COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

AI Thread Summary
Containment efforts for the COVID-19 Coronavirus are facing significant challenges, with experts suggesting that it may no longer be feasible to prevent its global spread. The virus has a mortality rate of approximately 2-3%, which could lead to a substantial increase in deaths if it becomes as widespread as the flu. Current data indicates around 6,000 cases, with low mortality rates in areas with good healthcare. Vaccine development is underway, but it is unlikely to be ready in time for the current outbreak, highlighting the urgency of the situation. As the outbreak evolves, the healthcare system may face considerable strain, underscoring the need for continued monitoring and response efforts.
  • #4,601
morrobay said:
Thanks, The compound interest formula, final=initial (1+%)^n is exactly how I am solving for the R0 from initial and final infections: 17(R0)^6 = 231. Then (R0)^6=13.58 and 6(logR0) = log 13.58. therefore log R0 =.1888 so R0 is 1.54 I just am asking if this is valid for solving R0. Note 6 infection periods from 24 days/4 day max.infectious period from initial infection.

OK then let's go carefully through the math. We want to find the infinitesimal R0 similar to the force of interest idea for compound interest. You are using that after 6 days on the average 1 person infects 13.58 people. So we know that e^(6*R0) = 1+ 13.58 = 14.58. This means 6*R0 = ln 14.58 = 2.68 or R0 = 2.68/6 = .45 to two decimal places. You just need to understand the concepts involved which is largely basic differential equations and really everyone should be taught it at HS. They have wide applicability in many situations - infection spread and compound interest are just two. It allows one to think clearly about concepts like R0 and compound interest rates. This is done by treating time as continuous and working in terms of parameters based on doing that. People sometimes say - how do we know time is continuous. The answer is we do not. By modeling situations as if it is we can use calculus which allows progress to be made in a clear and precise way. As you probably know there is all sorts of philosophical ideas about what science is - Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Popper, Poincare, Feynman (he was sort of anti-philosophy - which interestingly is a philosophy in itself) etc. I recently read a book on an introduction to the subject that examined carefully a number of different views. It glossed over a view called the modelling view saying not a lot of work has been done on it. Philosophers might not have done a lot of work on it, but mathematicians and scientists use it all the time, and IMHO it is the correct view - but that is another story not really suited to this forum.

On another forum a question was once posed - before leaving school what is the most important thing students should understand. My answer was basic calculus. I was laughed at. But you have just witnessed how it resolved the confusion you had about R0. Another good one is if you go a bit further than basic calculus into real analysis (where calculus is studied with full logical rigor and not intuitive ideas like an infinitesimal period of time dt) and use it on Zeno's paradoxes. The solution is then clear. One of the fundamental axioms of real numbers often used in real analysis is the Least Upper Bound Axiom (LUB). It says - Every non-empty subset of real numbers that is bounded above has a least upper bound. In modelling the tortoise and hare race by real numbers the LUB axiom applies. Now obviously it has an upper bound where the race has finished. But we know there is a least upper bound. Below that the race is still going, above it, it has finished. So that must be when the race ends. Many many people, and some even post here about it, are totally unaware of this and think it is still unsolved. Some people think even the calculus explanation does not solve it - you really need physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...esolves-zenos-famous-paradox/?sh=6ed441b033f8

But we are now getting way off topic - if you want to pursue it further then start a new thread.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #4,602
russ_watters said:
But the admission that they halved their production target tells me that the largest bottleneck is probably in production, not distribution or innoculation.
These don't exclude each other. The bottleneck can be the distribution even though the production might be a bit lower than planned. Is it really lower? The 50 million in 2020 has been a target for quite some time.

Concerning the R0 discussion: You are all missing that people are not infectious the second after getting infected. The linear model with the timescale of the incubation period is better here, a modified exponential function will work as well.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and bhobba
  • #4,603
bhobba said:
OK then let's go carefully through the math. We want to find the infinitesimal R0 similar to the force of interest idea for compound interest. You are using that after 6 days on the average 1 person infects 13.58 people. So we know that e^(6*R0) = 1+ 13.58 = 14.58. This means 6*R0 = ln 14.58 = 2.68 or R0 = 2.68/6 = .45 to two decimal places. You just need to understand the concepts involved which is largely basic differential equations and really everyone should be taught it at HS. They have wide applicability in many situations - infection spread and compound interest are just two. It allows one to think clearly about concepts like R0 and compound interest rates. This is done by treating time as continuous and working in terms of parameters based on doing that. People sometimes say - how do we know time is continuous. The answer is we do not. By modeling situations as if it is we can use calculus which allows progress to be made in a clear and precise way. As you probably know there is all sorts of philosophical ideas about what science is - Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Popper, Poincare, Feynman (he was sort of anti-philosophy - which interestingly is a philosophy in itself) etc. I recently read a book on an introduction to the subject that examined carefully a number of different views. It glossed over a view called the modelling view saying not a lot of work has been done on it. Philosophers might not have done a lot of work on it, but mathematicians and scientists use it all the time, and IMHO it is the correct view - but that is another story not really suited to this forum.

On another forum a question was once posed - before leaving school what is the most important thing students should understand. My answer was basic calculus. I was laughed at. But you have just witnessed how it resolved the confusion you had about R0. Another good one is if you go a bit further than basic calculus into real analysis (where calculus is studied with full logical rigor and not intuitive ideas like an infinitesimal period of time dt) and use it on Zeno's paradoxes. The solution is then clear. One of the fundamental axioms of real numbers often used in real analysis is the Least Upper Bound Axiom (LUB). It says - Every non-empty subset of real numbers that is bounded above has a least upper bound. In modelling the tortoise and hare race by real numbers the LUB axiom applies. Now obviously it has an upper bound where the race has finished. But we know there is a least upper bound. Below that the race is still going, above it, it has finished. So that must be when the race ends. Many many people, and some even post here about it, are totally unaware of this and think it is still unsolved. Some people think even the calculus explanation does not solve it - you really need physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...esolves-zenos-famous-paradox/?sh=6ed441b033f8

But we are now getting way off topic - if you want to pursue it further then start a new thread.

Thanks
Bill
Hello, I am not calculating for the infinitesimal R0 , rather the basic one IE ranging from 1 to 3 for example. Also the 6 above are the infection periods from 28days/4 day infectious period. So with R0=e^Kt , with K = ln2/Td (exponent of growth) We have ln2/6 = .1155 and t=4days, the infectious-serial interval. So the R0=e^.462 equals 1.58. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number Scroll to simple model for reference to above
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,604
mfb said:
Concerning the R0 discussion: You are all missing that people are not infectious the second after getting infected. The linear model with the timescale of the incubation period is better here, a modified exponential function will work as well.

