9 ms·

I saw the news this week and the first stories were not about Covid. That is the first time I can remember, in a while. The pandemic is clearly coming to an en

I saw the news this week and the first stories were not about Covid. That is the first time I can remember, in a while. The pandemic is clearly coming to an end. Herd immunity or not, the systemic risk is going away in the US and other rich countries, leaving only the personal risk. If anything I wish the communication between the difference in systemic risk and individual risk had been better. People on Facebook have been talking about the 98% survivability for a long time. That sure sounds like a high number even though, a lottery with a 2% chance of winning sounds amazingly plausible. But the real risk has always been systemic. An exponential growth that overwhelms the healthcare system and leads to people dying, even those unaffected by Covid itself. Because they "chose" a day with an overwhelmed health care system, they may die when they have a heart attack or a traffic accident. With vaccination rates north of 60%, the systemic risk is gonna become smaller and smaller. As the article says, vaccinated people and people who have had it before will act as control rods for the reaction. Since Covid will not go away, the number of vaccinated will grow with vaccination efforts and the number who had it before will grow by itself. I strongly believe that most people on this planet are gonna be exposed to the spike protein, either through vaccination or Covid itself, herd immunity or no her immunity. I fell that makes an incredibly convincing case for vaccination, but I have not been able to convince any anti-vaxer with it, so there's that.

jonathanstrange 5y ago
I don't disagree with you, just want to mention that people on Facebook are very dumb if they think 98% survivability is a good rate, given how easily this disease is transmitted without stringent measures. Luckily, the estimated fatality rate with modern medical care is much lower.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  for an individual, it's "good" if you accept to have one chance over 50 to die of it. for a population, it's a lot of deaths. all depends if you think "you first" or "the other first"
  - soonnow 5y ago
    Well I just did a test with a tool for lung cancer risk. Assuming I smoked half a pack a day for 25 years and stopped at 40, my risk would be 1 in 1000. Yet noone would say it's "good" to smoke. Even if the risk is 10% of the risk of dying of COVID.
  - majewsky 5y ago
    A 2% death chance may look small on its face, but Covid is not the only thing you can die from. If you accept a 2% death chance ten separate times, your death chance overall is 18.3%. I bet those are numbers which a lot of people won't be comfortable with anymore.
nradov 5y ago
The current best estimate of worldwide infection survivability rate is now 99.77%. However the error bar on that number is rather wide. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/
- op00to 5y ago
  .3% is about the percentage of American population killed in in WWII.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Can you cite evidence this is the "current best estimate"? The author of that study has been downplaying COVID since the start. Here's him last March: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a... > If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. (We're at well over 500k now.) His estimates last April from Santa Clara, California were wildly inaccurate as well. https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-resu... > Skeptics have noted that the conclusions seem at odds with some basic math. In New York City, where more than 10,000 people, or about 0.1 percent of the population, have already died from Covid-19, this estimated fatality rate would mean nearly everyone in the city has already been infected. And this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis... > And in May, Ioannidis presented a picture of the virus’s deadliness based on antibody study data from around the world, including his Stanford study. This preprint was roundly criticized for including groups of patients who don’t reflect the general public and, in earlier versions, omitting data from large groups with higher fatality rates, among other errors.
  - nradov 5y ago
    If you have specific evidence that the numbers in that article are wrong then I recommend you contact the editors of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and let them know. https://www.who.int/bulletin/editorial_board/en/ https://www.who.int/bulletin/editorial_board/en/
