as a letter to Congress and not given in person.

 

The 1918 address was given in person by Wilson also in December of that year, after WWI had ended and most of the flu pandemic deaths had occurred. It also made no mention of the situation.

 

It was well known at the time that a lot of people had been killed by the flu. Pretty much everyone knew multiple people that had died. Towns set up vigilante groups at the roads entering to make sure that no sick people (and in many cases no people at all) were allowed in. But it took decades to piece together a good estimate of the death toll.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 October 2020 - 07:34 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I forgot the 1957/58 flu season.  That year H2N2 killed about 116,000 in the US on a population of 174 million.  Adjusted for today, that would be 221k deaths.
 
CDC: 1957-1958 Pandemic (H2N2 virus)

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 October 2020 - 08:41 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Towns set up vigilante groups at the roads entering to make sure that no sick people (and in many cases no people at all) were allowed in.

Sounds like a lock down... And a much more restrictive lock down than anything being done now. And remember, in 1918 medical treatments for a disease like this were pretty much non existent and that is why they took it in stride and it was what it was... Much different situation with options in today's world.

[Daniel Cooper]

Sounds like a lock down... And a much more restrictive lock down than anything being done now. And remember, in 1918 medical treatments for a disease like this were pretty much non existent and that is why they took it in stride and it was what it was... Much different situation with options in today's world.

 
It was a lock down.  For a pandemic that was 8x worse.  And they were doing the same mitigation as today.  Look familiar? But, it didn't rate a mention in the Presidential address.  And then in 1957 we had a pandemic of similar proportions to this one, with many of the same treatments available (antibiotics for secondary infections, supportive care, and vaccines) and the country wasn't shut down.
 

What I'm suggesting is that people's perception and acceptance of risk has taken a dramatic turn in the last 100 years. Even in the last 60 years. Which is a very short time span in the scheme of things.  Whether that is good or bad I leave to each their own judgement.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 22 October 2020 - 08:57 PM.

[Florin]

Well, I don't really argue that there aren't an excess deaths of something over 200k.  Just that you can't take this years deaths and subtract last years deaths and arrive at the correct number.  If in the US covid had never happened we'd probably have about 40k more deaths this year compared to last year anyway. So you have to take that into account. If you do so you arrive at something close to the "offical" covid death count.
 
279k - 40k = 239k

 
Since the the CDC's excess death stats are adjusted (not the ones I calced), 300k also seems reasonable.
 

We have had flu seasons approaching this bad, but those were unusual.
 
The 1968 Hong Kong flu is estimated to have killed between 34k to 100k in the US, with most people landing on that upper end.  The US population in 1968 was 200.7 million.  Today it's 331 million.  If you normalize to today's population that '68 flu was 56k to 165k, again with most coming down on the higher end.
 
We'll probably end the year around 270k - 280k dead.  So definitely more than the '68 flu, but less than a factor of 2.
 
The really interesting thing is that the general population barely even registered the '68 flu.  I was but a wee tyke, but my mother doesn't remember there being anything unusual in '68 and she has an excellent memory. There were no lock downs and only passing notice by the media.  Basically, life went on.
 
Nothing even remotely approaches the 1918 pandemic.  If you adjust that for population, the US deaths in the '18 pandemic would be about 2.2 million today.

I forgot the 1957/58 flu season.  That year H2N2 killed about 116 million in the US on a population of 174 million.  Adjusted for today, that would be 221k deaths.
 
CDC: 1957-1958 Pandemic (H2N2 virus)

Well, no, we haven't had flu seasons this bad except for 1918. The pandemic isn't over, so there'll be even more deaths. 100k more doesn't seem too unreasonable. That's 334k - 419k total deaths. The current death stats would likely be a lot higher without control measures, unlike previous pandemics except for 1918. At least twice as high seems reasonable. That's 668k - 838k total deaths. This is way more deaths than any previous pandemic except for 1918.
 

This virus is bad.  But humanity has been through worse and taken less notice at the time.

 

It was well known at the time that a lot of people had been killed by the flu. Pretty much everyone knew multiple people that had died. Towns set up vigilante groups at the roads entering to make sure that no sick people (and in many cases no people at all) were allowed in. But it took decades to piece together a good estimate of the death toll.

 
How much humanity took notice of the 1918 pandemic compared to today is debatable, but it certainly didn't overlook it. Besides quarantines enforced by vigilante groups, there were other control measures similar to today's such as the bans on mass gatherings, moving classrooms outdoors to increase ventilation, closures of churches and schools, increased hygiene, and the enactment of the first mask mandates. One or two mask mandate violators were even shot in the street by armed health officers. It's also interesting to note that the practice of mask wearing as an infection control measure was a US invention which some of the Asian countries (especially Japan) copied.

