COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[russ_watters]

Did I say that vaccines didn't work? Ever? You asked if there was a single death. I found 74, Yggdrasil found 9. Now you that you know the answer isn't what you expected you are free to argue that it's not important. But the number isn't zero.

It's unclear to whom or what post those first two sentences are responding to there. But the rest is a response to @mfb and I I agree/I didn't like that take either.

Do you think backfiring matters? Right now, it's not as if there are piles and piles of vaccine and nobody wants to take it. When we get to the last 10%, do you think that they will even remember what nonsense was spouted months back, much less have it influence their behavior?

I think we're a lot close to it mattering than you think it is. When the eligibility opened-up I aggressively sought-out a vaccine. But I'm starting to see smatterings of news stories about rural areas being unable to fill vaccine appointments. Even a lack of urgency (vs hesitancy vs refusal) will cause the numbers to start to drop off and I think that will probably become significant soon. Like, in the next few weeks and at perhaps 60%. But we'll see.

And yes, maybe I'm not typical, but I did pause briefly when the first appointment I saw was a J&J vaccine, before booking it. To me the difference in efficacy is really big and the fact that the numbers aren't directly comparable doesn't make the problem better.

 

[PeroK]

The latest official figures from the UK on vaccine hesitancy are here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...hesitancygreatbritain/17februaryto14march2021

The headline is that the numbers have reduced significantly. Possibly only 6%.

Our vaccine programme has slowed in terms of first-timers as most vaccinations now are second shots, and it will be at least couple of months yet before we see how many people have not come forward.

 

[russ_watters]

Overall deaths are still ~500-1000 per day and were higher in the past. 74 deaths overall is close to zero compared to the unvaccinated population. [quote order reversed]

These absolute qualitative declarations are really not helpful. The number is *not* zero and we should be trying to understand what the risk is, not declaring that it is "effectively zero" and therefore presumably doesn't need to be looked into.

Here's the source for V50's 74 deaths number, that the news articles are about:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

That's out of 80 million, or 1/4 of the US population...

No, that's the wrong number. 80 million is the number fully vaccinated yesterday (75 million per the timing of the report), but unless they are vaccinating people on ventilators in ICUs, people vaccinated recently haven't yet had a chance to die from COVID. Since it takes 2 weeks post vaccination to achieve full immunity and about 6 weeks from exposure to death on average, the number of fully vaccinated available to die on the day the report was issued was only about 18 million. 12 million the week before, or 15.5 that week (average). We could work backwards to find the pool for each week so far, but it is quite small.

You're probably reacting to the news reports on the trials indicating no one vaccinated died from COVID during the trials or it's "100% effective at preventing death" (paraphrase), but the trials were too small and short to show reliable statistics on deaths in vaccinated people. Less than one death during the trial still allows for hundreds or thousands of deaths of vaccinated people in the general public.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's unclear to whom or what post those first two sentences are responding to there.

Sorry, dropped the quote. mfb.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But I'm starting to see smatterings of news stories about rural areas being unable to fill vaccine appointments.

I'm not so sure how much of this is hesitance vs. distribution. I might even say "organization". It's pretty clear that the distribution of doses doesn't match the distribution of the population, and it's also the case there is "vaccine tourism" - people driving far away because that was the closest spot that had any. In my own case, there are plenty of first doses to be had, but the number is throttled by the number of second doses a month later. They want zero doses administered if there is not a corresponding dose in 28.0000 days. (I kid, but the window seems to be 2 hours) They could process more if 28.000 was 27-29. I doubt very much that 3% makes a huge difference.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I'm not so sure how much of this is hesitance vs. distribution. I might even say "organization". It's pretty clear that the distribution of doses doesn't match the distribution of the population, and it's also the case there is "vaccine tourism" - people driving far away because that was the closest spot that had any. In my own case, there are plenty of first doses to be had, but the number is throttled by the number of second doses a month later. They want zero doses administered if there is not a corresponding dose in 28.0000 days. (I kid, but the window seems to be 2 hours) They could process more if 28.000 was 27-29. I doubt very much that 3% makes a huge difference.

