Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Its not 100%.
Once we understood that this virus primarily affects old people, yes precisely. Imagine how many people would have been saved had we reached herd immunity 6 months ago. Protecting the vulnerable and sending the virus through the population that had much lower mortality rates would have saved countless lives. Even though more would have died initially, the last 6 months would have been worth it. December, January and February were deadly months that could have been avoided.
Probably a good choice for you Dickies. The experts will be debating whether we did the right thing or not for decades, but, when you get a clear moment think about it and run a few scenarios. We know how many people died in the last 6 months and we know the mortality demographics. I suspect the numbers make sense. And this isn't just my idea. Months ago I linked to a bunch of experts that thought we should have been taking this approach back then.
I did not see your prior posts on the topic. What are the hospital ICU/death totals reaching heard immunity 6 months ago with 330 million people?
I saw this idea get batted around a bit in the early days of the pandemic. Setting aside the ethical issues, it probably would have created a serious health care problem. If we deliberately infected young/healthy people with SARS-CoV-2, some proportion of those folks would still become seriously ill to the point of requiring hospitalization. That's a small percentage, but multiply that small percentage by a very large number of people and hospitals can't handle that volume of ICU patients.
I haven't run the exact numbers looking at it from deaths alone, but, you can start with about 375,000 deaths since October 20th to work with on top of the 277,000 already. That's pretty staggering.
There's a fairly lengthy discussion about this in the "why is Biden wearing a mask" thread, but the most recent studies suggest that although you can still get the virus after being vaccinated, your viral load is much lower, resulting in milder symptoms and making it less likely (but not impossible) that you'll spread it. Based on the links that were posted last week, I don't think there are any documented specific instances of a vaccinated individual infecting another person, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.Ramblin Wreck said:
This is all it in a nutshell. The vaccine is not a force field. What the vaccine does is take all the COVID odds you face and sharply reduces them -- but does not bring those odds down to zero.
It should be a simple math exercise to extrapolate from the numbers who required ICU and/or died when just 10% of the population had been inflicted. I'd think you'd need to account for lack of oxygen/medical services having substantial negative impact and likely increase to death figures. .tonydead said:
I will in 4 -6 years, no doubt. But, right now I get paid a lot of money to work here.
We literally did that with Smallpox and early vaccines. How did you think vaccines worked before the 21st century?
Thanks for posting. Their model projected 483k deaths by Feb 1 as a worst case. Actual number: 462K. Projected: 2k deaths per day in mid Jan. Actual number: up to 4k per day, so they under shot there.
Big difference between 2 and 7 times, while acknowledging we really don’t know if it’s even 2x. Yet, you would go back in time promoting natural herd immunity 6 months ago and risking 4 million deaths? Or even 2-3 million deaths? Or even 1 million more deaths? I don’t know, that seems a little strange. And in retrospect, given the subsequent distribution of vaccines, really reckless and short sighted.
Without wading into what we necessarily should have done, I believe the point being made is that in a world of no vaccines where the only way to gain immunity is the "hard way", mathematically the path to herd immunity actually matters a lot. If you need to have, e.g., 80% of the population infected to reach herd protection, you want people at the least risk to be infected preferentially.
What percentage of the population got tested and how many did we happen to catch when they were carrrying virus? I'd bank on it being multiple times easy. You're also making a couple other mistakes:
Typical flu season is more like 35K deaths, so roughly 300 deaths/day. Also, you probably should be more conservative with covid given the average hospital length of stay is greater, and long term effects still remain tbd.
Unlikely, as enough people will have already been infected and/or vaccinated in the SE US to keep Rt<1. There might be a smattering of outbreaks in extremely isolated, homogeneous communities, as occurs with stuff like measles, but not enough to cause a big surge.
Although they might not have as robust a response to it, immunocompromised people can receive the vaccine.moleculo said:
Early seroprevalence studies suggested actual cases were 4-5x the numbers formally diagnosed. As testing has become widely available, I’m sure the number is lower now. But there’s still a big chunk of asymptomatic people who never were tested, so a 2-3x guesstimate of the true number of cases isn’t unreasonable IMO.
I clicked reply after reading your first paragraph. Was going to type what you typed in the last paragraph.moleculo said:
There's a reason research has already begun to assess the booster options for us moving forward. The assumption is it's here to stay for a long time.
7X the cases doesn't equate to 7X the deaths. The medical community has learned quite a bit about the disease and the deaths are quite a bit lower now.
I think so but once we reach that 70% immunity threshhold, COVID will be a part of our lives similar to the flu or chicken pox...something that is out there and deadly but we can deal with it. We will go get our yearly boosters and that will be that.
You guys are talking about two different things. When all is said and done, let's say the death rate ends up being .5% (this is the number you're talking about...as we learn better treatment methods this number goes down). 1000 people get the disease it will be safe to assume that 5 people die. If that number of people who get the disease increases by 7X that is 7000 people and it will be safe to assume that 35 people die (this is the number moleculo is talking about).
Nope...You're basing the .5% on KNOWN cases. There are thousands and potentially millions more cases than we know. Now will that change the %? I don't know that for sure, because after all it is unknown. I'm saying assumptions are being made on incomplete data. And as I said, a 7 fold increase in covid cases will not Lead to a 7 fold increase in deaths due to covid. Not even close
They all could have got it from the same unvaccinated person.jobarules said:
Sure...change that % number to whatever number you want. Everything in the bold is 100% true. It doesn't change the fact that you guys are talking about two different numbers as I illustrated above. You're talking about a death rate and he's talking about total deaths.
Its possible but 85% of the team and staff were vaccinated so I dont know how likely that is.
No we are not. He said, 7X increase in covid cases = a 7X increase in covid deaths. I said no that isn't true. Because it isn't true.
What would % increase in deaths would a 7x increase in known COVID cases produce? Agreed that it won't be 7x.
The reason it would be lower than that is demographics. Once the virus tears through the elderly, killing 5-10% of everyone in that population segment but an aggregate CFR of 1.5-2%, things would slow down. That's where the math gets murky, and this is what @Dr_Zaiuswas talking about above (He'll never make a monkey out of me).
yeah, that math behind epidemiology fascinates me...the way that overall populations can behave in predictable ways, even though on the micro level it doesn't appear to be so.
I can give you the wife's number and you can sit in on the calls her and her buddies have on "Wine Wednesdays"
