Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Breccia]

I heard about the study in the news but did not pay any attention to it.

It's an excellent example of "how to get called out by the world for being a horrible fucking researcher". No wonder it was shown on FOX News. The only excuse any poster could have to smear this on our pages is "all I saw was the headline and I made a mistake, I'm sorry". Anything else is admission they backed bad science on purpose.

[PhaelixWW]

There have also been various studies on masks like the one in Denmark (DANMASK-19) that showed they also contribute very little.

You're entirely failing to understand that study.

It turns out that what I was thinking about was the incidents of blood clotting from AstraZeneca, which are estimated to be about 1 in 100 000, but the odds of death from such a clot are only about 20%. So overall, the estimated death rate from getting the vaccine is, at worst, one in 500K.

And that's just for the AstraZeneca vaccine, which isn't even approved for use here in the US. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has resulted in 9 confirmed deaths in the US out of something like 15 million doses, according to the CDC, which is an even smaller risk than with the AZ vaccine. The risk with the two mRNA vaccines is so much smaller as to be almost impossible to accurately quantify.

[Edge-]

A study by three economists from Denmark, you say? One of the authors made a cartoon of Trudeau dressed as Hitler, you say? Clearly this is fair and unbiased in all ways and should be taken at face value.

Man, you mean the antivax/covid denying crowd still doesn't understand science and continue to base their arguments off of literal fakenews junk science promoted through entertainment hosts whose own companies legal team argued that, "No reasonable person could view his show as news."?

Shocker.

[Forogil]

I'm just curious, do you happen to have a source for those figures (100-200 million)? What measures are you talking about, lockdowns, masks, vaccines or all combined? I ask because thee was a recent study by John Hopkins University that lockdowns reduced deaths by 0.2%. There have also been various studies on masks like the one in Denmark (DANMASK-19) that showed they also contribute very little. Vaccines weren't available to the vulnerable for a good year and you are looking at a year and a half at least for everyone else so I just wondering where you got your numbers from?

https://www.wmar2news.com/news/coron...mber-of-deaths

The paper is interesting, but the actual picture is more nuanced than just the headline (will return to that).

To quote from the end of the paper, quoting another paper:

"The ineffectiveness [of lockdowns] stemmed from individual changes in behavior: either non-compliance or behavior that mimicked lockdowns."

So, basically people either avoided the dangerous situations without being formally required to, or they found ways of doing the dangerous stuff regardless of the mandated lockdowns (looking at you BoJo). Obviously it also varies between countries.

But returning to the problems with the article:

• They frame lockdowns as costly in terms of the business impacts - but seem to miss that if people voluntarily e.g., avoid conferences you get the same cost for business as if that was mandated.
• It's a meta-study (which is always problematic) - that tries to combine fairly divergent results by some metric; that's always questionable and the accuracy of 0.2% reduction is laughable; especially as some specific NPIs (business/bar closures) give a reduction of about 20%. On the other hand the Fergusson paper claiming a 98% reduction is evidently also wrong.
• They also use Sweden as a base-line and claim that the constitution prevents the government from doing a full lockdown. However, that is a half-truth - the authorities in Sweden do have the power to isolate people, buildings, and areas in case of a serious health threat (it seems unclear if that would be constitutionally possible in the US); but chose not to. Other countries have also seen their lockdowns successfully challenged in court.

The fairer conclusion seems instead be that it is unclear; some interventions likely work - but which ones aren't clear (although closing restaurants seems to be on that list) and the achievable reduction in deaths is perhaps around 10-20% for most countries, but it also depends on the country. China, Australia, and New Zealand have so far avoided more than 90% of deaths by specific lockdowns - but it doesn't mean that every country could copy that.

However, that implies that we need a more nuanced scientific debate.

- - - Updated - - -

You're citing a paper that wasn't even given a press release by JHU but instead by Tucker Carlson, which by the way, is just where I'm going to assume you heard of it. [url=https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-preprint-looking-at-the-impact-of-lockdowns-as-posted-on-the-john-hopkins-krieger-school-of-arts-and-sciences-website/]

That response is also fundamentally flawed, as the paper directly attacks the first person listed in that response.