Indeed the model is very simplistic and false. It was just used to show that R0 as the average number of people an infected person infects is best taken over a small time period. It will change with time of course due to people being infected, modifying their behaviour etc.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,605
morrobay said:
Hello, I am not calculating for the infinitesimal R0 , rather the basic one IE ranging from 1 to 3 for example. Also the 6 above are the infection periods from 28days/4 day infectious period. So with R0=e^Kt , with K = ln2/Td (exponent of growth) We have ln2/6 = .1155 and t=4days, the infectious-serial interval. So the R0=e^.462 equals 1.58. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number Scroll to simple model for reference to above

Ahhhhh. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I think further discussion of R0, should take into account the specific model being used as per the link you gave: 'R0 can be calculated from many different mathematical models. Each of these can give a different estimate of R0, which needs to be interpreted in the context of that model.' The main point I was trying to make is in the simple, but unrealistic, model I used for illustration, it needed to be the number of people infected in a small or infinitesimal time period.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,606
Yes the R0 certainly is a flexible term
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,607
morrobay said:
Yes the R0 certainly is a flexible term

That I now realize clearly. Much appreciation for the link you gave - it made clear something I should have known for the start. You live and learn.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,608
Vanadium 50 said:
That's an argument that the CDC 0.26% number is wrong. That's a position that's defensible, but should be attacked on it's merits.
I thought it was worth returning to this question now that we have more data. The question was whether the eventual maximum death rate for COVID, as estimated by the CDC, would be about 0.26%.

The current data for New Jersey is about 0.23%. Unless there is almost no one left in NJ who could die from COVID then this estimate must have been wrong in some way.

The current estimate in the UK is that perhaps 15% of the population has had COVID (about 10 million people) and we've had nearly 100,000 deaths. This gives an estimate of up to 1% eventual deaths - which is, in fact, in line with the original estimate of up to a maximum of 500,000 deaths in the UK.
 
  • #4,609
mfb said:
Concerning the R0 discussion: You are all missing that people are not infectious the second after getting infected. The linear model with the timescale of the incubation period is better here, a modified exponential function will work as well.
Yes, typically symptoms appear 4 or 5 days after exposure. Emerging research suggests that people are most likely to spread virus 48 hrs before symptoms.* So the max infectious period or serial interval is about 4 days into initial infection. And that is how the exponent of growth of 6 in post #4603 was given: 24days/4day serial interval. In that post 24 days not 28, but does not alter end result. * https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-youve-been-exposed-to-the-coronavirus
 
  • #4,610
mfb said:
These don't exclude each other. The bottleneck can be the distribution even though the production might be a bit lower than planned. Is it really lower? The 50 million in 2020 has been a target for quite some time.
I don't know what "quite some time" means to you. According to the source I linked, it was somewhere around December 1. To me, losing half / 50 million doses in a month - your only month - is a big change in a short time.

And sure, there can be more than one bottleneck, but if the bottle itself is too small, eliminating the bottlenecks still won't enable achieving the goal.

[edit; expanding]
The slow ramp-up of the first 20 (+20) days surely must have been distribution issues. The number of doses delivered seems just way too small too have been caused by production delays, particularly because there was some stockpiling prior to the vaccine's approval. But if the inoculation goal for the next 100 days is realistic, that's a much, much bigger problem. It's saying that no additional ramp-up in inoculation rate is possible at this time. That has to be production limited because it's just too easy to perform a million inoculations per day.

Selfishly, my goal here is to project when I might get inoculated (the other 3 people in my COVID circle will all have their first dose by this weekend). Before I incorporated the new goal into my thought process, I was thinking primarily about our inoculation capacity, and I had hope that the rate would continue to ramp up. I was speculating we might get to the point where I could receive my first dose in March or April.

I'm not sure I really went through the numbers like this before, but say the December goal was 1 million a day, and each month added another million a day in ramp-up. That would be 440 million doses by the end of April.

Now it looks like we won't even be 1/4 of the way there. The current goal of 1 million a day for the next 120 days is roughly 120 million doses administered by April 20, and my source above said the first three groups comprise about 250 million people. So given the two-dose requirement, that's a little less than 1/4 of the way through the people in line ahead of me.
 
Last edited:
  • #4,611
Here's the vaccine distribution and dosing data, pulled from the CDC website via wayback machine:

CDC Vaccine Rates.jpg


The data is a little sparse, but it appears to show the rate of doses administered is ramping-up while the rate of doses distributed is ramping-down. The per day rates from one point to the next are too noisy to show much when close together, but the overall averages for the past 18 days are 1.27 million per day distributed and 0.68 million per day administered. The last two points give an average over the past 5 days of 0.97 million per day distributed and 0.85 million per day administered.

Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/index.html
Caveat: A couple of weeks ago, the statistics changed from "total receiving first dose" to "total administered". But since I doubt many people had received a second dose by the 1st week in January, that shouldn't skew the data much.

I'd like to see the numbers for December (particularly since the "administered" curve doesn't seem to point toward zero), but alas, the site doesn't seem to have that data. I'll look for other sources and fill-in if I can.
 
Last edited:
  • #4,612
russ_watters said:
I don't know what "quite some time" means to you. According to the source I linked, it was somewhere around December 1. To me, losing half / 50 million doses in a month - your only month - is a big change in a short time.
The 50 million number is much older, and even your source is saying that. Here is a November 9 press release expecting 50 million in 2020.
The time.com article says the 100 million estimate was made in September. The npr article doesn't discuss a 100 million in 2020 estimate.

The slow ramp-up of the first 20 (+20) days surely must have been distribution issues. The number of doses delivered seems just way too small too have been caused by production delays, particularly because there was some stockpiling prior to the vaccine's approval. But if the inoculation goal for the next 100 days is realistic, that's a much, much bigger problem. It's saying that no additional ramp-up in inoculation rate is possible at this time. That has to be production limited because it's just too easy to perform a million inoculations per day.
If it's so easy, why isn't it done? The deliveries exceed the administered doses massively. That's incompatible with deliveries being the bottleneck. Based on your graph there are 20 million doses somewhere that have been delivered but not being used yet. More than the total number of doses given to people. You expect some of these doses to be in the delivery chain, obviously, but not that many. At the current inoculation rate they have vaccines for over a month sitting somewhere in freezers. The Pfizer/BNT vaccine doesn't even last that long while it's deeper down the delivery chain: If these doses don't end up being thrown away then they are in deep freezers at a few central locations waiting for ... I don't know what.