 

The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza pandemic in U.S. cities
https://doi.org/10.1...pnas.0611071104

 

Risk, ritual and health responsibilisation: Japan’s ‘safety blanket’ of surgical face mask‐wearing
https://doi.org/10.1...66.2012.01466.x

Edited by Florin, 22 October 2020 - 09:42 PM.

[Florin]

For a pandemic that was 8x worse.

I'm gonna have to nitpick and say that it'll probably end up being "only" 5-7x worse.

[Daniel Cooper]

I'm gonna have to nitpick and say that it'll probably end up being "only" 5-7x worse.

 

Well, I'm commenting on the response which is on what has occurred to date.

 

And in any case, even a factor of 5 is no small difference.

[ta5]

Interesting tidbit - Neither Woodrow Wilson's 1918 nor his 1919 Presidential State of the Union Address to Congress mentioned the 1918 flu pandemic at all which ended up killing about 625k people in a country of 100 million.

 

The American Experience PBS show about it explained how no one wanted to talk about it when it was over because it was so awful, so many people died, and everyone was completetly powerless to do anything about it. I watched the show several years ago. It was amazing. That bit stuck with me. People just wanted to forget it happened.

[aribadabar]

Sounds like a lock down... And a much more restrictive lock down than anything being done now. And remember, in 1918 medical treatments for a disease like this were pretty much non existent and that is why they took it in stride and it was what it was... Much different situation with options in today's world.

 

Exactly - it's nearly impossible to draw parallels between the state of the healthcare options then and now, the level of global interconnectedness, and the information sharing.

 

 
It was a lock down.  For a pandemic that was 8x worse...
 

What I'm suggesting is that people's perception and acceptance of risk has taken a dramatic turn in the last 100 years. Even in the last 60 years. Which is a very short time span in the scheme of things.  Whether that is good or bad I leave to each their own judgement.

 

You can't call it 8x worse when the health options for disease treatment and mitigation are vastly different. The fact we have less deaths now is in large part due to the fact the virus is medically treatable for the large part of the infected whereas the 1918 one was basically a death sentence for most infected - they were not afforded the modern antivirals, the modern ICU tech and even the modern adjuvants that make COVID infection bearable for those seriously ill.

 

It's quite frankly apple and oranges comparison , except for the flu-like symptoms in both situations.

[hotbit]

It's quite frankly apple and oranges comparison , except for the flu-like symptoms in both situations.

 

Very much true.

It's just loose thinking, but in 1918 much lower fraction of the population was over 75. Sars-Cov-2 might would have gone unnoticed as just a simple cold in 1918. Unless some other prevalent illnesses of that time would make people susceptible. We will never know.

Maybe it would be better to compare to HIV/Aids or even malaria, as they will have around same mortality toll in 2020 (as covid) and they are around at the exact same time frame.

[Mind]

As had been the case from the beginning, this is an age-related and health related disease. Frail elderly and morbidly obese with multiple health conditions are the vast majority of people falling victim to COVID-19.

 

Health authorities know this, yet they continue to use heavy-handed mass lockdowns and mask mandates for everyone. This is strange. It seems a much more effective and efficient strategy would be to protect the frail elderly and the morbidly obese - as I suggested way back in the beginning of this thread.

 

https://www.npr.org/...ols-exaggerated  In person schooling is not dangerous. Multiple studies from multiple countries have shown the same thing. Forcing kids to constantly wear masks, sterilize everything, treat family members and teachers like they were toxic, is way out of proportion to the risk.

 

Participation in sports does NOT increase the spread of COVID either: https://waow.com/202...among-athletes/ This one I will question a little. Considering that for young people, this disease is less deadly than the flu and the vast majority of young people do not manifest symptoms, I wonder if they are just not catching the spread among athletes.

Edited by Mind, 25 October 2020 - 04:16 PM.

[Florin]

Health authorities know this, yet they continue to use heavy-handed mass lockdowns and mask mandates for everyone. This is strange. It seems a much more effective and efficient strategy would be to protect the frail elderly and the morbidly obese - as I suggested way back in the beginning of this thread.

What's strange is that you've presented no viable alternative, even after you've been asked to do so repeatedly. I'll ask you again: how will the elderly and people living with the elderly be protected from the maskless in public?

[aribadabar]

What's strange is that you've presented no viable alternative, even after you've been asked to do so repeatedly. I'll ask you again: how will the elderly and people living with the elderly be protected from the maskless in public?

 

Let's be honest - the only viable way to protect those people is to place them under house arrest without any untested visitors. Anything short of this is just a show without real utility. And THAT can't happen in America - everyone will scream " my rights are violated".