Specifically Dr. Fergusson was the lead architect of the British strategy; and the UK has one of the larger death tolls in western Europe. It could be that people didn't do as BoJo told them to, but as he did.

Unfortunately we are likely to see similar angry responses from both sides trying to justify their decisions and beliefs, instead of people actually trying to figure out what actually works for the next pandemic.

[Poopymonster]

The paper is interesting, but the actual picture is more nuanced than just the headline (will return to that).

To quote from the end of the paper, quoting another paper:

So, basically people either avoided the dangerous situations without being formally required to, or they found ways of doing the dangerous stuff regardless of the mandated lockdowns (looking at you BoJo). Obviously it also varies between countries.

But returning to the problems with the article:

• They frame lockdowns as costly in terms of the business impacts - but seem to miss that if people voluntarily e.g., avoid conferences you get the same cost for business as if that was mandated.
• It's a meta-study (which is always problematic) - that tries to combine fairly divergent results by some metric; that's always questionable and the accuracy of 0.2% reduction is laughable; especially as some specific NPIs (business/bar closures) give a reduction of about 20%. On the other hand the Fergusson paper claiming a 98% reduction is evidently also wrong.
• They also use Sweden as a base-line and claim that the constitution prevents the government from doing a full lockdown. However, that is a half-truth - the authorities in Sweden do have the power to isolate people, buildings, and areas in case of a serious health threat (it seems unclear if that would be constitutionally possible in the US); but chose not to. Other countries have also seen their lockdowns successfully challenged in court.

The fairer conclusion seems instead be that it is unclear; some interventions likely work - but which ones aren't clear (although closing restaurants seems to be on that list) and the achievable reduction in deaths is perhaps around 10-20% for most countries, but it also depends on the country. China, Australia, and New Zealand have so far avoided more than 90% of deaths by specific lockdowns - but it doesn't mean that every country could copy that.

However, that implies that we need a more nuanced scientific debate.

- - - Updated - - -


That response is also fundamentally flawed, as the paper directly attacks the first person listed in that response.

Specifically Dr. Fergusson was the lead architect of the British strategy; and the UK has one of the larger death tolls in western Europe. It could be that people didn't do as BoJo told them to, but as he did.

Unfortunately we are likely to see similar angry responses from both sides trying to justify their decisions and beliefs, instead of people actually trying to figure out what actually works for the next pandemic.

OH! OH! OH! I know! *raises hand*

They'll fucking die. Lots of fuckers will die. Stupid fuckers, not so stupid fuckers, and some collateral damage because they were around/related to/intruded upon by stupid fuckers. Random chance, toss of the dice, some people will die who took precautions and tried to be safe. Most of them though? Dead stupid fuckers.

[Forogil]

And that's just for the AstraZeneca vaccine, which isn't even approved for use here in the US. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has resulted in 9 confirmed deaths in the US out of something like 15 million doses, according to the CDC, which is an even smaller risk than with the AZ vaccine. The risk with the two mRNA vaccines is so much smaller as to be almost impossible to accurately quantify.

I agree that the risk with the mRNA vaccines is smaller.
Many EU are also phasing out or have stopped using the AstraZeneca vaccine. Even the UK isn't using it for the boosters.

However, for AstraZeneca it also depends on other factors - it seems that if you are young enough the risk of blood clots aren't 1 in 100,000 but about 2 in 100,000 (possibly higher for women, and possibly higher in children).
So one death in 250k in that age group.

For covid-19 the IFR varies in the other direction with age - if you look at the graph on the previous figure IFR varies around 18, the lowest estimate (O'Drisc) is 0.002% which is one death per 50,000 - and that may include people with comorbidities.
So, even if an advantage it is not that clear - and unfortunately many poorer countries will use it (or similar vaccines) for their young populations.