Here are the CDC guidelines wrt the second dose of the mRNA vaccines:

"Interval between mRNA doses​

​

The second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible, but not earlier than recommended (i.e., 3 weeks [Pfizer-BioNTech] or 1 month [Moderna]). However, second doses administered within a grace period of 4 days earlier than the recommended date for the second dose are still considered valid. If it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval and a delay in vaccination is unavoidable, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be administered up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose. Currently, only limited data are available on efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered beyond this window."​

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

I was allowed to schedule my second Pfizer dose (which I get tomorrow ) within a 3 day window 19-21 days after my first dose, so second dose scheduling woes are likely site dependent.

 

[PeroK]

Here are the CDC guidelines wrt the second dose of the mRNA vaccines:

"Interval between mRNA doses​

​

The second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines should be administered as close to the recommended interval as possible, but not earlier than recommended (i.e., 3 weeks [Pfizer-BioNTech] or 1 month [Moderna]). However, second doses administered within a grace period of 4 days earlier than the recommended date for the second dose are still considered valid. If it is not feasible to adhere to the recommended interval and a delay in vaccination is unavoidable, the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may be administered up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose. Currently, only limited data are available on efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered beyond this window."​

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/clinical-considerations.html

I was allowed to schedule my second Pfizer dose (which I get tomorrow ) within a 3 day window 19-21 days after my first dose, so second dose scheduling woes are likely site dependent.

We're not bothering with any of this nonsense in the UK!

 

[mfb]

Did I say that vaccines didn't work? Ever? You asked if there was a single death. I found 74, Yggdrasil found 9. Now you that you know the answer isn't what you expected you are free to argue that it's not important. But the number isn't zero.

You claimed going to party without mask would cancel the vaccine efficacy in terms of reducing deaths.

I knew about Israel's study which saw zero deaths, I didn't know the CDC had released larger datasets in the meantime. I asked a question. No need to interpret any malicious intent into it. The statement I made - it's almost 100% reduction - is strengthened by the CDC numbers.

These absolute qualitative declarations are really not helpful. The number is *not* zero and we should be trying to understand what the risk is, not declaring that it is "effectively zero" and therefore presumably doesn't need to be looked into.

The question was how risky it is for a vaccinated person to go to a party vs. an unvaccinated person avoiding that party. We don't need four significant figures for that comparison. I didn't say it wouldn't need to be looked into. I have no idea how you got that idea.

Yes of course the number of fully vaccinated people is ramping up over time. One would need to study the full integral for a better comparison. Feel free to do that. I didn't want to write a publication, I made a rough comparison.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You claimed going to party without mask would cancel the vaccine efficacy in terms of reducing deaths.

I most certainly did not, especially not "a" single party. You're setting up a straw man.

No need to interpret any malicious intent into it.

Really.

At the risk of giving you more fodder for misinterpretation, how effective is a lockdown? Nobody knows, but an upper limit is (US population x fraction who might become infected x IFR)/fatalities. That's (330M x 100^ (can't be bigger than that) x 1% (still a guess))/570K = 5.8.

What is the same number for a vaccine? It's 1/(1-x) where x is the efficacy. If we use Russ' numbers of 67-95% that works out to 3-20.

5.8 is in between 3 and 20: i.e. remaining locked down and vaccination provide comparable protection. I note in passing that age variations are much, much larger than this. That is, who you are matters much, much more than what you do.

Consider two people: Person A's plan is to get vaccinated, and as soon as it kicks in, go back to life as it was. Mingle with whomever they want to, whenever they want to, maskless and undistanced. Person B's plan is to remain un-vaccinated, but stay isolated and locked down. (FWIW, I have relatives in both categories - so real people make decisions like these) We just established that their protection from risks are comparable. So while we might look askance at Person A's choices, it's Person B who has become the pariah. We have suggestions upthread that one cannot even be friends with Person B.

I wondered why that is. I still wonder.