Israel had a surge of new cases while it was rapidly starting vaccinations (at a record per capita rate). New case numbers seem to have stabilized now. It's unknown how much of that is due to vaccination and how much is due to other measures, however. 37 doses given per 100 people, but some of them should be the second dose by now, so the fraction of vaccinated people will be lower. If we assume ~2 weeks before the vaccine is effective then we have ~20% of the population with protection against the virus. These are unlikely to become confirmed cases, how likely they are to get infected is less clear.
Israel is on track to have vaccinated half of its population (100 doses per 100) by the end of March, and everyone who wants the vaccine within the first half of 2021.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,613
mfb said:
If it's so easy, why isn't it done? The deliveries exceed the administered doses massively.

Here in Aus everyone is saying delivery will not be a problem - it is administering it - especially the Pfizer vaccine since where it is administered needs special storage facilities. Scheduling people to come in and get it at places geared up for it (usually main hospitals - rural ones do not have the facilities) is a logistical nightmare. Normally you just make an appointment with your GP and pop into get the vaccine. But GP's are not geared up to store it. Things will be better with the Oxford vaccine where the normal method would still work. But getting everyone to go to their GP is still a time consuming undertaking - especially with the two tiered system we have. Some GP's charge the recommended fee (the fee recommended by the Royal College of Australian General Practitioners) and you pay the difference between that and a government payment. At others called bulk billers you pay nothing, and the doctor just gets the government fee. Mine is sort of halfway between. My doctors have a good relationship with their patients and know their financial circumstances. They decide whether to charge the full fee or bulk bill depending on circumstances. For example when my sister worked she paid full fee. When she got sick and could no longer work, plus had children to raise, she and her family were bulk billed. When the children left home they started charging her full fee, which she did not like so she went to a bulk biller. There are fewer of those, and she has to wait a few days for an appointment, whereas with mine you can always get in on the same day - although it may not be with your regular doctor. Bottom line is getting the people through the GP's can take time, especially if you see a bulk biller. The solution being looked at is, at first the vaccinations will only be done by doctors so they can handle any adverse reaction should one occur. Once it proves itself, then any chemist or facilities that will be set up by the government manned by nurses will be able to do it. At least that is the current thinking. The government is still thinking through about what to do at places like Alice Springs with the Pfizer vaccine - they could deliver it there easy enough - but storing it etc is another matter.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,614
For illustration, here is the number of delivered vaccines shifted by 2 weeks. I added two older data points (23rd and 29th December). I tried to find Dec 18 but the CDC page didn't have a vaccine tab that day. In the first half of January the US had two weeks time between delivery and admitting the dose. That sounds like a realistic delay you expect from logistics, so at that time the US could have been limited by supply. Then deliveries ramped up in early January, but that increase didn't lead to a faster rate of vaccinations yet: Looks like the vaccination rate had a similar limit as supply before.
 

Attachments

  • USvaccines.png
    USvaccines.png
    46.5 KB · Views: 137
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,615
mfb said:
The 50 million number is much older, and even your source is saying that. Here is a November 9 press release expecting 50 million in 2020.
Ok, you're right; the the report I was looking at was from December 3 but said "in recent weeks". Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in the "when" of those projections. My point here is that I don't think the 20 million injections in 2020 goal was possible and that manufacturing and distribution (but not administration) were what constrained it.
[skipping ahead]
For illustration, here is the number of delivered vaccines shifted by 2 weeks. I added two older data points (23rd and 29th December). I tried to find Dec 18 but the CDC page didn't have a vaccine tab that day. In the first half of January the US had two weeks time between delivery and admitting the dose.
Ok, thanks, I guess I wasn't persistent enough with the archive. It gets spotty/unreliable back then, but I was able to find data for the 21st and 28th, and an "administered" number from the 18th. The first doses shipped on Dec 13 and first inoculation was Dec 14. Here's an updated graph, with the best time-shift fit being 16 days:
CDC Vaccine Rates1.jpg

That sounds like a realistic delay you expect from logistics, so at that time the US could have been limited by supply.
Agreed. The ramp-up in "administered" before matching the slope of the "distributed" curve looks like what you'd expect from filling a distribution pipeline. Maybe they can shrink that delay, but since this is a year-long effort I'm not two concerned about a 2-week lag becoming a 1-week lag. So, yes, I agree that this looks like limited supply, and that's what worries me.
Then deliveries ramped up in early January...
"Distributed" means shipments, not deliveries. The start of the distribution pipeline, not the end (when I used the word "deliver" earlier, I meant delivery to the final destination: an arm). But yes, there has been some ramp-up of that; from about 500,000/day in the third week in December to 1.5 M/day today. Note, the Moderna vaccine started shipping on Dec 20.

What I'm not seeing in the "distributed" data is any evidence of a day 1 stockpile. Unfortunately I only have the first 8 days (the 12/18 is a fake point I added to avoid a discontinuity), but what it tells me is if there was a stockpile, it couldn't have been more than a couple of million doses. E.G., if there was a 7 million stockpile, I would have expected it to be shipped in the first week, showing a million a day for the first week, then dropping to the half million a day production rate the second week.
[back to the prior post]
If it's so easy, why isn't it done? The deliveries exceed the administered doses massively. That's incompatible with deliveries being the bottleneck. Based on your graph there are 20 million doses somewhere that have been delivered but not being used yet.
We might already be past this, but just to make sure it's clear: the data says "distributed", not "delivered". Maybe you are using "delivered" to mean delivered from Pfizer to the supply chain, but that's an odd way to put it since they are shipping from Pfizer. In other words, those 20 million doses are somewhere in the supply chain, having been shipped (distributed) from Pfizer, but not yet delivered (administered) to an arm. That's the 16 day lag. Note: that also includes any reporting delay.

I'm typing this while watching the noon news, and they're interviewing directors of mass injection sites who are saying they are having to cancel appointments because not enough vaccine is being delivered to them.
 