That number from CDC for J&J seems a bit low in comparison. For J&J vaccine EU has used about 18 million doses, and reported 29 deaths in Thrombocytopeia and 7 in Thrombosis with thrombocytopeia syndrome (not necessarily linked to it ). As I understand one of the advantages of J&J is that you can give it to people without regular health-care, since there's no need for a 2nd dose - the same people might also be more likely to fall between the cracks of the reporting system.

[Breccia]

Unfortunately we are likely to see similar angry responses from both sides trying to justify their decisions and beliefs, instead of people actually trying to figure out what actually works for the next pandemic.

One side has hundreds of research-based results written by scientists and medical researchers.

The other side has Tucker Carlson citing a shitstained truck stop toilet.

This isn't a "both sides" argument. This paper Tucker Carlson is pushing is worthless. When the "mandates" don't work crowd bring something with a shred of integrity by all means let me know. Then we can hold a debate, not one side bringing objective results while the other side shrills NO U while masturbating.

[PhaelixWW]

This isn't a "both sides" argument. This paper Tucker Carlson is pushing is worthless. When the "mandates" don't work crowd bring something with a shred of integrity by all means let me know. Then we can hold a debate, not one side bringing objective results while the other side shrills NO U while masturbating.

Wait, are you telling me that the "When we politely suggested mask use, the people who largely ignored it showed no lower chance of catching COVID, so therefore masks are useless" argument isn't terribly valid?

I, for one, am shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!

[Forogil]

One side has hundreds of research-based results written by scientists and medical researchers.

That come to varying conclusions, and that doesn't always translate to effective policy.

The point is that we need to figure out what actually works.
Obviously vaccines work, but the rest is less clear - even if we know how the disease spreads (close together with others in crowded settings especially with bad air circulation).

As a simple case consider face masks. Czechia was the first European country to mandate it; it was seen as a success for a month or so - but now Czechia has significantly more deaths per capita than most countries in Europe - and even above the US.
The countries in Europe that seem to be on the low end of mask use is the Nordic countries, that on average have low number of deaths per capita.
That doesn't mean that masks are useless. It could be that they work - but less well than people think and thus give a false sense of security; or it could be that they would work if only people used them correctly.

The other side has Tucker Carlson citing a shitstained truck stop toilet.

Nuanced actual debate.

[Breccia]

That come to varying conclusions, and that doesn't always translate to effective policy.

I'll agree that the policy is a different matter. But policy should at least be guided by reasonable evidence. Medically, nothing in this paper is reasonable.

[Forogil]

Wait, are you telling me that the "When we politely suggested mask use, the people who largely ignored it showed no lower chance of catching COVID, so therefore masks are useless" argument isn't terribly valid?

In the US I would guess the unmasked also are unvaccinated and ignore everything else.

However, some European countries have (according IMHE) actually had fairly high mask use; without any obvious impact on death numbers. Could be that they are worn incorrectly, or it could be that they are worn in the wrong places (focusing more on wearing them outside than indoors), or any number of other reasons.

An interesting point from the paper is that they note that even if masks in themselves had 0 impact (not saying that this is the case), masks could still impact the spread - basically making people feel too uncomfortable to do the stupid things.

[PhaelixWW]

In the US I would guess the unmasked also are unvaccinated and ignore everything else.

However, some European countries have (according IMHE) actually had fairly high mask use; without any obvious impact on death numbers. Could be that they are worn incorrectly, or it could be that they are worn in the wrong places (focusing more on wearing them outside than indoors).

The larger problem is that masks are most beneficial when worn by the person who is sick. And, as you say, the person who is sick is far, far more likely to be the person who isn't vaccinated and doesn't bother wearing masks anyway.

If only the "I don't want to get vaccinated!" crowd then followed with "I'll just wear a mask all the time instead!" rather than just doubling down on the stupidity.

