7 ms·

> If it's 20 times as deadly, why isn't that reflected in the all-cause deaths? How many people already had it in Sweden? About 5%? And how many will get it un

> If it's 20 times as deadly, why isn't that reflected in the all-cause deaths? How many people already had it in Sweden? About 5%? And how many will get it until herd immunity is reached? About 70%? Then it seems that it will probably come back next winter and probably with force. What we've seen this spring and summer may only be a tenth of what's about to come. Those numbers are only some estimates and we don't know for sure but time will tell.

henrikschroder 6y ago
The "70%" herd immunity number is something someone pulled out of their ass in the early days. Recent studies show widespread T-cell immunity, and together with how a virus infection selects people for immunity (it's not the same distribution as a vaccine campaign), it seems that when 10-20% of the population has had it, that's enough for very strong community resistance, causing the virus to die out. > What we've seen this spring and summer may only be a tenth of what's about to come. How? We've gotten better at treating covid-19 as the months passed, we figured out that ventilators was a pretty crap treatment, and instead figured out that oxygen, steroids and blood-thinners worked much better. A large part of the population has already had it and built up immunity to it, and because of how a virus spreads through a population, the best spreaders are usually hit first. The population that died from it were mostly the old and frail and at-risk, and we've gotten better at protecting them with time as well. When we were unprepared, this thing killed less people than a regular flu season does. Why would it suddenly kill ten times as many people, now that we are prepared, and now that a significant part of the population is immune? What possible chain of events could lead to that outcome? Magic?
- threatripper 6y ago
  > The "70%" herd immunity number is something someone pulled out of their ass in the early days. Recent studies show widespread T-cell immunity, and together with how a virus infection selects people for immunity (it's not the same distribution as a vaccine campaign), it seems that when 10-20% of the population has had it, that's enough for very strong community resistance, causing the virus to die out. Granted, the 70% number is based on an R0 of 3.5 and homogeneous transmission. It's probably lower than that in many cases. In some cases it like prisons or close contact workplaces or other close contact activities it's going to be even higher as some incidents show. The T-cell immunity is something we don't understand very well yet. I hope that only 20% of the population will be enough to stop it, i really do, but right now i don't think it's very likely. We may have the first solid data points after the winter. Yes, we get better at treatment and protective measures. As long as the hospitals are not overrun this may lower the fatalities a great deal. In Sweden it's looking quite good right now. In some areas in the US not so much for the coming weeks. When the hospitals are overrun, you can't help much and the fatalities will increase a lot. Until next summer I will not judge which strategy works best. But I'd rather err on the safe side health wise and advocate for stronger protective measures even if it may mean a higher economic cost (that won't crash the economy completely). If we err on the wrong side, we could lose both, health and economy at the same time. After the numbers are in, we can say with hindsight what would have been the best course of action.

henrikschroder 6y ago

The "70%" herd immunity number is something someone pulled out of their ass in the early days. Recent studies show widespread T-cell immunity, and together with how a virus infection selects people for immunity (it's not the same distribution as a vaccine campaign), it seems that when 10-20% of the population has had it, that's enough for very strong community resistance, causing the virus to die out. > What we've seen this spring and summer may only be a tenth of what's about to come. How? We've gotten better at treating covid-19 as the months passed, we figured out that ventilators was a pretty crap treatment, and instead figured out that oxygen, steroids and blood-thinners worked much better. A large part of the population has already had it and built up immunity to it, and because of how a virus spreads through a population, the best spreaders are usually hit first. The population that died from it were mostly the old and frail and at-risk, and we've gotten better at protecting them with time as well. When we were unprepared, this thing killed less people than a regular flu season does. Why would it suddenly kill ten times as many people, now that we are prepared, and now that a significant part of the population is immune? What possible chain of events could lead to that outcome? Magic?

threatripper 6y ago
> The "70%" herd immunity number is something someone pulled out of their ass in the early days. Recent studies show widespread T-cell immunity, and together with how a virus infection selects people for immunity (it's not the same distribution as a vaccine campaign), it seems that when 10-20% of the population has had it, that's enough for very strong community resistance, causing the virus to die out. Granted, the 70% number is based on an R0 of 3.5 and homogeneous transmission. It's probably lower than that in many cases. In some cases it like prisons or close contact workplaces or other close contact activities it's going to be even higher as some incidents show. The T-cell immunity is something we don't understand very well yet. I hope that only 20% of the population will be enough to stop it, i really do, but right now i don't think it's very likely. We may have the first solid data points after the winter. Yes, we get better at treatment and protective measures. As long as the hospitals are not overrun this may lower the fatalities a great deal. In Sweden it's looking quite good right now. In some areas in the US not so much for the coming weeks. When the hospitals are overrun, you can't help much and the fatalities will increase a lot. Until next summer I will not judge which strategy works best. But I'd rather err on the safe side health wise and advocate for stronger protective measures even if it may mean a higher economic cost (that won't crash the economy completely). If we err on the wrong side, we could lose both, health and economy at the same time. After the numbers are in, we can say with hindsight what would have been the best course of action.