  • #4,616
bhobba said:
Here in Aus everyone is saying delivery will not be a problem - it is administering it - especially the Pfizer vaccine since where it is administered needs special storage facilities. Scheduling people to come in and get it at places geared up for it (usually main hospitals - rural ones do not have the facilities) is a logistical nightmare. Normally you just make an appointment with your GP and pop into get the vaccine.
Here in the US many people get the flu vaccine from their GP, but tens of thousands of chain pharmacies also administer them for free. A small practice could dedicate one nurse and exam room, and administer a hundred a day.
But GP's are not geared up to store it.
I don't think that's as big an issue as many people think -- I feel like people think every vaccination site needs a -80C freezer. They don't. The shelf life is 5 days in a normal refrigerator, and the shipping container is good for 30 days if you keep re-filling it with dry ice. So as long as you can source dry ice and have a normal refrigerator for today's doses, there's not really any difficulty. I'd sure hope they can administer them fast enough that they don't need to keep them in the shipping container or refrigerator very long.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/covid_19_vaccine_u_s_distribution_fact_sheet#:~:text=After storage for up to,or stored under frozen conditions.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,617
Speaking alongside Johnson on Friday, the U.K.’s chief scientific advisor, Patrick Vallance, said there is now early evidence that there’s an increased risk for those who have the new variant, compared with the old virus.

“If you took ... a man in their 60s, the average risk is that for 1,000 people who got infected, roughly 10 would be expected to unfortunately die with the virus. With the new variant, for 1,000 people infected roughly 13 or 14 people might be expected to die,” Vallance said.

He described the data as not being strong yet, and highlighted more concern regarding other Covid variants found in Brazil and South Africa.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/bor...ariant-associated-with-higher-mortality-.html

Not good news.
 
  • #4,618
Apparently PM of UK Boris Johnson made a comment that the new variant in the UK may be more deadly, but that is not yet clear.
“In addition to spreading more quickly, it also now appears that there is some evidence that the new variant … may be associated with a higher degree of mortality,” Johnson said Friday afternoon during a press briefing.

Chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Wallace, added that the variant transmits 30% to 70% more easily, but there is no understanding of the reason yet, and there isn’t strong enough data to confirm the variant is, in fact, more deadly.

Wallace said the news about the virus being deadlier was based on looking at overall data, compared to just hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients are not dying at increased rates with the new variant versus the old.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coro...ays-second-dose-can-be-delayed-195502095.html

At a White House briefing Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said vaccines are likely to still be effective against B.1.1.7 and the variant from South Africa, 501Y.V2, which has not yet been reported in the U.S.

On a positive note, my wife got the first shot of the Pfizer vaccine today, and is scheduled for the second shot in 3 weeks. I won't be eligible for several more months.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and atyy
  • #4,619
I heard in the news last year that the flu killed millions a year in the US alone and tens of millions worldwide. Why didn't we have lockdown for flu? Is it due to the Covid being new so people were more afraid or excited? Does it mean when people get used to Covid and it kills millions a year in the US, it would be as common as the flu and people would accept it, and slowly we won't keep hearing it at headlines like the flu and get used to it?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
  • #4,620
Cobul said:
I heard in the news last year that the flu killed millions a year in the US alone and tens of millions worldwide. Why didn't we have lockdown for flu? Is it due to the Covid being new so people were more afraid or excited? Does it mean when people get used to Covid and it kills millions a year in the US, it would be as common as the flu and people would accept it, and slowly we won't keep hearing it at headlines like the flu and get used to it?
No, in the last decade, the Flu has been causing between 12-60k estimated deaths per year in the US.

I bolded estimated, because those numbers are not the recorded number of deaths (which are much lower), they are the estimated number of deaths, which are inferred based on mathematical models. We still don't know what the ultimate estimated number of Covid-19 deaths will be at this point, but if estimation goes like it does for the Flu, then the number of Covid-19 deaths will go up drastically. For the Flu, they sometimes end up with numbers 2-4 times higher than what they have direct records of. In other words, the actual recorded Flu deaths are more in the range of 3k to 30k in the US.

If similar inflation of the deaths after estimation occur with covid-19, then it would mean we are at more like 800,000 to 1,600,000 deaths in the US right now. But who knows what will happen. This is an unprecedented situation.

Why doesn’t CDC base its seasonal flu mortality estimates only on death certificates that specifically list influenza?

Seasonal influenza may lead to death from other causes, such as pneumonia, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has been recognized for many years that influenza is underreported on death certificates. There may be several reasons for underreporting, including that patients aren’t always tested for seasonal influenza virus infection, particularly older adults who are at greatest risk of seasonal influenza complications and death. Even if a patient is tested for influenza, influenza virus infection may not be identified because the influenza virus is only detectable for a limited number of days after infection and many people don’t seek medical care in this interval. Additionally, some deaths – particularly among those 65 years and older – are associated with secondary complications of influenza (including bacterial pneumonias). For these and other reasons, modeling strategies are commonly used to estimate flu-associated deaths. Only counting deaths where influenza was recorded on a death certificate would be a gross underestimation of influenza’s true impact.

1611360296234.png


https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm

In other words, we've potentially had single days (e.g. yesterday) of Covid-19 that caused more damage to human life than (some) whole years of the Flu.

Additionally, there is a high rate of serious organ damage for survivors of covid-19. We don't know how many people will die sooner than normal because of covid-19.

A Texas trauma surgeon says it's rare that X-rays from any of her COVID-19 patients come back without dense scarring. Dr. Brittany Bankhead-Kendall tweeted, "Post-COVID lungs look worse than any type of terrible smoker's lung we've ever seen. And they collapse. And they clot off. And the shortness of breath lingers on... & on... & on."

"Everyone's just so worried about the mortality thing and that's terrible and it's awful," she told CBS Dallas-Fort Worth. "But man, for all the survivors and the people who have tested positive this is — it's going to be a problem."

She says patients who've had COVID-19 symptoms show a severe chest X-ray every time, and those who were asymptomatic show a severe chest X-ray 70% to 80% of the time.

"There are still people who say 'I'm fine. I don't have any issues,' and you pull up their chest X-ray and they absolutely have a bad chest X-ray," she said.

In X-ray photos of a normal lung, a smoker's lung and a COVID-19 lung that Bankhead-Kendall shared with CBS Dallas, the healthy lungs are clean with a lot of black, which is mainly air. In the smoker's lung, white lines are indicative of scarring and congestion, while the COVID lung is filled with white.

"You'll either see a lot of that white, dense scarring or you'll see it throughout the entire lung. Even if you're not feeling problems now, the fact that that's on your chest X-ray — it sure is indicative of you possibly having problems later on," she said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-lungs-scarring-smokers-lungs/

I (think) I had Covid-19 back in April, and even though I had a mild case and recovered fine as far as I could tell, I still have weird burning pains in my lungs today. That's a little scary.