antibuddy 5y ago
> I fell that makes an incredibly convincing case for vaccination, but I have not been able to convince any anti-vaxer with it, so there's that. People who don't want to be vaccinated with the new vaccines are not necessarily anti-vaxers tho. You didn't spell it out, but you speak about COVID in the previous sentence. Vaccination is also not meant to be some cult rite where you need to believe in it. It needs to be tested and that did not yet happen properly, so it is actually more sane to wait. This becomes even more important because even the basic mechanism is not studied for vaccinations long-term at all. In Germany they push for vaccinating kids which is especially cynical given they have a COVID death rate which is lower than the death rate of some established vaccines. And COVID vaccines have way higher death rates even by official numbers (which are the lower bound). Just to make it more obvious: In Germany in total 21 people died with/because COVID in the age of 0-19 (~15M pop in that age). Do you not see the insanity of this?
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Pfizer is in the process of completing the normal licensing process: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-initiate-rolling-submission-biologics https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... What's the next hurdle after that for being 'properly' tested?
  - grillvogel 5y ago
    vaccines are supposed to have years of testing to prove they are truly safe in the long term. your own link says pfizer is trying to extend the emergency use authorization to apply to younger people, nothing about completing approvals. true FDA approval is still years away.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      The headline is Pfizer and BioNTech Initiate Rolling Submission of Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval of Their COVID 19 Vaccine Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval is the final thing. The next step after that is safety monitoring of the fully licensed product. The 16 and over there is about the applicability of the resulting BLA.
christophilus 5y ago
I got the vaccine, but in retrospect, I should have waited. I should have gotten antibody tests first. A few things: my odds of dying from COVID in a given year are about the same as me dying in a car crash— and that is given the admittedly liberal COVID death stats. My very strong reaction to the first dose (the only one I took, in the end) suggests that I already had COVID and didn’t know it. It probably makes sense to test for antibodies before taking the vaccine. If you’re in a low risk category and have antibodies, I’d pass on the vaccine. The vaccine was rushed by all accounts, and I have personally participated in drugs that are now banned due to side effects not detected during more rigorous trials. It may take a long time before we know of serious side effects from the vaccines. On the other hand, it will take a long time before we can be confident the vaccines have no serious side effects (whose manifestations are delayed). No one knows at this point because due process was tossed (for good reasons). I think the rational thing to do is to look at what statistical group you are in. If you are high risk, get the vaccine. If not, wait. All of that to say, folks who are hesitating are not illogical antivaxers. I’ve got good friends with PHDs in microbiology and bioinformatics who are informed, intelligent, and divided on the topic. It’s plainly not black and white.
- hooande 5y ago
  Say a new variant emerges that has a 90% mortality rate. Would you still wait to get the vaccine because it was "rushed" and not fully tested? Would you rely on antibodies from the current variants? In that situation I would do whatever it took to get the vaccine. And I would feel extremely silly and irresponsible for doubting the science.
  - christophilus 5y ago
    You’re saying exactly the same thing as I am, I think? It’s a risk / reward calculation. A 90% chance of death would make the vaccine very attractive.
- soonnow 5y ago
  I mean I get it that there is some hesitation. I probably shouldn't have used anti-vaxer as that would indicate that every person who is against getting a COVID vaccine is against vaccines in general which is not true. But that is beyond the point. My point is, that you will get exposed to COVID either way, through vaccine or naturally. Looking at the numbers I'd rather take my chances with the vaccine. It sure seems a lot less risky.