One can question these numbers, but that way is fraught with peril. For example, you could say that the 5.8 numbers is too high: 1% is more like 0.3% when you consider the asymptomatic cases, and 100% is unrealistic - maybe it should be 50%. Fine., But then you have concluded that lockdowns are ineffective. So why are we 13 months into one? (Again, in passing I note that they were originally intended to flatten the curve, and if you hold this view, that's exactly - and all - that they did)

Or you could say we shouldn't include J&J in the calculation, since it's use is suspended. But it wasn't suspended for lack of efficacy, it was suspended because of a perceived high rate of side effects. The US government is certainly not telling people who were vaccinated with J&J to go and get themselves some Pfizer or Moderna.

So why is Person B wicked, evil and unworthy of friendship when Person A is just being dumb?

 

[mfb]

You claimed going to party without mask would cancel the vaccine efficacy in terms of reducing deaths.

I most certainly did not, especially not "a" single party.

Then please explain what you meant, for reference here the relevant quotes:

"I'm not going to get vaccinated" and "I'm going to get vaccinated and then run out and indulge in all the risky behaviors I've missed" have (in that [40-49] age bracket) comparable risks.

I think I am comparing it to going to a party without a mask.

This is not about the overall efficacy of a lockdown (spreading the cases over a larger period of time to limit maximum hospital load is an effect that would need to be included there). This is about the individual risk.

The 67% is an estimate for the efficacy (symptomatic COVID) of J&J but that's not the reduction in the chance to die. We know it's far, far better for Pfizer/BNT and Moderna at least - even higher than the ~95% reduction in symptomatic COVID the phase III trials measured.

PS: I think both behaviors are irrational in the US in the current situation.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Don't want to derail the ongoing discussion, but the situation is getting really pathetic in our capital city. Patients have died gasping for oxygen at a Delhi hospital. This is not the sole incident; same situation in several other places. I don't want to bring in any political views, but the Govt. could certainly do better at procuring and transporting the vital gas.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What do you expect the government to do once 100% of oxygen production is already going to hospitals?

 

[nsaspook]

How do you stop something like this?

 

[Cobul]

After more than a year. Have they already figured out what caused Covid cases to be mild, moderate or severe? Does it have to do generally with the strength of your immune system like fighting colds?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not so sure how much of this is hesitance vs. distribution. I might even say "organization". It's pretty clear that the distribution of doses doesn't match the distribution of the population, and it's also the case there is "vaccine tourism" - people driving far away because that was the closest spot that had any. In my own case, there are plenty of first doses to be had, but the number is throttled by the number of second doses a month later. They want zero doses administered if there is not a corresponding dose in 28.0000 days. (I kid, but the window seems to be 2 hours) They could process more if 28.000 was 27-29. I doubt very much that 3% makes a huge difference.

I'm not sure about the distribution vs population. I've "heard" that the "collar counties" around Philly were under-served but never really saw any data. And yes, I drove further from Philly to get mine. But more and more stories are cropping-up about un-filled appointments.

The pause on J&J vaccinations is going to throw off the numbers over the next several weeks, but a quick look on the CVS website shows about half of their ~200 locations in PA have available appointments. That's the first I've seen it above single digits (but I hadn't checked since I booked my appointment last week). It includes several within a 10 mile radius -- on Sunday I drove 40 miles for my first dose. I'm also seeing from the CDC data that 2nd doses of Pfizer/Moderna are now exceeding first doses.

Other stories:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/21/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/pennsylvania-covid-vaccine-herd-immunity-20210421.html

I think "ambivalence" or "hesitancy" is starting to become a factor. We may see vaccination rates peak in the next couple of weeks if they haven't already. It appears that the pause in J&J vaccinations meant they also weren't shipping them (bad idea IMO), so it will take a few weeks to clear any backlog that exists once they start shipping again. If the total vaccinations don't go up significantly in the week or two after they are released, we'll have our answer. In the week before the pause, about 2.5 M of 21 M doses administered were J&J.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I got Dose 1 (Moderna) yesterday. In talking with the people distributed it, i confirmed my suspicion: Dose 2 is throttling things. The number of Dose 1s being given now is driven by the number of Dose 2s they think they will have in 28 days. They have many more doses on hand today than they can promise a second dose will be available for.