[Hebbeh]

https://news.trust.o...109223535-4db5n

One in 5 COVID-19 patients develop mental illness within 90 days -study

Many COVID-19 survivors are likely to be at greater risk of developing mental illness, psychiatrists said on Monday, after a large study found 20% of those infected with the coronavirus are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder within 90 days.

Anxiety, depression and insomnia were most common among recovered COVID-19 patients in the study who developed mental health problems, and the researchers also found significantly higher risks of dementia, a brain impairment condition.

"People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of mental health problems, and our findings ... show this to be likely," said Paul Harrison, a professor of psychiatry at Britain's Oxford University.

Doctors and scientists around the world urgently need to investigate the causes and identify new treatments for mental illness after COVID-19, Harrison said.

Rest at link

[Mind]

What's strange is that you've presented no viable alternative, even after you've been asked to do so repeatedly. I'll ask you again: how will the elderly and people living with the elderly be protected from the maskless in public?

 

For the umpteeenth time:

 

Concentrate testing around the vulnerable.

 

Allow younger healthy people to continue living life and keep the economy and health care system running smoothly.

 

Use proven treatments, like vitamin D3, and many other things that have shown very positive observational evidence, as detailed here: https://www.longecit...ents-therapies/

[Florin]

For the umpteeenth time:

 

Concentrate testing around the vulnerable.

 

Allow younger healthy people to continue living life and keep the economy and health care system running smoothly.

 

Use proven treatments, like vitamin D3, and many other things that have shown very positive observational evidence, as detailed here: https://www.longecit...ents-therapies/

 

So, the plan (which you didn't mention before) is to test them (every day?) and give them a bunch of stuff like multivitamins and HCQ if they test positive. The problem is that (AFAIK) a convenient (no finger-pricking), accurate, same-day test doesn't exist yet, and although there's evidence that some of your proposed treatments might help, none of them are "proven" to work. This plan could work in theory, but in reality, this isn't a currently-viable alternative to mask mandates.

 

A more realistic alternative is to use reusable respirators, but until they're more widely available and recommended, they're also mostly a theoretical solution.

Edited by Florin, 10 November 2020 - 09:53 PM.

[Mind]

So, the plan (which you didn't mention before) is to test them (every day?) and give them a bunch of stuff like multivitamins and HCQ if they test positive. The problem is that (AFAIK) a convenient (no finger-pricking), accurate, same-day test doesn't exist yet, and although there's evidence that some of your proposed treatments might help, none of them are "proven" to work. This plan could work in theory, but in reality, this isn't a currently-viable alternative to mask mandates.

 

A more realistic alternative is to use reusable respirators, but until they're more widely available and recommended, they're also mostly a theoretical solution.

 

Good point about rapid testing. The delay in getting test results would make it more difficult to "protect the vulnerable".

 

Vitamin D3 has been proven to be quite effective in keeping people out of the hospital (even older COVID patients). It is cheap, widely available, and safe. I don't see why more health agencies are not promoting it.

 

Because the virus is aerosolized, regular masks and "face coverings" are probably making the problem worse. If N100 respirators were available, then it might slow down the spread some. Strategic scheduling at places of employment, retail stores, government offices, to reduce contact with vulnerable people should be promoted more.

[Florin]

Vitamin D3 has been proven to be quite effective in keeping people out of the hospital (even older COVID patients). It is cheap, widely available, and safe. I don't see why more health agencies are not promoting it.

 

Because the virus is aerosolized, regular masks and "face coverings" are probably making the problem worse. If N100 respirators were available, then it might slow down the spread some. Strategic scheduling at places of employment, retail stores, government offices, to reduce contact with vulnerable people should be promoted more.

 

Any nutritional deficiency is not a good idea to have under any circumstances. Same goes for being overweight. Everyone should know this by now. And there are some (like Fauci) that promote stuff like vitamin D. Maybe there should be more public health messaging about this, but on the other hand, there's only so much that can be done to encourage people to clean up their crappy lifestyles.

 

As for vitamin D, the amount of evidence for its efficacy isn't enough to scrap mask mandates or other public health measures.

 

https://www.medscape...warticle/939759

 

We already know that masks probably help. Your arguments about masks have already been discussed and debunked.

 

https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=895271

https://www.longecit...ndpost&p=899514

[Mind]

Reason states the obvious as well: https://www.longecit...9-due-to-aging/

 

It is an age and health related disease. Strategies to protect these vulnerable populations and treatments to improve immune system response would be better than "run, hide, fear!" promoted by most health bureaucrats, IMO.

