Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Krakan]

We had about a week of Pfizer vaccinations going on. So far there are no news of severe reactions. My mother (72) got one about 5 days ago, she did seem to have some mild side effects, such as weakness, but I'm not sure if it's even related because she has other conditions anyway. She's supposed to get second one in about 2 weeks.

Govt wants to finish with vaccine for majority of the population by March. Overall despite all the anti-vaxxer BS and conspiracies, the populace seems to be really rushing to get these done.

It isn't really a conspiracy... while most vaccines are harmless and beneficial to take it isn't unheard of for the first batch cooked up having negative side effects down the road.

While I respect your choice to get it. I myself am going to practice caution in this case.

[Fuiking]

We had about a week of Pfizer vaccinations going on. So far there are no news of severe reactions. My mother (72) got one about 5 days ago, she did seem to have some mild side effects, such as weakness, but I'm not sure if it's even related because she has other conditions anyway. She's supposed to get second one in about 2 weeks.

Govt wants to finish with vaccine for majority of the population by March. Overall despite all the anti-vaxxer BS and conspiracies, the populace seems to be really rushing to get these done.

By March? holy hell.. we start vaccinations the 8th of jan (fucking shit country didnt/hasnt there act together on organization/goverment level.. its becoming frustrating. This years elections is gonna be a true clusterfuck if people are like me) With, hopeful ''ifs'' of a majority reached between June and September. But theres some who already qeustion the September one, they're more like: ''Somewhere in 2022''.... so yeah extremely frustrating.

[Gaidax]

By March? holy hell.. we start vaccinations the 8th of jan (fucking shit country didnt/hasnt there act together on organization/goverment level.. its becoming frustrating. This years elections is gonna be a true clusterfuck if people are like me) With, hopeful ''ifs'' of a majority reached between June and September. But theres some who already qeustion the September one, they're more like: ''Somewhere in 2022''.... so yeah extremely frustrating.

Well mostly because it's a 9m populace country a size of post stamp. True in our case this was taken as seriously as it can, so basically Phizer, Moderna got contracts from government months ago long before approvals, I think, so we get it among the first.

[Tuor]

Vaccination started today in Portugal, the first 9k vaccines will be given to health personal, those in the front line of the pandemic.

Today, the new strain of the virus, the one from UK, was detected in Madeira Island .

[Zantos]

Realistic estimates are:

We don't need estimates. We have real numbers we can correlate the information from. The problem stems from where its located as to what the mortality rate is. Here in the US, its nearly 2% while in France its nearly 2.5%. Other places, like India, have it only around 1.4%.


So, just from real world data, we already know those estimates are wrong. Its not 1%. Its closer to 3% or more. The real issue that will cause that to skyrocket is hospital capacity being stretched too far with a reduced ability to fight it. We have already seen that issue play out on more then one occasion so far where they had to pick and choose who to treat even. You also point out age groups. Well, that is somewhat relevant. The virus may outright kill the elderly, but its side effects and long term damage to other organs is killing the younger population. Its just not being tied to covid, yet.

Over all though, my point still stands. This isn't a virus we can ignore. It will get worse. Problem though is a lot of absolute Idiots are calling it a hoax and allowing it to stay around.

[PhaelixWW]

We don't need estimates. We have real numbers we can correlate the information from. The problem stems from where its located as to what the mortality rate is. Here in the US, its nearly 2% while in France its nearly 2.5%. Other places, like India, have it only around 1.4%.

So, just from real world data, we already know those estimates are wrong. Its not 1%. Its closer to 3% or more.

No, lol, those aren't real numbers. Those are just the documented illnesses/deaths, not the total number of infections/deaths. Infections are probably about 5-8x the number of confirmed cases and deaths are probably 1.5-2.5x the number of reported deaths.

[Forogil]

We don't need estimates. We have real numbers we can correlate the information from. The problem stems from where its located as to what the mortality rate is. Here in the US, its nearly 2% while in France its nearly 2.5%. Other places, like India, have it only around 1.4%.

That's just science-denial and you don't even listen to what the scientists say (which is worse than ignoring their advice or making a different trade-off than they like).

The WHO, CDC, imperial college, and other medical professionals studying this disease knows that we need estimates, since the reported numbers are inaccurate.

To quote from WHO https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...-from-covid-19 who got an estimate of 0.5-1.0%.

For COVID-19, as for many infectious diseases, the true level of transmission is frequently underestimated because a substantial proportion of people with the infection are undetected either because they are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms and thus typically fail to present at healthcare facilities.

There may also be neglected or under-served segments of the population who are less likely to access healthcare or testing. Under-detection of cases may be exacerbated during an epidemic, when testing capacity may be limited and restricted to people with severe cases and priority risk groups (such as frontline healthcare workers, elderly people and people with comorbidities). Cases may also be misdiagnosed and attributed to other diseases with similar clinical presentation, such as influenza.