I think that a 2 hour window on the 28 days may be a bit extreme.

I think "ambivalence" or "hesitancy" is starting to become a factor.

Like I said, I got Dose 1 yesterday. I had a chance to "jump the line". Is waiting my turn "hesitant"? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[russ_watters]

I got Dose 1 (Moderna) yesterday. In talking with the people distributed it, i confirmed my suspicion: Dose 2 is throttling things.

If all the appointments are filled, sure. If they are holding back doses yet still have open appointments and extra vaccine then throttling still would not be causing a bottleneck. So did you ask or do you know if all the appointment slots were filled?

Like I said, I got Dose 1 yesterday. I had a chance to "jump the line". Is waiting my turn "hesitant"? Maybe. Maybe not.

How hard did you have to work to get the appointment? On the day I became eligible the first thing I did when I woke up was spend 15 minutes searching for available appointments on pharmacy websites. I was able to find an appointment within a distance I was willing to drive. If I hadn't found one on the first try I was prepared to check multiple websites every couple of hours throughout the day until I found one. I consider that to be a fairly aggressive effort. But no I was not going to try to jump the line. Now, a week and a half later, there are lots of open appointments even with fewer doses available.

Ambivalence comes between aggressiveness and hesitancy. It is like "yeah I'll get vaccinated but I'm having kind of a busy week and I don't want to drive far and I don't feel like putting effort into searching multiple websites so I'll wait until other people tell me that it's easy to get an appointment and I don't like waiting in line so I hope that they don't have a long wait at the pharmacy when I get there so I'll see how it goes for my friends..." That person would still answer a survey "definitely getting vaccinated" but they would affect the rate of vaccinations if there are a lot of them.

 

[Vanadium 50]

All of the slots were filled.

When you schedule here, they look out 5 days. I made it to a place only 4 miles away on the 10th day of eligibility, so it was scheduled on the 5th. I checked a couple of times a day. There were a few dozen slots available when I signed up and they went fast. An hour later there weren't any. I also signed up for alerts from the county, and got one today. Left hand, right hand.

At this exact moment, there is one dose available in the next 5 days. 10 AM tomorrow. I am guessing a cancellation.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Don't want to derail the ongoing discussion, but the situation is getting really pathetic in our capital city. Patients have died gasping for oxygen at a Delhi hospital. This is not the sole incident; same situation in several other places. I don't want to bring in any political views, but the Govt. could certainly do better at procuring and transporting the vital gas.

For starters, they could have delayed elections and compaigning sooner, and stopped religious festivals going ahead. Your Government sounds incompetent and stupid.

 

[hmmm27]

Walked into the drugstore for some medication, saw a sign, signed up... a couple hours later they called me, said they had some no-shows that day. So, 1 down, 1 to go. It's AZ-O, and every media site pulls different stats out of their ass to bolster whatever their agenda-du-jour happens to be on that one, so no clue if I'da been better off having a Coke, instead.

Does anybody know the real (not distribution-based) optimum time between doses ? Is the two dose regimen even the best ? or was that just to get everybody a little bit vaccinated in the shortest period of time.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Your Government sounds incompetent and stupid.

I wanted to write exactly that, but was not sure if it would be allowed here as politics is banned. There are many things that could have been done to alleviate the situation.

 

[BillTre]

Your Government sounds incompetent and stupid.

It seems to be a problem found in many places.

 

[StevieTNZ]

The New Zealand Government is an exemplary example of how to handle Covid-19.

 

[BillTre]

They should to be commended. (especially compared with Trump, Balsonaro, etc.).

 

[PeroK]

The New Zealand Government is an exemplary example of how to handle Covid-19.

If you took the NZ population and its government and transplated it to western Europe and squeezed it somewhere in between the Benelux countries, you would have been hit just as hard by COVID as those countries.

 

[Rive]

There are many things that could have been done to alleviate the situation.

Kind of a rule, that where the first wave did not hit hard the followup were welcomed with negligence (and so the story ends with a disaster).
We (mid-Europe) did that too.