[Edge-]

The larger problem is that masks are most beneficial when worn by the person who is sick. And, as you say, the person who is sick is far, far more likely to be the person who isn't vaccinated and doesn't bother wearing masks anyway.

Had family dealing with this when they had to go to the ER. They ended up waiting outside because people kept coming in coughing up a lung with no mask on and they'd already heard one tell the nurse that they weren't vaccinated as they were handed a mask and looked at it with disdain.

I desperately wish it was the reverse and masks afforded more protection from getting vs. spreading it, but oh well.

[PhaelixWW]

I desperately wish it was the reverse and masks afforded more protection from getting vs. spreading it, but oh well.

That's what the N95 masks are for, but, well... yeah.

[caractacus]

snip

Unfortunately we are likely to see similar angry responses from both sides trying to justify their decisions and beliefs, instead of people actually trying to figure out what actually works for the next pandemic.

Based as always

Yes I agree I think much more nuance is needed. Honestly I didn't look at that paper in any great detail, I saw the headline somewhere (not Tucker), noticed that it had been picked up by several news outlets and posted a link. My main intention was to use it as a counter point to what I saw was a wildly inaccurate projection of 100-200 million deaths without measures for which I can see no evidence. I'm not going to go through citing everything here but this is my personal overview.

I think it's quite clear that quarantine measures work, whether they be just a single person isolating or a whole country closing it borders. These measures will not always be feasible depending on certain circumstances and length of time.

I also think you need to take into account voluntary measures. It seems obvious that there would have been a high degree of this given that we already take our own measures for colds and flu and covid was worse so we could guess that the level of voluntary containment would have been higher.

My main issue is with the measures taken after the virus has taken hold in a country (excluding the use of vaccines here). I see little evidence that cloth or surgical masks made any significant impact on the spread of the virus. I also see little evidence that lockdowns worked, people still need to buy food and carry out essential work, this just had the effect of funneling people into small transmission centers.

[caractacus]

Helps to actually educate yourself on the things you link before you try to use them in arguments/debates. Otherwise, you just make yourself look like a fool.

Especially when you say this, then carry on at the end of your post about how there is "little evidence" that masks and lockdowns actually worked.

Curious why you only replied to that specific post, though. Can't imagine why that is the case.

The person I was originally replying to pulled out a figure of 100 to 200 million based on no sources and wildly exaggerated, this is completely ignored. I supply an academic pre print, published by media outlets and I look like a fool? I guess if you are interested in only one narrative and close minded it would look that way.

[Breccia]

I supply an academic pre print, published by media outlets and I look like a fool?

Yes.

You found a source that said "lockdowns have no effect" posted by FOX News and a few fringe sites -- one of the things Carlson was complaining about was that nobody else picked it up -- and posted something contrary to hundreds of other studies as well as common sense, and posted it immediately without looking into it.

You know what really makes you the fool? This is the article on Snopes. It was posted the 3rd. You posted the 4th. You picked a study that had already been put on Snopes, then posted it as fact.

By the way, back in March 2020 the worst-case scenario in the 1.7 million Americans range was kicked around for a year-long pandemic And that was a CDC projection, not three economists from Denmark. If you extrapolate the US's population to the world, and extend one year to two, 100-200 million worst-case if-we-do-nothing predictions are actually in line with that.

So when someone says

Left to its own devices (as we do with common colds and flu) the death toll would likely have been closer to 100-200M.

you don't get to call them a fool -- not after posting that walking compost heap of a "research paper". As you admitted, you jumped to the first headline and posted it without reading it, understanding it, or even taking the minimum effort to see if it was real.

And you don't get to post this smoldering heap of tire ashes and then say "I didn't know, therefore, it's not my fault". You screwed up, and you screwed up big, and you did it on purpose by being careless. At the very least, you admitted you made a mistake and admitted what you did was wrong. But now, I think you owe Raelbo an apolpogy. His numbers were actually fine. And just so we're clear, even if they weren't, your response was yak excrement. Seriously, even a random guess is better than intentionally-biased propaganda pretending to be a medical study. At least a random guess isn't trying to get on Tucker Carlson.