Serological testing of a representative random sample of the population to detect evidence of exposure to a pathogen is an important method to estimate the true number of infected individuals. Many such serological surveys are currently being undertaken worldwide, and some have thus far suggested substantial under-ascertainment of cases, with estimates of IFR converging at approximately 0.5 - 1%.

So, just from real world data, we already know those estimates are wrong. Its not 1%. Its closer to 3% or more.

Faulty logic - the only thing we can see directly is that the estimates are not consistent with the real world data.

The explanation is that the "real world data" is wrong, as explained above. Everyone should know that by now, and I don't see any serious scientist claiming that the reported numbers are accurate. (Obviously there's a debate how inaccurate they are.)

It's just that the numbers are plastered all over the place, since we don't have more accurate data and people have some unhealthy obsession with numbers - regardless of how accurate they are.

Oh, and some covid-trackers also state this:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cas...onfirmed-cases

the actual number of cases is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases – this is due to limited testing.

[Zantos]

That's just science-denial and you don't even listen to what the scientists say (

Oh, and some covid-trackers also state this:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cas...onfirmed-cases

I listen just fine. Estimates are just that, estimates. Those are trumped by the data. The only speculative part right now is by how much is things being under reported. That is what we can Estimate. Using actual data, we can see what the mortality rate is near, that we know of. The only argument that is being said here is that "well, we Think that things are being under reported due to these reasons".

At that point, all you have to go by is the data that is gathered. Anyone can argue for or against the under reporting. They can explain its wrong however long that they would like, and they can have pretty solid evidence to support that claim. However, that is still their guess until confirmed or proven somehow. You go by what is confirmed to set the base and then work from there to try to fill in the gaps in the numbers while noting that any information outside of what can be 100% confirmed is speculation and theory, no matter how sound it is. Its the basic premise of how science works.

The only question then is: how many of the cases just aren't reported and how many of the excessive deaths are actually covid 19 that wasn't reported. For example, on October 15th, we had a total excessive death of 299,028 for the year. Of those, only 198,081 were contributed outright to covid 19. That leaves us to speculate, at best, what the other 100,947 deaths where. Depending on what we find out, that could skew the mortality rate higher. Same thing about how many cases just aren't reported.

In short: not faulty logic. You fight with known numbers when trying to convince people this isn't a hoax. You start bringing in speculation and educated guesses, they start ignoring you. Work with the known. Especially when the unknown (under reported cases) is completely unknown and up for guess.

- - - Updated - - -

No, lol, those aren't real numbers. Those are just the documented illnesses/deaths, not the total number of infections/deaths. Infections are probably about 5-8x the number of confirmed cases and deaths are probably 1.5-2.5x the number of reported deaths.

That is all we can go by. What we have 100% documentation for when telling people the numbers. Does that mean things aren't under reported? Absolutely not. They are for sure not fully reported due to a slew of reasons. Same thing for the deaths. But that is speculation, at best, as to by just how much things are under reported and why they are under reported.

As far as things go, those are the real numbers since anything beyond that will currently take a Lot of investigation and work to discover and Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

We had about a week of Pfizer vaccinations going on. So far there are no news of severe reactions. My mother (72) got one about 5 days ago, she did seem to have some mild side effects, such as weakness, but I'm not sure if it's even related because she has other conditions anyway. She's supposed to get second one in about 2 weeks.

Govt wants to finish with vaccine for majority of the population by March. Overall despite all the anti-vaxxer BS and conspiracies, the populace seems to be really rushing to get these done.

Theres 6 in the US and 2 in the UK that had a bad reaction and they think they already know what chemical caused it. Still, pretty small amount. Not even 1%

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scienti...ns-11608901200

[MattHughe]

I am afraid to make a vaccine and consider it harmful to the immune system, and what is your opinion on this?

[Granyala]

So, just from real world data, we already know those estimates are wrong. Its not 1%. Its closer to 3% or more.

There is no way SARS-CoV-2 has a mortality rate of 3% across all age groups.
The picture would look very different if it did.

Don't fall for the media hype and DO NOT trust their %age numbers. Dear God.
They still work with the "deaths = reported positive / reported dead", which is so inaccurate that it's basically a crime to display it to the scientifically illiterate.

Yeah currently, we can only estimate the real mortality. Unless you can test the entire population, you will never know how many asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic cases you got that just never got tested. Even back in March, scientists put the dark figure of infected at 6-8 times of the reported number.

Scientists do that for a reason: they know the numbers they have are not "hard data" to rely on exclusively and are only used as a starting point for extrapolations and estimates.

- - - Updated - - -

I am afraid to make a vaccine and consider it harmful to the immune system, and what is your opinion on this?