 

[russ_watters]

If you took the NZ population and its government and transplated it to western Europe and squeezed it somewhere in between the Benelux countries, you would have been hit just as hard by COVID as those countries.

What, you're not giving them credit for choosing to be an island nation? That took considerable long-term planning!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think they are an archipelago nation. Does two make an archipelago?

 

[mfb]

Does anybody know the real (not distribution-based) optimum time between doses ? Is the two dose regimen even the best ? or was that just to get everybody a little bit vaccinated in the shortest period of time.

Ideally you would repeat the phase III trials with 10 different periods between the doses, but that's not realistic. It's generally expected that there is a large time range that leads to very similar results. The difference between 3 and 4 weeks is probably irrelevant.

 

[StevieTNZ]

If you took the NZ population and its government and transplated it to western Europe and squeezed it somewhere in between the Benelux countries, you would have been hit just as hard by COVID as those countries.

Don't assume that.

 

[Astronuc]

I was listening to an NPR program and interview with two doctors. One mentioned some good numbers, but I haven't seen the evidence.

GANDHI: I would go to dinner there. And the reason I would say that is there's now nine studies - there was just one out of yesterday from a nursing home setting - health care workers, nursing home, and also a very large study from the CDC that swabbed first responders and shows the risk of you carrying the virus in your nose after vaccination is reduced between 80 and 94%. And that rate will go down even more as our cases come down with vaccination. And then there's some very nice studies that show the immunoglobulin that goes into your nose and protects you, which is called IgA, are developed by these vaccines, are really generated by these vaccines. So it's very difficult to transmit the virus if you've been vaccinated.

I will still wear a mask in public for the foreseeable future.

 

[OmCheeto]

What, you're not giving them credit for choosing to be an island nation? That took considerable long-term planning!

So sad that that strategy didn't work for the UK.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In 2019 the UK had 144M passenger arrivals. In the same year, NZ had 12M.
Population density (K/hectare) UK 275, NZ 18.
Covid rate of the political entity with most entries: UK , 6.43% (EU), NZ 0.12% (Australia).

I think it is clear that the UK and NZ started from very different places, irrespective of policy.

Oh, I forgot "hotness of PM on a scale of 1 to 10", NZ 9 and UK -12.

 

[OmCheeto]

Ideally you would repeat the phase III trials with 10 different periods between the doses, but that's not realistic. It's generally expected that there is a large time range that leads to very similar results. The difference between 3 and 4 weeks is probably irrelevant.

One would think that with the world approaching 1 billion data points that an observational study would be adequate.

Being in full retirement mode, I decided to look at a smaller sample of only about 3 million data points.

Incredibly, only 200 breakthrough cases were reported out of 500,000 fully vaccinated people.
So breaking down whether 15 days vs 30 days between doses was better, would have been very problematic, IMHO.

 

[mfb]

One would think that with the world approaching 1 billion data points that an observational study would be adequate.

Vaccine approvals generally follow the methods of the phase III trials. Varying the schedule a lot would be outside that approval, or at least outside the conventional approval process. It could also increase vaccine hesitancy. See the discussion about the smaller first dose that was given by accident, or the discussion about the UK's approach with the delayed second dose.

 

[.Scott]

How do you stop something like this?

How do you stop "this" - followed by a 30 minute video.
You should probably be more specific. Such as:
How do we stop the kind of exponential COVID growth we are seeing in India?
How do we stop such inaccurate COVID projections?
How do we stop such interviews?

I only watched the first 6 minutes or so. Perhaps there was something else there to stop.

 

[.Scott]

I live in New Hampshire. 3 of 4 members of my household are "fully vaccinated" with the fourth scheduled for next month.
About 60% of the NH population have received at least one COVID vaccination shot and anyone (residents and visitors) is welcome to sign up for an appointment here.

Based on the daily COVID numbers, it appears we are closing in on herd immunity. My guess is that some sectors of the NH population, such as those over 55 or those who live in the northern parts, have already reached herd immunity.

I certain that vaccinating 60% of the population has the potential of stopping the virus - but only if it is targeted against those who are most likely to spread it.