[albedo]

Why cold shower? The way authors use data is questionable. Check the chart titled COVID-19 tests administered per 1,000 people (rolling 7-day average).

They comment:

They focus on Denmark, but testing, as you can see on the chart, in Norway and Finland was not much different than in Sweden. It just shows the bias.

Lets see some data for the period of 1-21 October (last 3 weeks): Deaths (covid related):

 

Country      Per 1M *              Per/1M-per/1Day *                Total deaths / M

Sweden     4.5     0.2     586

UK             29.7   1.4     649

USA          46.     1 2.2   686

Poland      37.     1 1.8   102

Norway     0.9     0.04     51

Denmark  6.9     0.3      119

Finland     3.6     0.2       64

 

 
* 3 weeks 1-21 October.

Interestingly. while total (covid related) deaths in Sweden is close to UK and US numbers, so far in October it's 7 to 10 times lower! Current daily rate of deaths in Denmark, at 0.3 is higher than in Sweden at 0.2 deaths per day per million population.
Another interesting observation is related to Poland. This country was quite successful in suppressing March/April pandemic, or  maybe change in seasons helped more than policies? But while number of total deaths since the start of pandemic are more like in some Nordic countries, still even less than for Denmark, current daily deaths and new cases are at the highest numbers this year, close to UK and US numbers.

EDIT: Tried to reformat the table, but not easy here ;(

 

Thank you Hotbit. You maybe right to question the usage of data in the article. But now also the leading Sweden authority is questioning (reportedly) their strategy which I appreciated as a sign of good practice in prioritizing evidence. To me it looks like the Sweden case starts to be no longer a case. Only time will tell...

https://www.theguard...f-herd-immunity

Edited by albedo, 15 November 2020 - 05:46 PM.

[Hip]

German police water-cannon street demonstration, because the crowd refused to wear masks, and were flouting social distancing rules:

 

Berlin Covid protest broken up near Brandenburg Gate

 

 

[Mind]

Time to come back to the origin story, which I have brought up several times in this thread.

 

The DailyMail has accumulated some of the testing that has been done. https://www.dailymai...s-December.html

 

In addition to other studies showing COVID-like disease outbreaks were ongoing well before China in late December of 2019, all of the testing results indicate this particular virus was circulating around the world months, maybe longer, before Wuhan.

 

I still can't figure out how this "super-deadly" "highly-contagious" virus was circulating around the world for so long, without anyone noticing. It seems, health agencies were probably chalking it up to a "bad-flu" before the CCP ratcheted up the hysteria.

 

It still looks to me like there is a mass hysteria component (not the be-all-end-all, just a component). Once the communist Chinese went into a super-scary lockdown, it set in motion a world-wide hysteria. Mass hysteria is a real thing, well studied, and it causes significant negative health effects. In addition, the hysteria caused a significant disruption in medical treatment for the most vulnerable people in the population.

 

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that perhaps there was one minor mutation in the virus in late 2019 that made it more deadly. I am not completely sold on that, but I thought I should throw it out there. I haven't seen any conclusive analysis of different variations in the virus vs. lethality vs. timing vs. location....only speculation

 

Anyone else want to take a stab at how SARS-COV-2 spread around the world for months and months with nobody noticing, then BAM, it becomes the "worst thing ever".

 

 

[Florin]

What's more likely: to think that 300k excess deaths and overloaded hospitals is mostly caused by mass hysteria or that mutations caused the coronavirus to become much more contagious? I haven't seen any evidence for the former idea but there's plenty of evidence starting to emerge for the latter.

 

Study: New Mutation Sped Up Spread of Coronavirus
https://www.webmd.co...elerates-spread

[Hebbeh]

https://www.forbes.c...s-in-china/amp/

While the presence of antibodies in a person’s blood means they have been exposed to the pathogen in the past — in this instance the virus that causes Covid-19 — the kinds of tests used in this study are broader and less specific than would be needed to confirm that without any doubt. It is possible, as the authors themselves acknowledge, that the tests are picking up another kind of antibody that, while similar, is distinct; coronaviruses are a large and relatively common family of virus, including some that can cause the common cold, leaving open the possibility that infection by a non-Covid-19 virus induced the positive test results. The researchers did take steps to minimize these risks, but they are not zero.

Scientists have been quick to question the study’s conclusions on social media, citing these uncertainties. Trevor Bedford, a scientist at Fred Hutch, said, for example, that the study does not necessarily mean the virus was in the U.S. in December, and that the positive results could possibly be explained by the blood donor having recently recovered from a seasonal coronavirus infection, not Covid-19.

Edited by Hebbeh, 02 December 2020 - 06:54 PM.