4 ms·

All previous VOCs hail from a timeframe when there weren't any vaccines rolled out yet. The highly vaccinated countries made up for a small share of the world p

All previous VOCs hail from a timeframe when there weren't any vaccines rolled out yet. The highly vaccinated countries made up for a small share of the world population over the entire timeframe in which mutations have arisen. In other words, there's no good control group here. > Sure, the 'naturally immune' sick people having extra N-targeting antibodies would be in an advantage vs the virus, but the cost of that is having a real corona infection earlier on, with all the risk simply being frontloaded. It's not a binary, when people get vaccinated and then infected (or vice versa), they do develop broader immunity. Frontloading the risk of infection versus vaccination may well be justified in the young and healthy population, but that opinion has been ostracized from the mainstream. > the Chinese vaccines are inactivated virus vaccines. One wonders whether they fare better or worse vs this variant. Not all of them are, but CoronaVac is. This[1] suggests that while efficacy of CoronVac against wild-type infection was modest (51%), the reduction when confronted with Gamma was very small (49.6%). > Then again, maybe this variant will fail to transmit effectively and will just kill itself off like Beta did. Beta didn't "kill itself off", it led to wave that rivaled Delta/Gamma in some cases. It ended up being outcompeted by Delta/Gamma. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-sinovac-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-sin...

yyyk 5y ago
>In other words, there's no good control group here. There isn't. We have to theorize on the move, so to speak. >Frontloading the risk of infection versus vaccination may well be justified in the young and healthy population, but that opinion has been ostracized from the mainstream. The problem is that people took the wrong assumptions when calculating the risk of disease. All our calculations of risk are based on hospital treatment being available: providing Oxygen, Dexamethasone and ECMO treatment to critically ill patients, and no extra deaths due to healthcare overload. No scenario when we 'let it rip' involves being able to give Oxygen to all young people who need it, and there will be extra deaths due to overload. The clever people suggesting intentional infection assumed risk factors dependent on current policies without understanding that under their policies risk would shoot up. >Beta didn't "kill itself off", it led to wave that rivaled Delta/Gamma in some cases. It ended up being outcompeted by Delta/Gamma. That's functionally equivalent to 'killing itself off', or at least being much less of a threat. I recall Beta's transmission factor was lower than Alpha? Was it because it missed some key mutations, or because mutating to avoid immunity came with a cost?
- incrudible 5y ago
  > No scenario when we 'let it rip' involves being able to give Oxygen to all young people who need it, and there will be extra deaths due to overload. This is highly speculative. Considering the exposure and infection rates among the younger population, particularly those of school age, can't we say we did let it rip? Infection seroprevalence in blood-donors was at 20% by July[1]. How much worse could it possibly be? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013?alert=article https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013?al...
  - yyyk 5y ago
    >How much worse could it possibly be? (Ominous music) >Infection seroprevalence in blood-donors was at 20% by July[1] Seriously though, two points: A) I have doubts about this measurement - that level (83.3% with antibodies!) should have been enough for herd immunity in May 2021, yet we don't see it in the US, cases being broadly static in the last month*. Perhaps American blood donors are highly nonrepresentative even after demographic adjustments? Or they're catching people with very low levels of antibodies but without true immunity? The paper is thorough regarding geographic and demographic factors, but isn't very clear on the technical details of the measurement itself beyond 'we did it, here are the results'. Or we could argue the US had herd immunity in May yet lost it two months after, that's not very encouraging, not even for 'natural' immunity. B) Assuming the researchers are correct, that's 20% for over a year. That's very different from having it way quicker. >can't we say we did let it rip? School closures, remote learning, masks even at that age. Obviously there have been (arguably way overzealous) efforts at controlling COVID even at the youngest ages. * There's a very recent fall, it's probably reporting lag - or it's really down, but per the research that should have already happened long ago.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > I have doubts about this measurement - that level (83.3% with antibodies!) should have been enough for herd immunity in May 2021, yet we don't see it in the US, cases being broadly static in the last month The 83% includes immunity from vaccination which, as we know now, is not sufficient for herd immunity. Natural immunity may not be sufficient either. > School closures, remote learning, masks even at that age. Obviously there have been (arguably way overzealous) efforts at controlling COVID even at the youngest ages. In many cases, schools didn't get closed during much of the Delta wave and incidence in the young population was particularly high. As for masks: They have a modest effect at best (20% risk reduction). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7021e1-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7021e1-H.pdf

yyyk 5y ago

>In other words, there's no good control group here. There isn't. We have to theorize on the move, so to speak. >Frontloading the risk of infection versus vaccination may well be justified in the young and healthy population, but that opinion has been ostracized from the mainstream. The problem is that people took the wrong assumptions when calculating the risk of disease. All our calculations of risk are based on hospital treatment being available: providing Oxygen, Dexamethasone and ECMO treatment to critically ill patients, and no extra deaths due to healthcare overload. No scenario when we 'let it rip' involves being able to give Oxygen to all young people who need it, and there will be extra deaths due to overload. The clever people suggesting intentional infection assumed risk factors dependent on current policies without understanding that under their policies risk would shoot up. >Beta didn't "kill itself off", it led to wave that rivaled Delta/Gamma in some cases. It ended up being outcompeted by Delta/Gamma. That's functionally equivalent to 'killing itself off', or at least being much less of a threat. I recall Beta's transmission factor was lower than Alpha? Was it because it missed some key mutations, or because mutating to avoid immunity came with a cost?

incrudible 5y ago
> No scenario when we 'let it rip' involves being able to give Oxygen to all young people who need it, and there will be extra deaths due to overload. This is highly speculative. Considering the exposure and infection rates among the younger population, particularly those of school age, can't we say we did let it rip? Infection seroprevalence in blood-donors was at 20% by July[1]. How much worse could it possibly be? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013?alert=article https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013?al...
- yyyk 5y ago
  >How much worse could it possibly be? (Ominous music) >Infection seroprevalence in blood-donors was at 20% by July[1] Seriously though, two points: A) I have doubts about this measurement - that level (83.3% with antibodies!) should have been enough for herd immunity in May 2021, yet we don't see it in the US, cases being broadly static in the last month*. Perhaps American blood donors are highly nonrepresentative even after demographic adjustments? Or they're catching people with very low levels of antibodies but without true immunity? The paper is thorough regarding geographic and demographic factors, but isn't very clear on the technical details of the measurement itself beyond 'we did it, here are the results'. Or we could argue the US had herd immunity in May yet lost it two months after, that's not very encouraging, not even for 'natural' immunity. B) Assuming the researchers are correct, that's 20% for over a year. That's very different from having it way quicker. >can't we say we did let it rip? School closures, remote learning, masks even at that age. Obviously there have been (arguably way overzealous) efforts at controlling COVID even at the youngest ages. * There's a very recent fall, it's probably reporting lag - or it's really down, but per the research that should have already happened long ago.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > I have doubts about this measurement - that level (83.3% with antibodies!) should have been enough for herd immunity in May 2021, yet we don't see it in the US, cases being broadly static in the last month The 83% includes immunity from vaccination which, as we know now, is not sufficient for herd immunity. Natural immunity may not be sufficient either. > School closures, remote learning, masks even at that age. Obviously there have been (arguably way overzealous) efforts at controlling COVID even at the youngest ages. In many cases, schools didn't get closed during much of the Delta wave and incidence in the young population was particularly high. As for masks: They have a modest effect at best (20% risk reduction). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7021e1-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7021e1-H.pdf