Maps, science, data & statistics tracking of COVID-19

[dragontamer5788]

But we need to remind ourselves that these treatments coming out are just that, immuno-treatments, not real and true vaccines.

What does this statement even mean?

What to Know About Coronavirus — COVID-19 Explained | Pfizer

What is Coronavirus? Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that may cause respiratory illnesses in humans ranging from common colds to more severe conditions such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).1

www.pfizer.com

The Pfizer's vaccine under discussion is an mRNA vaccine that stimulates true immunity. Earlier in this thread, we were worried that it'd come in at too low of an efficacy, but now we know that its looking like ~90% efficiency after two shots (and ~80% efficiency with one shot). I think people may be bearish on the duration of immunity (Flu vaccines only offer 6-months of immunity). But COVID19 seems like it already offers 7+ months of immunity, so maybe its long lasting. (We'll find out as studies continue. The virus hasn't been with us very long yet...)

IIRC: its still not perfect. It looks like it takes 28-days before the vaccine takes effect. (So you could get vaccinated, but then infected 2-week later, before the immunity kicks in). But hot damn, 90% efficacy is really, really good news. You have to go far off into the pessimism-side before you can really come up with any negativity from today's announcement.

Especially this:

Based on current projections we expect to produce globally up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Also fair points. But we need to remind ourselves that these treatments coming out are just that, immuno-treatments, not real and true vaccines.

What is important, whichever opinion you have is that we need to take a path, over time that gets us to the point where at least half of the population have either an immunity and/or will not transmit the virus, at that point according to most experts, the virus starts to be eradicated globally, herd immunity might be a solution to that but there remains insufficient evidence to support that (not the theory but in Covid-19's case the reality) and will cost lives, a vaccine, and this is just one of potentially 48 or so that we are talking about, some with different approaches where multiple vaccine's are likely to be eventually combined can also move us in that direction but with less risk, I try to see this not in the terms of route (vaccine or Herd immunity) but more in the destination (50%+ immunity)…… whatever gets me and my loved ones there the safest way works for me.

What is not known for sure yet for this 1st vaccine is, whilst the virus for most may be defeated and the carrier not get sick, can they still infect others, if they can then I would agree for this vaccine it would likely be a short term solution, unless of course everybody took it BUT, that short term solution would still save lives.

 

[lexluthermiester]

What does this statement even mean?

Well, it's actually really simple. How many times does a person get the smallpox, chicken pox or mumps vaccines? Once. Why? Because they are true vaccines. The flu shots they give out every year or so are not true vaccines because you need them frequently. That qualifies them as a "treatment", not a vaccine. Just because big pharma calls it such does not make it so. A true vaccine is something you only take once.

What is important, whichever opinion you have is that we need to take a path, over time that gets us to the point where at least half of the population have either an immunity and/or will not transmit the virus, at that point according to most experts, the virus starts to be eradicated globally, herd immunity might be a solution to that but there remains insufficient evidence to support that (not the theory but in Covid-19's case the reality) and will cost lives, a vaccine, and this is just one of potentially 48 or so that we are talking about, some with different approaches where multiple vaccine's are likely to be eventually combined can also move us in that direction but with less risk, I try to see this not in the terms of route (vaccine or Herd immunity) but more in the destination (50%+ immunity)…… whatever gets me and my loved ones there the safest way works for me.

Again, valid points all. I'm sensing that when I have said we should just take it on instead of trying(and failing) to hide from it that people think I mean we should take it full force in the face. This is not what I mean. We NEED to get on with life. Let it run it's course through the general population in a staggered formation, while we vigorously protect the ill, infirm and weak. Then when we have treatments in sufficient potency and volume we then take careful measures to expose those previously protected. Sooner or later it will hit everyone.

 

[claes]

Well, it's actually really simple. How many times does a person get the smallpox, chicken pox or mumps vaccines? Once. Why? Because they are true vaccines. The flu shots they give out every year or so are not true vaccines because you need them frequently. That qualifies them as a "treatment", not a vaccine. Just because big pharma calls it such does not make it so. A true vaccine is something you only take once.

This isn’t true — we don’t need regular smallpox vaccines because there aren’t regular outbreaks. If there were, a person at risk of exposure would need to get a booster shot every three years. Even then, it’s only 95% effective, which is great in my mind, but if 90% doesn’t meet your standards for Covid then maybe you have a double-standard?

Again, valid points all. I'm sensing that when I have said we should just take it on instead of trying(and failing) to hide from it that people think I mean we should take it full force in the face. This is not what I mean. We NEED to get on with life. Let it run it's course through the general population in a staggered formation, while we vigorously protect the ill, infirm and weak. Then when we have treatments in sufficient potency and volume we then take careful measures to expose those previously protected. Sooner or later it will hit everyone.

You make a claim, “we need to get on with life,” but don’t warrant it — what does it mean to get on with life? How do we do it? What is an acceptable loss of life? How do we protect higher-risk populations in the mean-time.

