5 ms·

I would consider it the danger of lockdown. We guarantee that the virus is still festering somewhere on the planet, and that vulnerable populations remain aroun

I would consider it the danger of lockdown. We guarantee that the virus is still festering somewhere on the planet, and that vulnerable populations remain around the world, risking flareups. With zero response - ie. what we do for influenza - we establish herd immunity over a short, sharp period, and the virus immediately falls over. In any case, even if this mink-mutant variant is slightly deadlier, the data from Sweden shows that COVID deaths can be effectively reduced to near-zero from basic herd immunity strategies - Sweden yesterday recorded a single COVID death. So it makes sense to adopt the Swedish approach now, for a variant of the virus we know how to treat.

claudeganon 6y ago
>I would consider it the danger of lockdown. You would be objectively wrong? Basic reasoning would tell you that places with less cases have a lower probability of transmitting the disease to animal reservoirs and risking harmful mutations coming back at us. >With zero response - ie. what we do for influenza - we establish herd immunity over a short, sharp period, and the virus immediately falls over. This is also incorrect? We take a number of proactive actions against the flu every year, from vaccination, to other public health and treatment measures, to even more drastic steps like culling livestock populations where more dangerous strains have emerged. >So it makes sense to adopt the Swedish approach now, for a variant of the virus we know how to treat. We don't actually have any idea about the consequences of this mutation, especially in a larger population, so we should do the exact opposite and proceed with extreme caution until its risk profile is understood.
vecinu 6y ago
You mention the IFR but what about the long term implications of so many people catching COVID and having reduced lung capacity or long term damage? Can we please address this fact that scares a lot of us? We already know the death rate is low for groups that are not at risk but it seems even healthy people are suffering from "long COVID" with serious long term implications.
- timr 6y ago
  "what about the long term implications of so many people catching COVID and having reduced lung capacity or long term damage?" There is almost no evidence of either in mild-to-moderate cases of Covid-19 (i.e. the vast majority of cases). People who have been on ventilators, or hospitalized for extended periods due to severe illness are a different story, as ventilators themselves often cause lung damage. The scariest anecdotes that have been widely circulated online have come from ventilated or hospitalized patients with severe illness. Beyond these anecdotes, stories of "long covid" thus far are predominantly based on anecdote and self-reporting of symptoms, and the symptom profiles that you hear are frequently vague and/or unverifiable ("brain fog") and in most cases, not significantly different than you might see with any respiratory virus. For example, here is a report from the CDC that was widely reported as evidence that "35% of covid cases had long-term illness". However, "long-term" here, is defined as "three weeks", and "illness" was defined as a spectrum of mild symptoms that resemble any flu-like illness, such as fatigue, cough and congestion: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm Even more specific studies have had serious problems. There have been a few reports of cardiac inflammation and other specific clinical signs in otherwise healthy people. To date, most of these have been debunked for statistical problems. For example, it was widely reported that Division I athletes were found to have heart inflammation after mild Covid-19 infections, which led the Big10 to start screening athletes with MRI before play. Subsequently, so few abnormalities have been found that doctors are now calling for the rule to be rescinded: https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol... https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1MTI4ODc0MjIyNzY1/hsc200003_annotatedproof.pdf https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1M... In short, the science of "long-term covid" exceptionally poor, and I caution you that most of what you're reading online is rumor and speculation.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Please provide a number instead of ‘so many’ and ‘it seems’. I’ve seen ‘so many’ alarmist stories on this but no statistics at all, this is turning me rather skeptical.
  - 6y ago
Vrondi 6y ago
No competent medical professional ever uses the term "herd immunity" in any instance where they are not talking about a vaccine. Without a vaccine to _create_ herd immunity, what you are proposing is just sitting back and willfully letting huge numbers of people die, willfully allowing the virus to mutate unchecked as it spreads unchecked, etc. You should really give this a listen: https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/herd-immunity/ https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/herd-immunity/
- macspoofing 6y ago
  And if there is no (reliable) vaccine?
- sxv 6y ago
  I tried to listen to this but the basis of their argument is "if one person dies it's too many", which is a knee-jerk reaction that fails to weigh the possible options and outcomes in a thorough manner. Note that the hosts are not specialists in this field and the vibe of the podcast is more comedy than science. I also take issue with your opening: "no competent medical professional ever", which is doomed to be a faulty generalization, and a name-calling one at that.
- markkanof 6y ago
  I've listened to Sawbones for a long time and finally had to give up. The shows does present some factual information, but also spins some things, and seem to primarily exist so the hosts can create a setting where they can "prove" how smart they are and insult anyone that doesn't agree with 100% of what they are saying. It just comes off as really mean spirited and not particularly informative or funny as they claim to be.
threeseed 6y ago
In Sweden it hasn't been reduced to near zero and the trend has it rising to 100+ a day. https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden People love to bring up Sweden but they have never experienced dealing with COVID-19 in winter where it is up to 20x more contagious as everyone moves indoors.
- timr 6y ago
  > In Sweden it hasn't been reduced to near zero and the trend has it rising to 100+ a day. That is incorrect. Sweden is currently seeing about 2,000 cases a day, and 5 deaths a day (7-day moving averages): https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ Today, they had thirteen deaths, nationwide, which was a statistically abnormal spike. The previous day was 1. The IHME site you are linking is reporting the output of a model, not actual data on deaths.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  Right now the average high in large parts of Sweden is below 0°C. And your link leads to data from the output of a model, not actual recorded deaths.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    It is showing actual historical recorded deaths and predicted future ones.

