What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (15 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn’t this be expected simply from the relaxing of mandates and such?

Also, if people are ####ting and pissing out the virus, doesn’t that mean they already have it and reported levels should be seeing a simultaneous  concurrent increase?  How is this an early indicator?
Because symptoms don’t show up until a few days after you contract the virus.

 
Wouldn’t this be expected simply from the relaxing of mandates and such?

Also, if people are ####ting and pissing out the virus, doesn’t that mean they already have it and reported levels should be seeing a simultaneous  concurrent increase?  How is this an early indicator?
I think it's an early indicator because it shows up in poop before you get sick enough to get tested. Then you have a few days waiting for test results. So it'll show up in the sewers maybe a week before the official test numbers. 

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I'd be curious to know how accurate wastewater analysis has been in predicting previous spikes. In any event, I can't imagine that with all the residual immunity from Omicron, this could be nearly as bad.
From what I recall, it's been pretty spot on. 

 
I think it's an early indicator because it shows up in poop before you get sick enough to get tested. Then you have a few days waiting for test results. So it'll show up in the sewers maybe a week before the official test numbers. 
I've seen it used primarily as a predictor for the end of waves, but I don't recall it being used as a warning for the start of waves. At least not used by the media I've seen. 

 
I didn’t realize this, and I’m not sure it entirely makes sense based on what we know about the incubation of covid-19, but it definitely is used as a predictive tool for future outbreaks:

Firstly, the surveillance of wastewaters can highlight the onset of new epidemic waves in the catchment area served by the sampled wastewater treatment plant in a significant advance. SARS-CoV-2 RNA can in fact be detected in human faeces up to one week before the beginning of the disease-related symptoms (Furukawa et al.,2020, Tindale et al., 2020), thus anticipating the results of diagnostic tests and hospitalizations due to COVID-19. Moreover, wastewater samples can provide data on the average SARS-CoV-2 infection rate of thousands of people served by the sewer network. Aggregated data can be particularly useful for areas where it is not possible to establish massive screening campaigns with diagnostic tests. Furthermore, continuous monitoring of wastewater, coupled with a wide spread of sampling points throughout the territory, can easily identify new outbreaks.

 
I think it's an early indicator because it shows up in poop before you get sick enough to get tested. Then you have a few days waiting for test results. So it'll show up in the sewers maybe a week before the official test numbers. 
Also other indicators depend on a person officially testing or coming into contact with the system in some way. 

Sewer samples catch it all even if you never leave the house. Cost effective. Reasonably accurate. Not invasive on personal privacy. Seems like a great stool ERRR tool.  

 
Fascinating Twitter thread. I'll try to summarize as best I can, but read the whole thing:

In a nutshell, both Hong Kong and New Zealand did a good job of controlling Covid cases over the past two years, but are now getting hit hard by Omicron, in part because they have lower natural immunity levels. However, Hong Kong's death rate has also spiked, because they have such low vaccination rates among the elderly.

Meanwhile, with all of the usual caveats about it being a small, homogeneous island nation and the results not being easily replicable -- plus the fact that Covid keeps throwing us curveballs just when we think we have it figured out -- it's hard to argue New Zealand hasn't played this about as well as anyone could. They held Covid at bay long enough for vaccines to be developed, then they went out and vaxxed the hell out of their population. Now that they are finally getting hit, it's far less deadly.

 
I've seen it used primarily as a predictor for the end of waves, but I don't recall it being used as a warning for the start of waves. At least not used by the media I've seen. 
Was definitely used to detect Omicron early. Can find links.

EDIT: Can read here about the wastewater detection initiatives in the Boston area. Other cities have been doing this as well -- San Francisco is another one I'd read about.

EDIT 2: Correction -- San Francisco Bay, looking at San Jose's municipal wastewater. Also Houston. Boulder, CO. And more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was definitely used to detect Omicron early. Can find links.

EDIT: Can read here about the wastewater detection initiatives in the Boston area. Other cities have been doing this as well -- San Francisco is another one I'd read about.