Herd immunity is not just an end goal, it’s a strategy. Everyone here agrees that it’s important that we achieve as much immunity as possible, the question is how — strategic countermeasures to manage outbreaks and limit deaths in localities as needed, or let the virus run it’s course while it kills hundreds of thousands?

You seem to be shifting to some balance between strictly stay-at-home orders and just letting the virus run free — what does that look like to you?

 

[R-T-B]

There is hope! Perhaps a blue election outcome can change the curve a little bit.... 264-214...

Unlikely, sadly, as there is no office change until January even if that theory were true. Trump will most likely stay the course as long as he can.

Just sayin' No politics beyond those simple facts about how the election works please.

 

[R-T-B]

Well, it's actually really simple. How many times does a person get the smallpox, chicken pox or mumps vaccines? Once. Why? Because they are true vaccines.

This is due to the diseaeses prevelance, not anything to do with the type of vaccine they are. Case in point: Rabies, if you want it, must be regularly boosted (same with dogs) because that disease is still all over in nature.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Sooner or later it will hit everyone.

There's literally a 90% effective vaccine with an expected 50-million doses (2-doses per person: so enough for 25-million people) before the end of 2020. And with over a billion doses (enough for >500 million people) coming in 2021.

And there's 3 more vaccines that are still being developed, that could speed the deployment of vaccinations / immunity, and prevent the disease. We're entering endgame already.

 

[Tatty_Two]

There is a degree of Herd Immunity support in the UK, it's a minority but has grown in numbers since we started a 2nd spike in September but their sense of "Protect the Old & Vulnerable" is to shield them, likely for a year or more and basically lock them away and whether intentional or not it comes across as "Let us do what we want, even if it means that 20% of the population has no life to pay for it".

I should add that I don't think Lex is saying that, however I would be interested how you protect them without heavily infringing on their freedom's, remembering we are not just talking about over 80's.

 

[claes]

We should be clear — “reopeners” are not advocating for herd immunity, which is a strategy to control spread to mitigate it’s impact and build immunity in a population through stay-at-home measures, social distancing, and vaccination. They’re simply advocating to do nothing, that it’s not big deal if some people die (they’re gonna die anyway).

Herd immunity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I don’t think lex is saying “do nothing,“ or that he thinks it’s okay if some populations die (he is not a eugenicist), but we should be clear about what a strategy of herd immunity is and isn’t, because there is a science to it. As lex correctly points out, we were able to manage things like measles and small pox because of herd immunity (not because of “true” vaccines with 100% efficacy, which as far as I know don’t exist for any disease). But letting the disease run its course, like others are advocating, isn’t a strategy for herd immunity, it’s a willful nihilism towards unnecessary and preventable death.

“Nations that put the entire onus on workers to reopen their economies rather than pursuing policies to defeat the virus (for example, US, Brazil, and Sweden) have the highest deaths per capita in the world. This clearly fits with a reopening narrative that is inherently eugenicist. Reopeners often claim that “only” 0.2 percent of children will die; that “only” people with pre-existing conditions like obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes will die; and that “only” the elderly will die. Reducing Covid-19’s harm to a death count is another way of saying, “suck it up and get back to work.” “

 

[Vayra86]

This isn’t true — we don’t need regular smallpox vaccines because there aren’t regular outbreaks. If there were, a person at risk of exposure would need to get a booster shot every three years. Even then, it’s only 95% effective, which is great in my mind, but if 90% doesn’t meet your standards for Covid then maybe you have a double-standard?


You make a claim, “we need to get on with life,” but don’t warrant it — what does it mean to get on with life? How do we do it? What is an acceptable loss of life? How do we protect higher-risk populations in the mean-time.

Herd immunity is not just an end goal, it’s a strategy. Everyone here agrees that it’s important that we achieve as much immunity as possible, the question is how — strategic countermeasures to manage outbreaks and limit deaths in localities as needed, or let the virus run it’s course while it kills hundreds of thousands?

You seem to be shifting to some balance between strictly stay-at-home orders and just letting the virus run free — what does that look like to you?

Intelligent lockdown. One could question the intelligence of it, but that is what we've been doing over here in the Netherlands for the most part. A bit half assed, but still. We're trying to find some sort of balance between risk and protection without turning everything to shit. That is in fact what most countries do, and its the inevitable consensus-outcome of any science board because all things are weighed and considered - if not today, then tomorrow when turning left creates a ton of noise about why we didn't turn right. Even behavioral sciences play a major role, because the way people respond and act upon measures is half as important as the measures themselves. You can look at the US for how not to do this.

The approach for the vast majority of countries is starting to look more and more alike, really. Forced by necessity from every angle. Its just so so sad, that all of it is a bit late and responsive rather than pro-active, I mean experts have been predicting much of this when the whole thing popped up. Scientific models have been correct every step of the way. Its remarkably similar to how we approach climate change at large: we postpone necessary action until shits really hit the fan and then we start building more fans The outcome of that approach is that we now need an exponential amount of fans in a much shorter period of time which creates its own set of problems, scarcity of labor and materials etc. Covid is exactly the same. By responding late, we're now 6 billion plus people begging for vaccination.