Warning graphic image of lung damaged by covid-19.

1611361557237.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, bhobba, Astronuc and 1 other person
  • #4,621
Cobul said:
I heard in the news last year that the flu killed millions a year in the US alone and tens of millions worldwide. Why didn't we have lockdown for flu? Is it due to the Covid being new so people were more afraid or excited? Does it mean when people get used to Covid and it kills millions a year in the US, it would be as common as the flu and people would accept it, and slowly we won't keep hearing it at headlines like the flu and get used to it?
How could millions of people in the US die from flu every year? There are about 3 million deaths per year in the US total - from all causes. And about 60 million deaths worldwide - from all causes.

Do you think that in a typical year the hospital intensive care units are full to capacity with flu patients and that surgery and other medical treatments are canceled because of an annual flu epidemic?

You must try to learn how to distinguish fact from fantasy. This sort of misinformation - and the general inability to identify misinformation - is killing our societies.

Here's a webpage with world population, birth and death rates:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, hmmm27, Astronuc and 1 other person
  • #4,622
russ_watters said:
"Distributed" means shipments, not deliveries. The start of the distribution pipeline, not the end (when I used the word "deliver" earlier, I meant delivery to the final destination: an arm).
I meant delivered as the in Pfizer -> US delivery. If that's not what "distributed" (by Pfizer) means, then how can we tell anything about the supply?
 
  • #4,623
Larry King, legendary TV host and radio personality, died Saturday morning at the age of 87 after a weekslong battle with COVID-19. He was hospitalized with the disease in late December. He had several health scares in recent years, including multiple heart attacks, a lung cancer diagnosis and a stroke, i.e., he had several comorbities.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Likes collinsmark and bhobba
  • #4,625
StevieTNZ said:
Well the circle of lockdowns may well begin soon, with a suspected case of community transmission of Covid-19 in NZ : https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...n-northland-ministry-of-health-to-give-update

It's exactly the same as here in Aus. Even one case was enough to send Brissy into lockdown and stronger than usual precautions till last Friday at 1 am. 3 days hard lockdown to conduct a thorough tracing, a partial lock down for a further 2 weeks, then a week of what I would call just strong precautions like mandatory mask wearing and restrictions on gatherings. It's lifted now - we are back to Covid normal eg stadiums, restaurants etc only half full, no need to wear a mask unless you want (although I do) ie mostly normal. IMHO they have got to stop this lockdown madness. We have people saying it doesn't work - it works all right at suppressing the virus but has some horrid side issues eg it has been reported during a hard lockdown nearly 50% of people have contemplated suicide. Aus and NZ, and likely everyone else as well, should look at what Taiwan does:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-coronavirus-covid-response

A big factor seems to be use of high tech data analytics and tracing, actively identifying and suppressing misinformation, basically as the article says 'Taiwan has been smart about changing the institutions and structure of government and they have transformed citizens expectations of what the government does.' Here in Aus we still have conspiracy theory rubbish people actually believe (eg this is just another flu blown out of proportion by big pharma and Bill Gates to make money o0)o0)o0)). We even have politicians calling other politicians conspiracy theorists because they post and discuss peer reviewed scientific literature on their facebook pages. How a peer reviewed scientific paper can be a conspiracy theory beats me. You might not agree with it and explain why - but a conspiracy theory? The answer given is it is against the medical advice of our bureaucrats. And that seems to be the sad reality - we did not transform, as Taiwan did, the structure of government and people's expectations. The bureaucrats here in Aus have proven hopeless - eg the Schultz act they collectively gave into the enquiry about the failure of hotel quarantine in Victoria, and the constant bickering between states. But for some reason Taiwan has had cultural change and the bureaucrats are in 'tune' with best practice.

I am starting to believe this is as much a people issue as it is about a virus.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and nsaspook
  • #4,626
StevieTNZ said:
Well the circle of lockdowns may well begin soon, with a suspected case of community transmission of Covid-19 in NZ : https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...n-northland-ministry-of-health-to-give-update

Noting that the virus may still be detected two weeks after the person has become infected.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/po...ne-rollout-is-top-risk-for-arderns-government
Much of the developed world (with larger populations) has already begun to administer vaccines to frontline workers and the vulnerable, while New Zealand is yet to even approve the inoculation.

Over the holiday period, the Government’s messaging on the roll-out has been confused and inconsistent. Whereas we were at the front of the international queue for doses in November, Covid recovery minister Chris Hipkins now says citizens must wait our turn and the vaccine won’t arrive at these shores until March.

A few weeks ago, it was stated that the general public won’t start getting jabs until September, an inexplicably long wait given ministers and officials have had months to prepare. Now Hipkins says it is mid-year.

The stealth destroyers are getting closer with the new strains. I really hope NZ can maintain isolation that long.
 
  • #4,627
Cobul said:
I heard in the news last year that the flu killed millions a year in the US alone and tens of millions worldwide. Why didn't we have lockdown for flu?

It is more deadly than the flu especially for people with comorbidities eg:
https://www.mcknights.com/news/clinical-news/covid-mortality-rate-30-percent-in-diabetes-parkinsons/
https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/43/7/1378

Just take diabetes. People with diabeties are 10% of the population. At a 7.2% death rate if you have it then there's at least a .72% death rate from diabeties alone (unless those with diabeties take greater precautions such as Vitamin D mentioned below - which of course they should). Then we have pre-diabetes which is not as deadly a comorbidity - but still significantly increases your risk. A whopping 1/3 of the population has pre-diabetes of which 80% do not know it. So one thing everyone should do is a simple blood sugar test that here in Aus any chemist will do for free. Then you have heart disease, high blood pressure etc - all of which significantly increase risk. They are risk factors for dying from the flu as well - but it is much less eg about .3% if you have diabeties. We also have a vaccine for the flu - it is usually only about 40-60% effective - one year it was as low as 10%. But here is the interesting thing - if you get the flu and are vaccinated it generally is a lot less severe and death rates I have read are about 90% lower. The same is true of the Oxford Covid vaccine - it is only 60-70% effective but so far is 100% effective if you do manage to get it at preventing severe cases. It is now being rolled out in the millions in India and England (soon where I am in Aus as well - but since it is well controlled here our authorities are waiting to see what happens in other countries) and we will see how well that 100% holds up. The Pfizer vaccine is more effective at preventing you getting it, but the information at the moment is it may not be as effective at preventing severe cases if you do get it as the Oxford vaccine - again as vaccinations progress we will get more exact numbers. So far nobody died from Covid after either vaccine.