 

[JT Smith]

I live in New Hampshire. 3 of 4 members of my household are "fully vaccinated" with the fourth scheduled for next month.
About 60% of the NH population have received at least one COVID vaccination shot and anyone (residents and visitors) is welcome to sign up for an appointment here.

Based on the daily COVID numbers, it appears we are closing in on herd immunity. My guess is that some sectors of the NH population, such as those over 55 or those who live in the northern parts, have already reached herd immunity.

I certain that vaccinating 60% of the population has the potential of stopping the virus - but only if it is targeted against those who are most likely to spread it.

You could have a kind local herd immunity. But then it means you have to remain within that population, whether it's age group, a state, or whatever. But travel somewhere else? Maybe not a good idea. And what about people coming into that local stronghold of vaccination?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I live in New Hampshire. 3 of 4 members of my household are "fully vaccinated" with the fourth scheduled for next month.
About 60% of the NH population have received at least one COVID vaccination shot and anyone (residents and visitors) is welcome to sign up for an appointment here.

Based on the daily COVID numbers, it appears we are closing in on herd immunity. My guess is that some sectors of the NH population, such as those over 55 or those who live in the northern parts, have already reached herd immunity.

I certain that vaccinating 60% of the population has the potential of stopping the virus - but only if it is targeted against those who are most likely to spread it.

Although I would tend to agree that high vaccination rates should prevent future outbreaks, there have been outbreaks of COVID-19 in areas of Brazil and India which were thought to have had high levels of immunity to the virus from prior infection:

Studies that tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies — an indicator of past infection — in December and January estimated that more than 50% of the population in some areas of India’s large cities had already been exposed to the virus, which should have conferred some immunity, says Manoj Murhekar, an epidemiologist at the National Institute of Epidemiology in Chennai, who led the work. The studies also suggested that, nationally, some 271 million people had been infected1 — about one-fifth of India’s population of 1.4 billion.​

​

These figures made some researchers optimistic that the next stage of the pandemic would be less severe, says Ramanan Laxminarayan, an epidemiologist in Princeton University, New Jersey, who is based in New Delhi. But the latest eruption of COVID-19 is forcing them to rethink.​

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01059-y

After initially containing severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), many European and Asian countries had a resurgence of COVID-19 consistent with a large proportion of the population remaining susceptible to the virus after the first epidemic wave.1 By contrast, in Manaus, Brazil, a study of blood donors indicated that 76% (95% CI 67–98) of the population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by October, 2020.2 High attack rates of SARS-CoV-2 were also estimated in population-based samples from other locations in the Amazon Basin—eg, Iquitos, Peru 70% (67–73).3 The estimated SARS-CoV-2 attack rate in Manaus would be above the theoretical herd immunity threshold (67%), given a basic case reproduction number (R0) of 3.4

In this context, the abrupt increase in the number of COVID-19 hospital admissions in Manaus during January, 2021 (3431 in Jan 1–19, 2021, vs 552 in Dec 1–19, 2020) is unexpected and of concern​

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00183-5/fulltext

There are a number of explanations for these outbreaks (including that estimates of the amount of immunity were wrong), and there are reasons to think that immunity for vaccination could be longer lasting and more effective than immunity from prior infections. However, these examples should provide some food for thought that widespread vaccination may not be completely sufficient to prevent future outbreaks.

 

[OmCheeto]

See the discussion about the smaller first dose that was given by accident, or the discussion about the UK's approach with the delayed second dose.

I'm sure I've seen those discussions, but wouldn't know where to find them now. No matter. It's a bit late in the game for that type of thing here. It might be something people from India could tinker with.

 

[russ_watters]

So sad that that strategy didn't work for the UK.

True, the UK made some very poor decisions, such as densely populating their island and locating it 20 miles off the coast of France...and then building a tunnel! What on Earth were they thinking?!

 

[pinball1970]

True, the UK made some very poor decisions, such as densely populating their island and locating it 20 miles off the coast of France...and then building a tunnel! What on Earth were they thinking?!