EDIT 2: Correction -- San Francisco Bay, looking at San Jose's municipal wastewater. Also Houston. Boulder, CO. And more.
Thanks. Hadn't seen those. Most of the press I'd seen on wastewater testing was published during the height of waves and used to predict when a current wave would end.

Makes sense it be equally predictive for both the start and end of a fresh wave of infections.

 
The sewer testing needs to be nationwide.  Not necessarily in every sewer plant in the country, but in major plants widely spread enough to get a good sample regionally.  Having this in place can be easily updated to monitor spread of other infectious diseases in the future.  We should have been working toward this since early in the pandemic. I have no explanation why it hasn't been pursued to a greater extent.  This frustration is up there with the fact that we still are doing nothing about improving ventilation. That too would be helpful in preventing other airborne diseases but there's no indication anywhere that new standards are being considered. 

 
We should have been working toward this since early in the pandemic. I have no explanation why it hasn't been pursued to a greater extent.
I agree that it can be more widespread -- but note that most places that have been tracking wastewater have been doing so since spring 2020. Generally, these efforts weren't just put into place last minute for Omicron tracking.

 
Where at? I checked NJ on Worldometers, and at least at the state level you guys seemed to be steady. Are you looking at something more narrow -- county or city level?
I know Georgia had a few regional hotspots popping up a couple days ago. I believe the others were in North central and north east regions of the US. Will try to see if I can find what I read. 

ETA: Here's one map

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where at? I checked NJ on Worldometers, and at least at the state level you guys seemed to be steady. Are you looking at something more narrow -- county or city level?
We have a website on the state level that reports numbers..... We had 1551 cases yesterday. While our 7 day average is down 7% from last week.  That number is double what our 7 day average (800ish) is.... Hopefully its just a blip.   We are at 2% positive and ~ 20% BA.2 currently

 
Do we think the increases in Europe and it looks like maybe here in a few weeks are blips from re-opening things up completely or a whole new wave?

 
Do we think the increases in Europe and it looks like maybe here in a few weeks are blips from re-opening things up completely or a whole new wave?
Both. Omicron BA.2 replicates faster and is able to outcompete original Omicron - but - with the US's current aggregate immunity (vaccinations/boosters, recent cases, etc.) ... BA.2 causing a high, sustained January-2022-style spike is likely off the table.

I'm not going to sweat rises and falls in case counts right now or in the near future. Keeping an eye on hospitalizations instead.

 
Why do we think this is going to look different than what happened in South Africa with this variant?  They just had a bit of a plateau or slight rise that interfered with the precipitous drop for a few weeks.

 
Why do we think this is going to look different than what happened in South Africa with this variant?  They just had a bit of a plateau or slight rise that interfered with the precipitous drop for a few weeks.
It’s tough to tell if it will be more like that or what’s happening in the UK and Asia. Seems like that the US being on the bad side of things has been consistent through the pandemic. With more people done with mitigation efforts, our fate is sealed either way. I’d predict a surge in April and booster recommendation for May.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Thank you for your mathing service.  :hifive:

Just curious: Can a study like that control for correlating factors, like the people who live in communities that impose masking policies may be more likely to follow other safety measures? I would assume the researchers would want to do that, but I'm also not sure how you'd be able to untangle everything
A big issue here is the rules for needing to be tested. Two masked kids that sit next to each other in class didnt need to be tested if the kid in front of them had covid. 

Unmasked kids were far more likely to be required to be tested. 

When a huge % of kids that test positive this way are asymptomatic, you can see how this can skew the data.  

 
Both. Omicron BA.2 replicates faster and is able to outcompete original Omicron - but - with the US's current aggregate immunity (vaccinations/boosters, recent cases, etc.) ... BA.2 causing a high, sustained January-2022-style spike is likely off the table.