If we just protected people with comorbidities and gave everyone a simple physical to determine what comorbidities they do have, we could make a big dent in the population death rate (it will of course make no difference if you do get it - just lowering the number of high risk people that do get it) - perhaps bringing it down to flu levels. Another simple thing, which should be done Covid or no covid, is ensure nobody is vitamin D deficient. That is very easy, but studies have shown anybody with vitamin D deficiency, and a surprising number of people are, are at significantly greater risk and should take supplementation to bring them up to normal levels:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

I take Vitamin D, as well as some other stuff with less proven benefit - but certainly we could make a big difference in this pandemic by 2 simple things you should do anyway:

1. Get a physical to determine if you have any comorbidities.
2. Make sure you are not deficient in vitamin D.

There are other things there is some evidence will help eg the I-Mask protocol which I take:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-mask-prophylaxis-treatment-protocol/i-mask-protocol-translations/

Without the Ivermectin (recommended for prevention in high risk patients or if you do get it), it is pretty harmless - but the evidence is not as strong as the two I mentioned. Do NOT under any circumstances take Ivermectin without seeing you doctor first. It has recently been given a neutral recommendation rather that a not recommended by US authorities. You can discuss the pros and cons of taking it with your doctor.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #4,628
nsaspook said:
The stealth destroyers are getting closer with the new strains. I really hope NZ can maintain isolation that long.

Australia has already commenced back in November manufacturing 58 million doses of the Oxford vaccine in monthly batches which will cover both Aus and NZ:
https://www.csl.com/news/2020/20201...rsity-of-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-candidate

The above says 30 million - but since the failure of the UQ vaccine it has been raised to 58 million. NZ is expecting its first batch by Australia Day. Both countries are waiting a bit before deploying it just to see what happens elsewhere. Plans are in place to quickly distribute it. If anything bad happens it can be 'unleashed' quickly in either country.

As of now do the two things I mentioned in my previous post:
1. Get a physical to determine if you have any comorbidities.
2. Make sure you are not deficient in vitamin D.

That way when it is released it can be prioritised to all those in the high risk category better and reduce your chances of getting it in the first place.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #4,629
Cobul said:
I heard in the news last year that the flu killed millions a year in the US alone and tens of millions worldwide.
As several people have said earlier those figures are totally wrong. It is more like around 30000-40000 anually in the US, and this is an estimate. It is very hard to exactly pinpoint a real number of people that dies from a single disease(not only for flu or Covid). And all these estimations are prone to bigger or smaller errors.

It would be interesting to determine exactly the overall impact on the total mortality by country from all causes, comparing 2020 total deaths with the growth estimation given for this period from the mean increase in total deaths of the previous years. But this takes time, and it might be some months until we have that record straight.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,630
bhobba said:
The Pfizer vaccine is more effective at preventing you getting it, but the information at the moment is it may not be as effective at preventing death as the Oxford vaccine - again as vaccinations progress we will get more exact numbers.
Do you have sources/numbers for that? The absolute number of deaths from people who were vaccinated long enough ago to have the vaccine work must be tiny.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,631
mfb said:
Do you have sources/numbers for that? The absolute number of deaths from people who were vaccinated long enough ago to have the vaccine work must be tiny.

Yes - see Ygggdrasil's post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...excitement-or-fear.997299/page-3#post-6446580

But I made an embarrassing goof - it was severe cases - not death - and I will update my post. Sorry. And you are correct the difference in getting severe cases is tiny - for exact numbers we will need to wait until we have more information.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #4,632
bhobba said:
The same is true of the Oxford Covid vaccine - it is only 60-70% effective but so far is 100% effective if you do manage to get it at preventing death. It is now being rolled out in the millions in India and England ... and we will see how well that 100% holds up.
Unfortunately in England people are only being given a single dose and being told they will get their second dose 3 months later (instead of the recommended 3 weeks later). The logic behind this is that supposedly more lives will be saved in the short term by giving a larger population a single dose than by giving a smaller population a double dose. But the decision is not without controversy.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and PeroK
  • #4,633
DrGreg said:
Unfortunately in England people are only being given a single dose and being told they will get their second dose 3 months later (instead of the recommended 3 weeks later). The logic behind this is that supposedly more lives will be saved in the short term by giving a larger population a single dose than by giving a smaller population a double dose. But the decision is not without controversy.
I was just thinking recently that the phrase "guided by the science" is actually totally meaningless. Is one guided 99% by the science or 1% by the science?

In this case, the UK government has been guided by the science in that it recognises the effect of a vaccine, but it has chosen its own interpretation of the vaccination process. The recommended three weeks between doses has become three months.

This is a variation on epidemiology called "Boris Johnson seat-of-the-pants science".
 
  • Like
Likes jack action and bhobba
  • #4,634
DrGreg said:
Unfortunately in England people are only being given a single dose and being told they will get their second dose 3 months later (instead of the recommended 3 weeks later). The logic behind this is that supposedly more lives will be saved in the short term by giving a larger population a single dose than by giving a smaller population a double dose. But the decision is not without controversy.

First I made a goof - it was severe cases not death - nobody so far who was vaccinated has actually died. And yes I am aware of what they did in England and to be blunt I am appalled. We do not know the consequences of doing that - it could put the whole vaccination programme in jeopardy. But the situation in the UK, at least as reported here in Aus, is dire, so I understand why - even though IMHO it is the wrong responce.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #4,635
PeroK said:
I was just thinking recently that the phrase "guided by the science" is actually totally meaningless. Is one guided 99% by the science or 1% by the science? In this case, the UK government has been guided by the science in that it recognises the effect of a vaccine, but it has chosen its own interpretation of the vaccination process. The recommended three weeks between doses has become three months. This is a variation on epidemiology called "Boris Johnson seat-of-the-pants science".

Unfortunately true. For me it is very worrying.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,636
bhobba said:
Unfortunately true. For me it is very worrying.

Thanks
Bill
The big blunder was ignoring calls for a three-week "fire-break" lockdown last October. Johnson waited until November when he was absolutely certain we needed a lockdown, but by that time the numbers were so high that, in effect, we have been in lockdown ever since and will be for some time to come.