claudeganon 6y ago

>I would consider it the danger of lockdown. You would be objectively wrong? Basic reasoning would tell you that places with less cases have a lower probability of transmitting the disease to animal reservoirs and risking harmful mutations coming back at us. >With zero response - ie. what we do for influenza - we establish herd immunity over a short, sharp period, and the virus immediately falls over. This is also incorrect? We take a number of proactive actions against the flu every year, from vaccination, to other public health and treatment measures, to even more drastic steps like culling livestock populations where more dangerous strains have emerged. >So it makes sense to adopt the Swedish approach now, for a variant of the virus we know how to treat. We don't actually have any idea about the consequences of this mutation, especially in a larger population, so we should do the exact opposite and proceed with extreme caution until its risk profile is understood.

vecinu 6y ago

You mention the IFR but what about the long term implications of so many people catching COVID and having reduced lung capacity or long term damage? Can we please address this fact that scares a lot of us? We already know the death rate is low for groups that are not at risk but it seems even healthy people are suffering from "long COVID" with serious long term implications.

timr 6y ago
"what about the long term implications of so many people catching COVID and having reduced lung capacity or long term damage?" There is almost no evidence of either in mild-to-moderate cases of Covid-19 (i.e. the vast majority of cases). People who have been on ventilators, or hospitalized for extended periods due to severe illness are a different story, as ventilators themselves often cause lung damage. The scariest anecdotes that have been widely circulated online have come from ventilated or hospitalized patients with severe illness. Beyond these anecdotes, stories of "long covid" thus far are predominantly based on anecdote and self-reporting of symptoms, and the symptom profiles that you hear are frequently vague and/or unverifiable ("brain fog") and in most cases, not significantly different than you might see with any respiratory virus. For example, here is a report from the CDC that was widely reported as evidence that "35% of covid cases had long-term illness". However, "long-term" here, is defined as "three weeks", and "illness" was defined as a spectrum of mild symptoms that resemble any flu-like illness, such as fatigue, cough and congestion: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm Even more specific studies have had serious problems. There have been a few reports of cardiac inflammation and other specific clinical signs in otherwise healthy people. To date, most of these have been debunked for statistical problems. For example, it was widely reported that Division I athletes were found to have heart inflammation after mild Covid-19 infections, which led the Big10 to start screening athletes with MRI before play. Subsequently, so few abnormalities have been found that doctors are now calling for the rule to be rescinded: https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol... https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1MTI4ODc0MjIyNzY1/hsc200003_annotatedproof.pdf https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/cs_srgb/MTc2NDI1M... In short, the science of "long-term covid" exceptionally poor, and I caution you that most of what you're reading online is rumor and speculation.
tinus_hn 6y ago
Please provide a number instead of ‘so many’ and ‘it seems’. I’ve seen ‘so many’ alarmist stories on this but no statistics at all, this is turning me rather skeptical.
- 6y ago

Vrondi 6y ago

No competent medical professional ever uses the term "herd immunity" in any instance where they are not talking about a vaccine. Without a vaccine to _create_ herd immunity, what you are proposing is just sitting back and willfully letting huge numbers of people die, willfully allowing the virus to mutate unchecked as it spreads unchecked, etc. You should really give this a listen: https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/herd-immunity/ https://maximumfun.org/episodes/sawbones/herd-immunity/

macspoofing 6y ago
And if there is no (reliable) vaccine?
sxv 6y ago
I tried to listen to this but the basis of their argument is "if one person dies it's too many", which is a knee-jerk reaction that fails to weigh the possible options and outcomes in a thorough manner. Note that the hosts are not specialists in this field and the vibe of the podcast is more comedy than science. I also take issue with your opening: "no competent medical professional ever", which is doomed to be a faulty generalization, and a name-calling one at that.
markkanof 6y ago
I've listened to Sawbones for a long time and finally had to give up. The shows does present some factual information, but also spins some things, and seem to primarily exist so the hosts can create a setting where they can "prove" how smart they are and insult anyone that doesn't agree with 100% of what they are saying. It just comes off as really mean spirited and not particularly informative or funny as they claim to be.

threeseed 6y ago

In Sweden it hasn't been reduced to near zero and the trend has it rising to 100+ a day. https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden People love to bring up Sweden but they have never experienced dealing with COVID-19 in winter where it is up to 20x more contagious as everyone moves indoors.

timr 6y ago
> In Sweden it hasn't been reduced to near zero and the trend has it rising to 100+ a day. That is incorrect. Sweden is currently seeing about 2,000 cases a day, and 5 deaths a day (7-day moving averages): https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ Today, they had thirteen deaths, nationwide, which was a statistically abnormal spike. The previous day was 1. The IHME site you are linking is reporting the output of a model, not actual data on deaths.
_-___________-_ 6y ago
Right now the average high in large parts of Sweden is below 0°C. And your link leads to data from the output of a model, not actual recorded deaths.
- threeseed 6y ago
  It is showing actual historical recorded deaths and predicted future ones.