I'm not going to sweat rises and falls in case counts right now or in the near future. Keeping an eye on hospitalizations instead.
Reported today yesterday numbers were skewed based on some backlog from January.... Everything else is still dropping so fingers crossed

 
belljr said:
Reported today yesterday numbers were skewed based on some backlog from January.... Everything else is still dropping so fingers crossed
Over the past few weeks, this has happened in a few other states, too. The day-to-day numbers for any particular place are generally good, but not sacrosanct. We usually get a better picture of what's happening -- well, what happened -- when we give the data a few weeks to get corrected.

One common thing is a dump of deaths or cases to come down on one given day, and then over the next few days or weeks ... those deaths/cases get "re-assigned" to days in the recent past. After a week or two or three, recent past numbers tend to firm up ... but if you pick a day (say today) and keep looking at that one day every day for two weeks, you may see the numbers move a bit. Especially at the level of large entities like US states or entire nations.

 
We were walking by a Walgreens last night & my fiancé (who was a few months behind me in getting her 1st/2nd) decided to finally get her booster. She’s burning up today and feeling miserable. I’m sure she’ll be fine but I had zero symptoms from mine.

TBH I rarely think about anything Covid related. I carry a mask out of habit but in my southern Brooklyn neighborhood I’m often one of the few people in a store masking up (still required on buses, subway & the VA.)

 
Are we really going to let funding for vaccines, therapeutics, tests and research lapse?


I think many feel that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or maybe just not spent at all. 
I would think it could at least be tapered off -- no need to just slam the door shut.

I do think that in the medium term (over the next 3-5 years) we'll never have an extended period without a COVID case surge. "Surge" is a loaded term, though -- I don't mean we'll keep having multiple Omicron-level case spikes. On a graph, it would look more like undulations, rises and falls but no more hockey sticks or church spires.

And "case surge" versus "hospitalization/death surge" matters -- they're getting close to being decoupled as it is now. Near-future surges in subclinical COVID cases? We may wish it were otherwise, but from the mountaintop ... a come-and-go low hill of a case surge should be manageable for the populace at large.

 
I would think it could at least be tapered off -- no need to just slam the door shut.

I do think that in the medium term (over the next 3-5 years) we'll never have an extended period without a COVID case surge. "Surge" is a loaded term, though -- I don't mean we'll keep having multiple Omicron-level case spikes. On a graph, it would look more like undulations, rises and falls but no more hockey sticks or church spires.

And "case surge" versus "hospitalization/death surge" matters -- they're getting close to being decoupled as it is now. Near-future surges in subclinical COVID cases? We may wish it were otherwise, but from the mountaintop ... a come-and-go low hill of a case surge should be manageable for the populace at large.


As of now, there would not be enough to fund a 4th shot for everyone for free.

 
As of now, there would not be enough to fund a 4th shot for everyone for free.
... going by the reduced number who got boosters (96.3 million as of yesterday), they won't need anywhere near that many second boosters.

That said: Any reason not to let people who want more boosters just pay for them? Or let insurance companies cover them? Do COVID shots have to immediately jump from free to $300 or something like that, or can they sell them for $20-50 each? Or whatever.

 
... going by the reduced number who got boosters (96.3 million as of yesterday), they won't need anywhere near that many second boosters.

That said: Any reason not to let people who want more boosters just pay for them? Or let insurance companies cover them? Do COVID shots have to immediately jump from free to $300 or something like that, or can they sell them for $20-50 each? Or whatever.


I think that is an eventuality, but I would still want that path of least resistance until we are out of the pandemic stage.  

 
CASES: 7-day average of confirmed COVID cases in the U.S. peaked at 821,375 on 1/13/2022, and was 32,066 on 3/14/2022 -- the lowest since 7/15/2021. That represents 59 consecutive days of decrease in 7-day average of cases.

DEATHS: The 7-day average has dropped for 43 consecutive days from 2,660 on 1/29/2022 to 979 on 3/14/2022 -- the lowest since 12/1/2021.
I like to let these figures go a week before updating them, but yesterday the U.S. met two milestones: 7-day-average cases dropped below 30,000 (29,783) and 7-day-average deaths dropped below 900 (899).