Too early to tell. Wait for science to find the facts. Or not find them, in the case of it being safe.

[MCMLXXXII]

I am afraid to make a vaccine and consider it harmful to the immune system, and what is your opinion on this?

You shouldn't make the vaccine yourself. Let the professionals take care of that

[Gaidax]

I am afraid to make a vaccine and consider it harmful to the immune system, and what is your opinion on this?

We have some Professor locally who made a lot of noise in the news by being outspoken critic of disproportionate measures and who was constantly pushing COVID-19 is just a flu, but even he, when asked recently whether he will take the shot - he said "It is a personal decision for each and every person whether the potential side effects or hidden dangers of hastily made vaccine outweigh the potential dangers of COVID-19. I did my decisions and will take the vaccine."

So I mean, if even a guy like that who made a name by being pro-opening everything and pushing COVID = flu thing for the whole crisis declares that given all the options and data - he will take a vaccine, then it's really nobrainer.

[Warning]

I am afraid to make a vaccine and consider it harmful to the immune system, and what is your opinion on this?

Vaccines are not harmful to the immune system, they are essentially weakened and harmless versions of a virus designed to teach your immune system how to kill that virus. Doing so trains your immune system and is actually very beneficial. It happens naturally during our lifespan all the time when our immune systems fight off other infections and diseases. By succeeding it gets stronger and "learns" the way to kill that infection type.

When a baby is born they start off with some of the immunity from the mother, but after that usually go through many little flu's etc to build up their own immunity. That's why small children often have lil snotty noses. Once their immune system has learned how to kill more viruses either via vaccination or fighting off infections, that starts happening less. Take the vaccine.

[Shadowferal]

Well, for those feeling a little hesitant about Moderna and Phizer's vaccines, this is probably for you; Novavax begins Phase 3 trial of COVID-19 vaccine

The Novavax vaccine, which uses a more traditional vaccine technology than Pfizer and Moderna, also has the advantage of not requiring ultra-cold storage, making it easier to distribute.

[Granyala]

You shouldn't make the vaccine yourself. Let the professionals take care of that

HAHA.
My brain auto-corrected that "make" into "take". Man, I didn't even realize it.

[PhaelixWW]

I listen just fine. Estimates are just that, estimates. Those are trumped by the data. The only speculative part right now is by how much is things being under reported. That is what we can Estimate. Using actual data, we can see what the mortality rate is near, that we know of.

You're just being obtuse here.

Those are estimates based on serological data, which despite its lack of complete certainty, is far more accurate than the "confirmed" but incomplete data which is known to be vastly undercounted.

At that point, all you have to go by is the data that is gathered. Anyone can argue for or against the under reporting. They can explain its wrong however long that they would like, and they can have pretty solid evidence to support that claim. However, that is still their guess until confirmed or proven somehow.

Ah, yes, I recognize Trump's "If you don't test, there won't be any cases!" argument. Bravo. Science denial, ho!

That is all we can go by. What we have 100% documentation for when telling people the numbers. Does that mean things aren't under reported? Absolutely not. They are for sure not fully reported due to a slew of reasons. Same thing for the deaths. But that is speculation, at best, as to by just how much things are under reported and why they are under reported.

No, you're just choosing to willfully ignore the serological data that has been accumulated, information that has been confirmed many times over.

That's not how science works.

As far as things go, those are the real numbers since anything beyond that will currently take a Lot of investigation and work to discover and Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt"? That's not how science works, either. But I'd point out that the "confirmed" numbers you're talking about about have been "proven to be inaccurate beyond a shadow of a doubt". So even by your weird assertion, you're wrong, as not yet proven right is still far better than already proven wrong.

[Spectral]

I listen just fine. Estimates are just that, estimates. Those are trumped by the data. The only speculative part right now is by how much is things being under reported. That is what we can Estimate. Using actual data, we can see what the mortality rate is near, that we know of. The only argument that is being said here is that "well, we Think that things are being under reported due to these reasons".

At that point, all you have to go by is the data that is gathered. Anyone can argue for or against the under reporting. They can explain its wrong however long that they would like, and they can have pretty solid evidence to support that claim. However, that is still their guess until confirmed or proven somehow. You go by what is confirmed to set the base and then work from there to try to fill in the gaps in the numbers while noting that any information outside of what can be 100% confirmed is speculation and theory, no matter how sound it is. Its the basic premise of how science works.

The only question then is: how many of the cases just aren't reported and how many of the excessive deaths are actually covid 19 that wasn't reported. For example, on October 15th, we had a total excessive death of 299,028 for the year. Of those, only 198,081 were contributed outright to covid 19. That leaves us to speculate, at best, what the other 100,947 deaths where. Depending on what we find out, that could skew the mortality rate higher. Same thing about how many cases just aren't reported.

