4 ms·

1. Dozens of localities have controlled the virus via lockdowns, social distancing and masking, they all show similar curves to NY but with lower peaks. NY ther

1. Dozens of localities have controlled the virus via lockdowns, social distancing and masking, they all show similar curves to NY but with lower peaks. NY therefore offers no evidence that herd immunity has been reached. 2. Your Spanish study shows 90% of those with a positive PCR test also had antibodies. The low symptomatic positive rate could be easily explained by other seasonal illnesses with identical symptoms. 3. There is no evidence beyond supposition that I can see for the Wuhan clinical workers having the virus. An alternative explanation is that protective equipment and protocols were effective. 4. The idea of 80% of the population being T-cell immune seems inconsistent with the outcomes on the Diamond Princess. I think you are cherry-picking data to support a far-fetched theory. The outcomes in confined places where the virus infects everyone, like the Diamond Princess or nursing homes, seem especially hard to square with the idea of widespread t-cell immunity. Edit: I was misremembering the Diamond Princess, not everyone on the cruise ship got the virus. However, Marion Correctional Institute in Ohio had 80% test positive for covid; the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington had 2/3 test positive. These don't seem consistent with widespread T-cell immunity.

dalore 6y ago
Interesting you mention the Diamond Princess, it actually supports the "far-fetched" theory. And it's not as far fetched as you think, it's gaining more ground and does explain places like New York, London, Sweden, India etc. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/immunity-to-coronavirus-may-be-far-more-widespread-than-thought https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/immunity-to-coronavirus-... "In the accidental experiment of the Diamond Princess – a close community where the infection was allowed to spread unchecked for a fortnight in January, and everyone was eventually tested – only 17 per cent of passengers and crew became infected." New York (and similar UK and Sweden) has a higher death rate since they moved sick patients into care homes and decimated them. As you said everywhere saw similar curves no matter how strict or lax a lock down they had. Implying something else is going on and not the lock down. Studies looking at the impacts of lock down on the curve are showing very little correlational https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... “full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.” So, to me at least, it does seem far more plausible that t-cells are more a mitigating factor then lock downs. If I am cherry picking, seems to be lots of cherry trees to pick from. I see no reason why t-cell should not offer some protection, like it does with other coronaviruses. And why we would assume that everyone is just as susceptible when we know the risk profile varies wildly. EDIT: for your explaining your edit of "Life Care Center in Kirkland", the reason they have more antibodies is that we all know the older you get the less t-cell protection you have. A "life care" center one assumes is full of old people, hence lower t-cell protection. And it explains why children have more protection as their t-cell protection is stronger.
- jhpriestley 6y ago
  Everywhere saw a similar shape of curve, i.e. exponential increase until the lockdown, then slow exponential decrease. The peak of the curve differed widely, and countries that were slow to lock down like the UK, Sweden and USA have seen some of the worst outcomes. Correlating lockdown policy to outcome does not make sense because lockdowns are instituted in response to case levels in the first place. It is like correlating fire trucks and fires, and finding that fire trucks cause fires because there are more of them in dry, fire-prone areas. Sweden provides something close to a natural experiment, it has similar culture and climate to its neighbors but a far worse outcome after it did not lock down. Prisons are not especially weighted toward older people and they have seen outbreaks with as many as 80% being infected.
  - dalore 6y ago
    You just ignored the science in front of you and assumed countries like Sweden was because of the lock downs. When the maths doesn't add up. I don't think you even read my comment nor the paper as I didn't mention cases but mortality. If lock down is a reactionary process to cases then the different types of lock down should change the mortality. Sweden, New York and UK are easily explained if look at the age range and location of deaths. It was the reaction of sending sick patients out to care homes. Bringing up Sweden, you just cherry picked only it's Nordic neighbours, but it compares quite well, and normal, with the other European countries. If you look at the previous flu seasons for the Nordic countries you will see that Sweden had a few years of very low deaths, whilst the countries you cherry picked had a few years of high death. So Sweden's care homes were packed with more vulnerable people. Prisons also further support the t-cell theory. People in prison don't get enough sunlight and vitamin-D, reducing their t-cell immunity. Also they are heavily weighted towards minorities who are more susceptible. And since coronovirus are quite seasonal usually, and t-cell response changes with season, it's why we are seeing different cycles for the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere and the equatorial regions. USA is a big country, the northern states got hit first and now the southern states are matching the regions like Mexico. USA is so big you need to treat each state like it's own region and not generalise.

dalore 6y ago

Interesting you mention the Diamond Princess, it actually supports the "far-fetched" theory. And it's not as far fetched as you think, it's gaining more ground and does explain places like New York, London, Sweden, India etc. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/immunity-to-coronavirus-may-be-far-more-widespread-than-thought https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/immunity-to-coronavirus-... "In the accidental experiment of the Diamond Princess – a close community where the infection was allowed to spread unchecked for a fortnight in January, and everyone was eventually tested – only 17 per cent of passengers and crew became infected." New York (and similar UK and Sweden) has a higher death rate since they moved sick patients into care homes and decimated them. As you said everywhere saw similar curves no matter how strict or lax a lock down they had. Implying something else is going on and not the lock down. Studies looking at the impacts of lock down on the curve are showing very little correlational https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... “full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.” So, to me at least, it does seem far more plausible that t-cells are more a mitigating factor then lock downs. If I am cherry picking, seems to be lots of cherry trees to pick from. I see no reason why t-cell should not offer some protection, like it does with other coronaviruses. And why we would assume that everyone is just as susceptible when we know the risk profile varies wildly. EDIT: for your explaining your edit of "Life Care Center in Kirkland", the reason they have more antibodies is that we all know the older you get the less t-cell protection you have. A "life care" center one assumes is full of old people, hence lower t-cell protection. And it explains why children have more protection as their t-cell protection is stronger.

jhpriestley 6y ago
Everywhere saw a similar shape of curve, i.e. exponential increase until the lockdown, then slow exponential decrease. The peak of the curve differed widely, and countries that were slow to lock down like the UK, Sweden and USA have seen some of the worst outcomes. Correlating lockdown policy to outcome does not make sense because lockdowns are instituted in response to case levels in the first place. It is like correlating fire trucks and fires, and finding that fire trucks cause fires because there are more of them in dry, fire-prone areas. Sweden provides something close to a natural experiment, it has similar culture and climate to its neighbors but a far worse outcome after it did not lock down. Prisons are not especially weighted toward older people and they have seen outbreaks with as many as 80% being infected.
- dalore 6y ago
  You just ignored the science in front of you and assumed countries like Sweden was because of the lock downs. When the maths doesn't add up. I don't think you even read my comment nor the paper as I didn't mention cases but mortality. If lock down is a reactionary process to cases then the different types of lock down should change the mortality. Sweden, New York and UK are easily explained if look at the age range and location of deaths. It was the reaction of sending sick patients out to care homes. Bringing up Sweden, you just cherry picked only it's Nordic neighbours, but it compares quite well, and normal, with the other European countries. If you look at the previous flu seasons for the Nordic countries you will see that Sweden had a few years of very low deaths, whilst the countries you cherry picked had a few years of high death. So Sweden's care homes were packed with more vulnerable people. Prisons also further support the t-cell theory. People in prison don't get enough sunlight and vitamin-D, reducing their t-cell immunity. Also they are heavily weighted towards minorities who are more susceptible. And since coronovirus are quite seasonal usually, and t-cell response changes with season, it's why we are seeing different cycles for the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere and the equatorial regions. USA is a big country, the northern states got hit first and now the southern states are matching the regions like Mexico. USA is so big you need to treat each state like it's own region and not generalise.