The 7-day-average deaths numbers is especially encouraging IMO because now the figure is lower than at any point since Delta's case peak (169,240 on 9/2/2021). In the trough between Delta and Omicron, the 7-day-average deaths had gotten down to 905 the Saturday after Thanksgiving (9/27/2021).

 
... going by the reduced number who got boosters (96.3 million as of yesterday), they won't need anywhere near that many second boosters.

That said: Any reason not to let people who want more boosters just pay for them? Or let insurance companies cover them? Do COVID shots have to immediately jump from free to $300 or something like that, or can they sell them for $20-50 each? Or whatever.
I've been working under the assumption that this will end up like flu shots.  Mine is covered by insurance (logical) but it's not as if they're super-expensive or anything if you have to pay out of pocket.  That seems like a pretty reasonable approach.

 
Hey, LA Times -- loaded language much?

Israeli healthcare workers who were boosted with a fourth shot of COVID-19 vaccine at the height of the Omicron wave were only marginally more protected against reinfection than their peers who had received three jabs of vaccine, researchers reported Wednesday.

Compared to getting two initial doses and one booster shot of Pfizer and BioNTech’s Comirnaty vaccine, adding a second booster shot reduced the rate of coronavirus infection by just 30%.
30% is plenty as reduction from another reduction (to wit: the reduction conferred by the booster). Why does the vaccine have to drop COVID transmission cold for some to give it any kind of credit?

And there's a time element in play. When my booster sails past six months old, seven months, eight months ... yeah, I want a re-up. And if made available (for free or for a reasonable out-of-pocket cost), I'm getting another one. Might not be a forever thing, but in the near term ... I want to be as close to my last booster as circumstances allow.

 
Hey, LA Times -- loaded language much?

30% is plenty as reduction from another reduction (to wit: the reduction conferred by the booster). Why does the vaccine have to drop COVID transmission cold for some to give it any kind of credit?

And there's a time element in play. When my booster sails past six months old, seven months, eight months ... yeah, I want a re-up. And if made available (for free or for a reasonable out-of-pocket cost), I'm getting another one. Might not be a forever thing, but in the near term ... I want to be as close to my last booster as circumstances allow.
That's not the LA Times words, thars the actual RESEARCHERS. they're the ones who say marginal benefit

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-03-fourth-covid-shot-benefit-omicron.html

The study authors, led by Gili Regev-Yochay, wrote that their research seems to indicate the advantages of three doses of vaccine designed against the original strain of coronavirus had hit a ceiling in terms of immune response, with additional boosters only restoring waned immunity, rather than taking it to new heights.

"Furthermore, we observed low vaccine efficacy against infections in health care workers, as well as relatively high viral loads suggesting that those who were infected were infectious. Thus, a fourth vaccination of healthy young health care workers may have only marginal benefits," they said.

Outside experts said the findings showed the need to develop new vaccines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, LA Times -- loaded language much?

30% is plenty as reduction from another reduction (to wit: the reduction conferred by the booster). Why does the vaccine have to drop COVID transmission cold for some to give it any kind of credit?

And there's a time element in play. When my booster sails past six months old, seven months, eight months ... yeah, I want a re-up. And if made available (for free or for a reasonable out-of-pocket cost), I'm getting another one. Might not be a forever thing, but in the near term ... I want to be as close to my last booster as circumstances allow.


Exactly.  Not to mention that the next round may also contain Omnicron specific sequencing.  

 
"Furthermore, we observed low vaccine efficacy against infections in health care workers, as well as relatively high viral loads suggesting that those who were infected were infectious. Thus, a fourth vaccination of healthy young health care workers may have only marginal benefits," they said.
OK ... can we mix up the studies, then? Widen the pool of subjects, maybe? Attempt to replicate these findings? Do some (more) science?

I expect the media to jump on a saltine and think they've got a Vegas buffet. Researchers need to be better than that.