In short: not faulty logic. You fight with known numbers when trying to convince people this isn't a hoax. You start bringing in speculation and educated guesses, they start ignoring you. Work with the known. Especially when the unknown (under reported cases) is completely unknown and up for guess.

- - - Updated - - -

That is all we can go by. What we have 100% documentation for when telling people the numbers. Does that mean things aren't under reported? Absolutely not. They are for sure not fully reported due to a slew of reasons. Same thing for the deaths. But that is speculation, at best, as to by just how much things are under reported and why they are under reported.

As far as things go, those are the real numbers since anything beyond that will currently take a Lot of investigation and work to discover and Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- - - Updated - - -


Theres 6 in the US and 2 in the UK that had a bad reaction and they think they already know what chemical caused it. Still, pretty small amount. Not even 1%

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scienti...ns-11608901200

All of this is predicated on the idea that people should care about case fatality rates rather than infection fatality rates. For a virus with a known high asymptomatic rate and likely high unreported/untested rates, the case fatality rate just doesn't matter much at all from a policy perspective.

[Forogil]

I listen just fine. Estimates are just that, estimates. Those are trumped by the data.

Estimates are not trumped by inaccurate data; and the reported data is known to be inaccurate.

That's why the scientist don't use them to estimate the mortality rate.

The only speculative part right now is by how much is things being under reported. That is what we can Estimate. Using actual data, we can see what the mortality rate is near, that we know of. The only argument that is being said here is that "well, we Think that things are being under reported due to these reasons".

No, the argument is:

• We know it is under-reported (as is commonly the case) for a number of reasons (especially as many infected are just mildly symptomatic).
• Randomized studies - both serological studies and PCR-studies - show that a much larger number have been infected.
• Excess deaths (which is commonly used for finding under-reported epidemics) have increased substantially in a number of countries - and above covid-19 deaths; showing that not every death due to covid-19 is reported in those countries. In some countries this is a bit problematic as the lockdowns and overwhelmed health systems may have caused deaths for other reasons. And in general death-reporting is problematic; as old people normally die with a number of contributing factors.

Ignoring those kinds of evidence is science-denial.

At that point, all you have to go by is the data that is gathered.

Excess deaths are gathered (although slowly - there might be weeks or months of delay). Serological surveys and randomized PCR-tests are gathered.

They paint a clear picture of under-reporting.

In short: not faulty logic. You fight with known numbers when trying to convince people this isn't a hoax. You start bringing in speculation and educated guesses, they start ignoring you. Work with the known. Especially when the unknown (under reported cases) is completely unknown and up for guess.

People who believe it is a hoax are not convinced by logic, and the estimates of unreported cases is fairly accurate in many countries.

Theres 6 in the US and 2 in the UK that had a bad reaction and they think they already know what chemical caused it. Still, pretty small amount. Not even 1%

https://www.wsj.com/articles/scienti...ns-11608901200

If it is that chemical the obvious question is whether they also added it to the placebo vials (it's possible).

[PhaelixWW]

Vaccines are not harmful to the immune system, they are essentially weakened and harmless versions of a virus designed to teach your immune system how to kill that virus. Doing so trains your immune system and is actually very beneficial. It happens naturally during our lifespan all the time when our immune systems fight off other infections and diseases. By succeeding it gets stronger and "learns" the way to kill that infection type.

The mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna (unlike the ones developed in China and Russia) don't even include "weakened" (aka "live-attenuated") or "harmless" (aka "inactivated") versions of the virus. They skip that step entirely and instead send a full blueprint for mass production of the specific protein (harmless by itself) that they want to teach the host's immune system to fight.

[Forogil]

Vaccines are not harmful to the immune system, they are essentially weakened and harmless versions of a virus designed to teach your immune system how to kill that virus.

Except that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines don't work like that.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ines/mrna.html

mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies.

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding under-reporting of Covid-deaths we just got some new information:
(Also reported by others):

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lates...s?profile=1467

Russia MOSCOW, Russia (AFP)— Russia on Monday said that more than 186,000 people had died from the coronavirus, a much heavier toll than it has previously reported that puts the country among the world's worst-hit.

The Rosstat statistics agency said that the number of deaths from all causes recorded between January and November had risen by 229,700 on the previous year, with 81 per cent attributable to the virus, according to an official.

I'm a bit unsure what caused the other 19%; it could be that there's still underreporting.

However, the important part is that these 186,000 deaths can be compared to the previously reported 40k (at end of November; they have reported 14k deaths since then).
Hm.... That means that the total number so far in Russia is at least 200k (a suspiciously round number).

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ross-countries previously indicated large scale underreporting in Russia; although at that time a slightly larger percentage - which could indicate that more deaths are now correctly reported.