It would help if they did not do stupid stuff like this.

 

[WWGD]

It would help if they did not do stupid stuff like this.

Still, the number of cases, deaths seems to have dropped substantially recently.

 

[pinball1970]

Still, the number of cases, deaths seems to have dropped substantially recently.

It's not that recent, months of lockdown and 33 million first dose vaccines since Dec 2020 has brought the cases down but the number stubbornly refuses to drop to low levels. The graph has levelled off with around 2,500 cases per day.
This is probably schools back lots of testing there.
Those sorts of demos can act as potential spreaders, this one was well attended unfortunately.
We can assume these people will exhibit deliberately reckless behaviour on a daily basis not just in a demo.

 

[mfb]

True, the UK made some very poor decisions, such as densely populating their island and locating it 20 miles off the coast of France...and then building a tunnel! What on Earth were they thinking?!

Should have taken Brexit more seriously!

Spoiler

scnr

 

[OmCheeto]

Well this is interesting.
I'm sure population density is a factor in the spread of diseases, but it sure doesn't seem to show up graphically.

And it looks as though the current leading nations, as far as total mortality goes, is lead by the Balkanish region.

It's been quite a while since I've looked at whole nations, so this is new news to me.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

View attachment 281987

I'm curious about the source of this data as it seems inconsistent with some sources. For example, official CDC numbers say that there have been about 31.5 M COVID-19 cases in the US, which would be ~9.5% of the population (though because of the lack of testing early on in the pandemic, this is probably an underestimate). On the other hand, preliminary studies in India suggest that about 20% of the country's population has been infected.

Well this is interesting.
I'm sure population density is a factor in the spread of diseases, but it sure doesn't seem to show up graphically.

View attachment 282030

This analysis assumes the fraction of cases that end up resulting in deaths is constant across the regions analyzed, which may not be a correct assumption if looking at a wide variety of countries with varying levels of access to high quality medical care. What are the set of countries you are looking at?

And it looks as though the current leading nations, as far as total mortality goes, is lead by the Balkanish region.

View attachment 282034

It's been quite a while since I've looked at whole nations, so this is new news to me.

This data does not seem consistent with other analysis I've looked at. For example, looking at excess mortality, there are some major differences in the rankings across Europe (e.g. Serbia moves up a lot and Hungary moves down a lot):

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm curious about the source of this data as it seems inconsistent with some sources. For example, official CDC numbers say that there have been about 31.5 M COVID-19 cases in the US, which would be ~9.5% of the population (though because of the lack of testing early on in the pandemic, this is probably an underestimate). On the other hand, preliminary studies in India suggest that about 20% of the country's population has been infected.

The data is from Johns Hopkins University.
I use the death data to extrapolate the infections using a 1% IFR, as the case data, as you acknowledged, was quite lacking. I import the data weekly, and generate my own graphs.

This analysis assumes the fraction of cases that end up resulting in deaths is constant across the regions analyzed, which may not be a correct assumption if looking at a wide variety of countries with varying levels of access to high quality medical care. What are the set of countries you are looking at?

It's the set of countries with populations over a million.

This data does not seem consistent with other analysis I've looked at. For example, looking at excess mortality, there are some major differences in the rankings across Europe (e.g. Serbia moves up a lot and Hungary moves down a lot):

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

I don't have a subscription to Financial Times, so I don't use them as a data source.
The data for that map was, like before, extrapolated from the John's Hopkins database.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

It's the set of countries with populations over a million.

Using a set of countries that varied in quality of their reporting data and in their access to medical care, there's probably too much noise to see any signal that might exist. A better data set to analyze might be to look at the US by county (available here), though there there are also a lot of confounding factors (e.g. politics and culture also differ significantly with population density in the US).

 

[Astronuc]

For example, looking at excess mortality, there are some major differences in the rankings across Europe (e.g. Serbia moves up a lot and Hungary moves down a lot):

https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

For those nations that had a reduction (negative rate) of excess deaths, was this due to a reduction of influenza or other illnesses? Did wearing masks, social distancing and shutdowns reduce mortality due to more common/usual causes?