 


The benefits of a second booster shot were small to begin with. But they were even smaller in light of how effectively three doses of vaccine had reduced the impact of a coronavirus infection to a mere nuisance.

Whether they had had three or four doses of COVID-19 vaccine, most of the Israeli doctors and nurses who took part in the new study and then became infected “reported negligible symptoms,” the study authors noted. That means the practical benefits of a fourth dose would scarcely have been noticeable in the study’s population of 821 people.

The researchers also observed that those who got a fourth dose and subsequently became infected had “relatively high viral loads.” That suggests that the added booster had done little to curb their ability to transmit the virus to others.

“A fourth vaccination of healthy young health care workers may have only marginal benefits,” the Israeli researchers concluded. The extra shot reliably boosted coronavirus antibodies, but the protective value of the mRNA vaccines appears to have been achieved by three doses, they added.
The benefit of the 4th shot does appear to be marginal, but the test population was doctors and nurses, not an at-risk population. If there are benefits for immunocompromised and elderly populations, it may be worthwhile for them. I'm not aware of 4-shot studies for those groups.

The article is also makes an important point that shouldn't be glossed over, namely that because 3 shots are so effective, a 4th isn't really "helping" that much, but it's not that it's hurting either. The results were just marginal in the 821 population study because everyone got the sniffles. Some factors could be that it reinforces that 3 shots do a good job of preventing severe outcomes, even for Omicron, and it could be partially a nod to the fact that Omicron itself appears to be slightly less severe. That's pretty much consensus stuff at this point. 

Now the downside is the current vaccines don't do much to slow transmission against Omicron, and likely strains to come. They need to make that. I suspect a lot of people would consider taking another dose if it had that type of efficacy against variants.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread how I'm going to Israel next week for a very valuable business trip, and I realized I'm as anxious about testing positive as I've been since the early days of the pandemic. Not because of any health risk (I'm vaxxed + boosted), but because I really don't want to get Covid and be forced to cancel the trip.

I had my last external meeting that I had to go to Wednesday evening (with members of the delegation going on the trip), and from now until I leave next Friday, I'm pretty much going into lockdown: WFH every day, masks in all indoor public spaces, no indoor dining, etc. I may have a business meeting or two next week, but I've told them I will only meet in outdoor cafes (fortunately, I'm in Miami, so that's not a problem).

Even so, since I have no plans to get tested before my Moment of Truth next Thursday, I just know I'm going to be sweating out every cough, sniffle, headache or sore throat over the next few days.

And it's actually kind of changed my perspective on the risks of getting Covid. Up until now, there's always been a reason for me to want to avoid testing positive: my immunocompromised mother-in-law, my kids before they were vaxxed, this trip, etc. But if I manage to get through the next couple weeks without getting it, there really won't be any major reason to worry about Covid anymore. I think I'll be much more inclined to let it all go. Not that I'm going to burn all my masks and start licking doorknobs (and it's not like I've been a total shut-in since I got vaxxed), but I'm really going to make a conscious effort to get past that residual fear that's hung over me for the past two years.

 
I would think it could at least be tapered off -- no need to just slam the door shut.

I do think that in the medium term (over the next 3-5 years) we'll never have an extended period without a COVID case surge. "Surge" is a loaded term, though -- I don't mean we'll keep having multiple Omicron-level case spikes. On a graph, it would look more like undulations, rises and falls but no more hockey sticks or church spires.

And "case surge" versus "hospitalization/death surge" matters -- they're getting close to being decoupled as it is now. Near-future surges in subclinical COVID cases? We may wish it were otherwise, but from the mountaintop ... a come-and-go low hill of a case surge should be manageable for the populace at large.


Since it seems obvious that covid is endemic, it would be nice if there was some funding that went into expanding ICU's.  The flu has caused hospitalizations for as long as it's been around.  It appears covid will be no different.  

For all I know, many hospitals are doing this - but there is unlikely to be a point where hospitalizations are going to go back to the way they were.  So it makes sense to adjust facilities to account for that.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top