There's a clear pattern to me that our Government finds it impossible to make a decision until it is 100% certain that action is needed. And, as a result, necessary action is delayed too long. That's more or less the story of our COVID containment efforts. Everything has been done at the last possible moment. It's taken us a year to mandate mask-wearing in shops.

And here we are, 3.6 million cases and nearly 100,000 deaths later still bumbling and pottering around.
 
  • Like
Likes DrGreg, Astronuc and bhobba
  • #4,637
bhobba said:
I am starting to believe this is as much a people issue as it is about a virus.
It is a human behavior/psychology issue. There is a proportion of the population that does not 'believe' or accept the science or epidemiology concerning coronavirus. Some authorities have been dismissive of the severity of the Coronavirus or COVID-19, and some will not observe precautions simply because 'the government' or 'bureaucrat' told them to do so.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and bhobba
  • #4,638
PeroK said:
And here we are, 3.6 million cases and nearly 100,000 deaths later still bumbling and pottering around.

See another post I did:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...tainment-efforts.983707/page-185#post-6448230

Except in Taiwan (there may be others I do not know of) where the government bureaucracy changed their approach based on information about Covid, that bureaucracy has proven themselves very inept or as you say - bumbling and pottering around. If it wasn't so deadly serious your eyes would roll back and say - I knew they were bad - but this bad? Instead the consequences are often so catastrophic you want to 'cry'.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,639
bhobba said:
Yes - see Ygggdrasil's post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...excitement-or-fear.997299/page-3#post-6446580

But I made an embarrassing goof - it was severe cases - not death - and I will update my post. Sorry. And you are correct the difference in getting severe cases is tiny - for exact numbers we will need to wait until we have more information.

Based on the small numbers of cases in the trials data, I do not think there is enough evidence to show that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines differ in their ability to prevent severe disease (both seem effective at preventing severe disease). If anything, I would guess that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is less effective based on the lower efficacy of preventing symptomatic disease.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,640
Ygggdrasil said:
Based on the small numbers of cases in the trials data, I do not think there is enough evidence to show that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines differ in their ability to prevent severe disease (both seem effective at preventing severe disease). If anything, I would guess that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is less effective based on the lower efficacy of preventing symptomatic disease.

Yes, on second thought I should not have mentioned it - we need more data. I possibly will not have a choice anyway because for high risk cases like me here in Aus they are prioritising the Pfizer vaccine. I would like to see the data on the vaccines in people on Biologics - or even if it will work. But my doctor insists, and when I say insist it is a rather strong one, I get the Flu vaccine every year, so my Biologic must not totally shut down my immune system.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4,641
bhobba said:
Australia has already commenced back in November manufacturing 58 million doses of the Oxford vaccine in monthly batches which will cover both Aus and NZ:
https://www.csl.com/news/2020/20201...rsity-of-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-candidate

The above says 30 million - but since the failure of the UQ vaccine it has been raised to 58 million. NZ is expecting its first batch by Australia Day. Both countries are waiting a bit before deploying it just to see what happens elsewhere. Plans are in place to quickly distribute it. If anything bad happens it can be 'unleashed' quickly in either country.

As of now do the two things I mentioned in my previous post:
1. Get a physical to determine if you have any comorbidities.
2. Make sure you are not deficient in vitamin D.

That way when it is released it can be prioritised to all those in the high risk category better and reduce your chances of getting it in the first place.

Thanks
Bill

The NZ hotel quarantine is not completely effective with the more contagious strains as shown by the latest community cases spread.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...ested-positive-for-coronavirus?cid=app-iPhone
It came a week after she left managed isolation at Auckland’s Pullman Hotel after returning from a trip to Europe.

Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins and Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said there were about 30 locations of interest linked to the woman’s movements.

People always underestimate emergency logistics when dealing with masses of people. Plans are great, actual operational usage is light-years better. I wish them well but waiting to see what happens in the middle of a world-wide pandemic seems to be pushing the risk of containment loss higher and higher..
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,642
We'll be reaching 100,000,000 case next week. Maybe these will help convince the skeptics
main-qimg-a724c64480a0a81bc20233c03a9c64e6.png
main-qimg-c25f9c1e7c09efb5091115a6936832a6.jpeg
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #4,643
mfb said:
I meant delivered as the in Pfizer -> US delivery. If that's not what "distributed" (by Pfizer) means, then how can we tell anything about the supply?
[edit] You can access the edit history, so you can see I wrote a long post in response to this and have since deleted it. I assume that's all you responded to because it's all you felt like objecting to. So I'll respond to that only. What you said there is too vague to have any value. The US is a country of a couple of million square miles - does "US delivery" mean it was pushed out of an airplane over Kansas? We should be clear on what we think the words we are using mean, so here's what I think they mean:
  • Delivered: What a pharma company calls it when a shipment leaves their facility.
  • Distributed: What the government calls it when a shipment leaves a pharma company facility (same as above).
  • Administered: when a vaccine is injected into an arm.
Agree/disagree? Be specific.
 
Last edited:
  • #4,644
nsaspook said:
I wish them well but waiting to see what happens in the middle of a world-wide pandemic seems to be pushing the risk of containment loss higher and higher..

I gave it my like. But this is not clear cut. If a country where it is well under control, and they go into lockdown for even one case, then the chances of getting out of control, while not zero, has proven to be quite low. The main issue is the bureaucracy do not 'muck it up' like they did in Victoria here in Aus. By being an early adopter you run the risk of what happened with the 1976 flu vaccine:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-shadow-1976-swine-flu-vaccine-fiasco-180961994/

Considering how bad it is in the UK, and the US, IMHO those coutries are doing the right thing being an early adopter. But Australia and NZ does not have the same risk vs reward. It's a 'gut feel' call - the kind of call politicians should and do make - that is what they are elected for. If they decided to be an early adopter I would not think them crazy or anything like that - like I say it is not something that is cut and dry.

In fact I was a proponent during the middle of the Victorian 'muck up' that caused a lot of deaths, especially in aged care facilities, of Professor Petrovsky's plan to carry out stage 2 and 3 trials of his vaccine to control the breakout. To me the risk vs reward was tipped to using the 'unproven' vaccine. But again it is a 'gut feel' call.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #4,645
bhobba said:
In fact I was a proponent during the middle of the Victorian 'muck up' that caused a lot of deaths, especially in aged care facilities, of Professor Petrovsky's plan to carry out stage 2 and 3 trials of his vaccine to control the breakout. To me the risk vs reward was tipped to using the 'unproven' vaccine. But again it is a 'gut feel' call.