[Forogil]

By the way, back in March 2020 the worst-case scenario in the 1.7 million Americans range was kicked around for a year-long pandemic And that was a CDC projection, not three economists from Denmark. If you extrapolate the US's population to the world, and extend one year to two, 100-200 million worst-case if-we-do-nothing predictions are actually in line with that.

Extrapolating that CDC projection to the world doesn't make sense.

The risk of death for covid increases exponentially with old age, and 16% of the US population is 65 year or older, whereas in many other countries it is a substantially lower percentage - e.g., India has 5.3% and Nigeria about 3%. Remember that 60% of the world population is in Asia (India and China and some more) and 20% in Africa, and only 17% in Europe and N. America combined.

200 million dead out of 7.9 billion means an IFR of 2.5%.

WHO thinks it IFR is 0.5-1.0% based on high-income countries https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...-from-covid-19 - whereas Imperial College estimated it to be 1.15% in high-income countries and 0.23% in low-income countries (based on age-structure and with uncertainty of course) https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-globa...report-34-IFR/ and thus global average somewhere in the middle, perhaps 0.7% (likely lower). With 0.7% global average that means we would at most have gotten 55 million deaths (if everyone was infected), and we have about 20 million so far; so at most 35 million deaths prevented, due to all voluntary measures, vaccines, lockdowns - and 10 million of those prevented deaths are clearly in China; leaving 25 million for the rest of the world.

As an example: India has an age-structure close to a low-income country - setting the IFR to 0.4% would generate at most 6 million deaths; India scored 100% on their initial lockdown and the estimated excess deaths until last summer were still about 3-5 millions; https://cgdev.org/publication/three-...id-19-pandemic

Obviously that assumes that the health-care systems aren't overrun, or that overrun health-care systems don't impact the result significantly. It also assumes that HIV and other tropical diseases aren't severe comorbidities (that data is conflicting). Additionally things have changed which makes such counter-factual calculations even more complicated.

[Breccia]

Extrapolating that CDC projection to the world doesn't make sense.

...what the hell was I thinking. Assuming the rest of the world would be as bad at COVID as the US? Man, I need coffee.

We did, in the earlier days, see a variety of different projections of US, EU, and worldwide deaths. It would not surprise me to see 100M projections based on what little we knew at the time, based on better science than these 3 economists from Denmark. I mean, a day-old tuna salad sandwich is better science than this paper. But yeah, the US did and is doing a poor job and extrapolating them to the world really doesn't pan out.

[Forogil]

...what the hell was I thinking. Assuming the rest of the world would be as bad at COVID as the US? Man, I need coffee.

I explained that the issue is something else: the US has an older population than the rest of the world, and the risk for covid-19 death increases exponentially with age.

We did, in the earlier days, see a variety of different projections of US, EU, and worldwide deaths. It would not surprise me to see 100M projections based on what little we knew at the time, based on better science than these 3 economists from Denmark.

That's a really weird take.

But already in March 2020 the realistic global death estimates were far below 200 million, even below 100 million, and even below my rough estimate of 55 million.

I actually found the earlier projection from Imperial College. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/...pact-covid-19/ from March 26, 2020.

The global unmitigated death estimate was about 39 million (averaging the estimates for different R0 values). We now have about 20 million excess deaths, so at most 19 million deaths prevented - and about 5 million of them in China.

However, if we look at specific western countries the death numbers are for many close to 'Enhanced social distancing of elderly' with low R0, but for some other countries they are at the 'Unmitigated' rate, e.g. for Russia and India (in both cases using excess deaths; due to under-reporting of covid-19 deaths).

Does that mean that western countries successfully locked down - even the ones that didn't seem to do it; or did people do it voluntarily regardless of the government, or was there some problem with the model?

Understanding the actual effect of NPIs (or "lockdowns") would help with that, but it has become so political and ego-driven that it seems unlikely that we will get accurate reports of that.