jonathanstrange 5y ago

I don't disagree with you, just want to mention that people on Facebook are very dumb if they think 98% survivability is a good rate, given how easily this disease is transmitted without stringent measures. Luckily, the estimated fatality rate with modern medical care is much lower.

wiz21c 5y ago
for an individual, it's "good" if you accept to have one chance over 50 to die of it. for a population, it's a lot of deaths. all depends if you think "you first" or "the other first"
- soonnow 5y ago
  Well I just did a test with a tool for lung cancer risk. Assuming I smoked half a pack a day for 25 years and stopped at 40, my risk would be 1 in 1000. Yet noone would say it's "good" to smoke. Even if the risk is 10% of the risk of dying of COVID.
- majewsky 5y ago
  A 2% death chance may look small on its face, but Covid is not the only thing you can die from. If you accept a 2% death chance ten separate times, your death chance overall is 18.3%. I bet those are numbers which a lot of people won't be comfortable with anymore.

nradov 5y ago

The current best estimate of worldwide infection survivability rate is now 99.77%. However the error bar on that number is rather wide. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/

op00to 5y ago
.3% is about the percentage of American population killed in in WWII.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Can you cite evidence this is the "current best estimate"? The author of that study has been downplaying COVID since the start. Here's him last March: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a... > If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. (We're at well over 500k now.) His estimates last April from Santa Clara, California were wildly inaccurate as well. https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-resu... > Skeptics have noted that the conclusions seem at odds with some basic math. In New York City, where more than 10,000 people, or about 0.1 percent of the population, have already died from Covid-19, this estimated fatality rate would mean nearly everyone in the city has already been infected. And this: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis-trump-white-house-coronavirus-lockdowns https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis... > And in May, Ioannidis presented a picture of the virus’s deadliness based on antibody study data from around the world, including his Stanford study. This preprint was roundly criticized for including groups of patients who don’t reflect the general public and, in earlier versions, omitting data from large groups with higher fatality rates, among other errors.
- nradov 5y ago
  If you have specific evidence that the numbers in that article are wrong then I recommend you contact the editors of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and let them know. https://www.who.int/bulletin/editorial_board/en/ https://www.who.int/bulletin/editorial_board/en/

antibuddy 5y ago

> I fell that makes an incredibly convincing case for vaccination, but I have not been able to convince any anti-vaxer with it, so there's that. People who don't want to be vaccinated with the new vaccines are not necessarily anti-vaxers tho. You didn't spell it out, but you speak about COVID in the previous sentence. Vaccination is also not meant to be some cult rite where you need to believe in it. It needs to be tested and that did not yet happen properly, so it is actually more sane to wait. This becomes even more important because even the basic mechanism is not studied for vaccinations long-term at all. In Germany they push for vaccinating kids which is especially cynical given they have a COVID death rate which is lower than the death rate of some established vaccines. And COVID vaccines have way higher death rates even by official numbers (which are the lower bound). Just to make it more obvious: In Germany in total 21 people died with/because COVID in the age of 0-19 (~15M pop in that age). Do you not see the insanity of this?

maxerickson 5y ago
Pfizer is in the process of completing the normal licensing process: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-initiate-rolling-submission-biologics https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... What's the next hurdle after that for being 'properly' tested?
- grillvogel 5y ago
  vaccines are supposed to have years of testing to prove they are truly safe in the long term. your own link says pfizer is trying to extend the emergency use authorization to apply to younger people, nothing about completing approvals. true FDA approval is still years away.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    The headline is Pfizer and BioNTech Initiate Rolling Submission of Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval of Their COVID 19 Vaccine Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval is the final thing. The next step after that is safety monitoring of the fully licensed product. The 16 and over there is about the applicability of the resulting BLA.

christophilus 5y ago

I got the vaccine, but in retrospect, I should have waited. I should have gotten antibody tests first. A few things: my odds of dying from COVID in a given year are about the same as me dying in a car crash— and that is given the admittedly liberal COVID death stats. My very strong reaction to the first dose (the only one I took, in the end) suggests that I already had COVID and didn’t know it. It probably makes sense to test for antibodies before taking the vaccine. If you’re in a low risk category and have antibodies, I’d pass on the vaccine. The vaccine was rushed by all accounts, and I have personally participated in drugs that are now banned due to side effects not detected during more rigorous trials. It may take a long time before we know of serious side effects from the vaccines. On the other hand, it will take a long time before we can be confident the vaccines have no serious side effects (whose manifestations are delayed). No one knows at this point because due process was tossed (for good reasons). I think the rational thing to do is to look at what statistical group you are in. If you are high risk, get the vaccine. If not, wait. All of that to say, folks who are hesitating are not illogical antivaxers. I’ve got good friends with PHDs in microbiology and bioinformatics who are informed, intelligent, and divided on the topic. It’s plainly not black and white.

hooande 5y ago
Say a new variant emerges that has a 90% mortality rate. Would you still wait to get the vaccine because it was "rushed" and not fully tested? Would you rely on antibodies from the current variants? In that situation I would do whatever it took to get the vaccine. And I would feel extremely silly and irresponsible for doubting the science.
- christophilus 5y ago
  You’re saying exactly the same thing as I am, I think? It’s a risk / reward calculation. A 90% chance of death would make the vaccine very attractive.
soonnow 5y ago
I mean I get it that there is some hesitation. I probably shouldn't have used anti-vaxer as that would indicate that every person who is against getting a COVID vaccine is against vaccines in general which is not true. But that is beyond the point. My point is, that you will get exposed to COVID either way, through vaccine or naturally. Looking at the numbers I'd rather take my chances with the vaccine. It sure seems a lot less risky.