Definitely, this is a trusting our instincts process and for me it is one vital tool to survive all uncertainties. "Trust your instincts"
 
  • Like
Likes AlexCaledin and bhobba
  • #4,646
Concerning severe cases: 1 vs. 9 (Pfizer/BNT) and 0 vs. 1 (Oxford) have no statistical difference. If anything we can conclude that Pfizer/BNT will reduce the frequency of severe cases while we don't have that evidence for Oxford (0 vs. 5 hospitalizations provide some evidence that it reduces severe cases). Of course we generally expect that behavior from the reduction in milder cases.
russ_watters said:
We should be clear on what we think the words we are using mean, so here's what I think they mean:
  • Delivered: What a pharma company calls it when a shipment leaves their facility.
  • Distributed: What the government calls it when a shipment leaves a pharma company facility (same as above).
  • Administered: when a vaccine is injected into an arm.
Agree/disagree? Be specific.
"Delivered" would imply reaching some destination in the US at least, but that shouldn't make a big difference. We take CDC numbers for "distributed", so you expect them to be in the US.
We see the pattern that administered followed distributed with a two-week delay until the "distributed" graph increased its slope and administered vaccines couldn't keep track.

"Administered" follows a nearly perfect linear track that's slower than "distributed", I added the most recent CDC numbers:

doses.png
 
  • #4,647
For those interested in a very in depth discussion of the mRNA vaccine supply chain see: https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/...fizer-biontech-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/

Regarding vaccine administration, note that current administration rates are not necessarily guaranteed to keep rising at the same pace. Initial vaccine distribution was to relatively easy groups to vaccinate (healthcare workers and residents of long term care facilities). As wider segments of the population eligible for the vaccine, distribution challenges will grow.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba, nsaspook and OmCheeto
  • #4,648
mfb said:
Concerning severe cases: 1 vs. 9 (Pfizer/BNT) and 0 vs. 1 (Oxford) have no statistical difference.

Yes - I goofed on that one - in more ways than one. You are correct - at the moment either vaccine seems to be just as effective in preventing hospitalisations, severe cases, and death if you are unlucky enough to get it while vaccinated. This is good - and what I was hopeful of. It looks, like the flu vaccine, while neither vaccine is 100% effective (especially the Oxford one) they both reduce severity and risk of death if you do manage to get it when vaccinated. Statistically we do not have enough data to draw any firm conclusions yet on exactly how effective it is in that regard, but overall it does look promising.

Even though logistical problems are being experienced in distributing the vaccine and inoculating people (as experts predicted) it seems it is still progressing at a very fast pace according to the following:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/worl...d-in-india-and-the-world-101611510452388.html

That being the case hopefully we will get better statistical information soon.

One problem that occurred to me is with such a rapid take up, how does one carry out phase 3 DBT studies of future, possibly better vaccines? So I looked around and found this interesting article from Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01230-y

I personally for what it is worth am an advocate of challenge trials, especially for things like checking the efficacy of current vaccines against new ones:
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20201208.921141/full/

But ethically it is dynamite.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #4,649
mfb said:
"Delivered" would imply reaching some destination in the US at least, but that shouldn't make a big difference. We take CDC numbers for "distributed", so you expect them to be in the US.
That's still quite vague. What is "some destination"? A giant warehouse? 15,000 ft over Kansa? An end-user(vaccination clinic)? If we equate "delivered" (stated by the pharma company) with "distributed" (stated by the CDC), the problem goes away. Agree/disagree? If you disagree, again, be specific about what you think "delivered" means. Delivered where?
We see the pattern that administered followed distributed with a two-week delay until the "distributed" graph increased its slope and administered vaccines couldn't keep track.

"Administered" follows a nearly perfect linear track that's slower than "distributed", I added the most recent CDC numbers:
Looks like you're hand-sketching on top of my graph, and doing a poor job of it (not that it's easy). Here's today's actual updated graph, with the 16 day offset:

CDC Vaccine Rates2.jpg


Yesterday's "administered" point is literally on top of the "distributed" point from 16 days ago (I don't have daily data from 2 weeks ago to correspond to today). Ok, that's lucky since the day-to-day variability is somewhere around 100%, but even still the two have been tracking extremely closely together since the very first real "distributed" data point on Dec 21 (15 days to Jan 2 for "administered"; 4.6 to 4.2M). This shows an almost completely unwavering 16 day distribution pipeline/lag. I would tend to expect it to shrink over time (maybe not, as the logistical problem gets tougher as the numbers grow - but we can discuss that), but it hasn't yet.

And now that we're past Jan 20 and the media now has free time to look at less important things like the COVID vaccine distribution pipeline, we're starting to see articles on it. They are pretty clear about the cause of the slow administration rate:
And when will supply exceed demand? [subtitle]

Some mayors and governors say they have run out of available vaccines, and have had to cancel appointments...

There are simply not enough doses of authorized vaccines to meet the enormous demand. And that is not likely to change for the next few months...

Both companies are manufacturing the doses at full capacity, and are collectively releasing between 12 million and 18 million doses each week... [that's not quite borne out by the "distributed" numbers, but it is close]

There is no significant reserve of vaccines to speak of. For the most part, vaccines are being shipped out each week as they are manufactured...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/health/covid-vaccine-supply-biden.html
 
Last edited:
  • #4,650
Ygggdrasil said:
For those interested in a very in depth discussion of the mRNA vaccine supply chain see: https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/...fizer-biontech-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/
That brings some clarification to the delivered/distributed question. Pfizer never ships "to the US", they ship to individual sites on request. Which means we can't really judge how many they could ship. If the sites can't vaccinate more people they won't request more doses.
For Moderna we don't know.

russ_watters said:
If we equate "delivered" (stated by the pharma company) with "distributed" (stated by the CDC), the problem goes away. Agree/disagree? If you disagree, again, be specific about what you think "delivered" means. Delivered where?
I don't even know which "problem" you see.
Looks like you're hand-sketching on top of my graph, and doing a poor job of it (not that it's easy). Here's today's actual updated graph, with the 16 day offset:
I forgot you used 16 days, I added data points using a 14 day delay. But after reading the article posted by Ygggdrasil I'm not sure how useful that approach is overall.
That article makes it pretty clear where the bottleneck is for now. In most places it's still local, only a few places could benefit from a larger production.
 

Similar threads

Replies
42
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
516
Views
35K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top