Another discussion beneath the surface of all those measures that will slowly creep up the longer it all takes, is what the acceptable cost is of a human life, also in terms of restrictions on everyone else. But approaching that discussion from the opposite angle, first happily ignorant and then making up the balance of what it cost you... that's clearly going nowhere at all.

 

[dragontamer5788]

The governor did the "obvious", and effectively rolled us back to Phase 2 (aka: 50% restaurant capacity) across the state, effective tomorrow night. Major cities and suburbs have gone further and closed down to 25% capacity in restaurants (equivalent to Phase 1).

The issue is the upcoming Thanksgiving break, its clear that whatever restrictions the Governor puts on us will last through Thanksgiving (or longer). But given this level of spiking, I think its reasonable to cancel Thanksgiving (or at a minimum: grossly scale it back. Immediate family only).

 

[lexluthermiester]

however I would be interested how you protect them without heavily infringing on their freedom's, remembering we are not just talking about over 80's.

Good point. We can't just lock them away. I was thinking more along the line of intensive hygiene routines, thorough personal residence cleaning and biohazard suits being worn by anyone(at risk citizens) that needs to go out into public followed by intensive clean-off staging upon return.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Good point. We can't just lock them away. I was thinking more along the line of intensive hygiene routines, thorough personal residence cleaning and biohazard suits being worn by anyone(at risk citizens) that needs to go out into public followed by intensive clean-off staging upon return.

In terms of the UK we are probably talking of around 3.5 million fall into this category, do you think that would work for the US where you may be talking more in terms of 20 - 25 million?

 

[the54thvoid]

Damn. We handled this well.

Covid: UK first country in Europe to pass 50,000 deaths

It is the first European nation to pass the landmark, with 595 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[HTC]

Damn. We handled this well.

Covid: UK first country in Europe to pass 50,000 deaths

It is the first European nation to pass the landmark, with 595 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

Portugal isn't much better: we beat our highest daily death toll by, 19 which now stands @ 82, and it's over twice as high as the 1st wave's highest, which was 35. If we scale today's daily deaths up to UK's population, that's roughly the equivalent of 540 deaths, which isn't far off what you're currently experiencing, and it should get far worse because the stupidly high number of cases hasn't yet translated in to hospitalizations, let along ICU and their ultimate consequences.

The REAL problem is money: to be more precise, it's the LACK of money. Does anyone thing that if countries could properly compensate EVERY single person forced to NOT work due to the pandemic, full lockdowns would already be in place for quite a while? It's because they can't that they are attempting to "be creative" with their restriction strategies ...

 

[EarthDog]

Our state Governor is going on TV today to talk about our state's numbers. They are terrible all around (deaths aren't skyrocketing yet) with several hospital systems already overwhelmed and more tracking that way. I'm afraid that he'll lock things down again. Sucks, but, if people weren't such...just wore masks and didn't hold small gatherings in the first place, we wouldn't be 'forced' to do this. Tired of the few borking things for the rest over 'rights'. So selfish.

 

[XZero450]

We've been at 25% capacity(seemingly as a recommendation) for nearly a month now and our numbers keep getting worse. Large wedding parties are still going on, bars are packed at night, people will wear masks to get by a greeter and then take them off once in an establishment(that serves food or not). Our governor will likely not do anything other than plea to the public because the state senate keeps filing lawsuits/contesting his authority whilst they refuse to meet in person(if they meet at all) and expect all of us to go about business as usual.

Some of our local school districts are starting to disregard the safe metrics they put in place to have kids in school and are bringing them back anyway. Not that it matters as parents are sending positive kids to school because "They aren't that sick." Completely missing the fact that it isn't about them, or their kids, as much as it's about other kids and relatives.

More infections = greater risk of mutation nullifying vaccinations.

It's probably a very good thing that Obamacare went in when it did with the legal restrictions forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions.. I would hate to see what privatized insurers would do with long term ailments linked to this virus, especially seeing as to how my state is responding/treating the virus.

 

[Space Lynx]

There is a degree of Herd Immunity support in the UK, it's a minority but has grown in numbers since we started a 2nd spike in September but their sense of "Protect the Old & Vulnerable" is to shield them, likely for a year or more and basically lock them away and whether intentional or not it comes across as "Let us do what we want, even if it means that 20% of the population has no life to pay for it".

I should add that I don't think Lex is saying that, however I would be interested how you protect them without heavily infringing on their freedom's, remembering we are not just talking about over 80's.

I think herd immunity should only be considered when the Pfizer vaccine is readily available to anyone who wants, and since a lot if not most people don't seem to want to take it, that shouldn't take long. Those who know or think they might be vulnerable can get the vaccine, and then if the rest of society wants to go hog wild with herd immunity I say go for it. As the vulnerable are no longer vulnerable, especially if the vulnerable continue to wear masks and isolate. The rest can go party will nilly, but to do so before the vulnerable have a chance to take the vaccine is selfish and rude imo.

You can't protect, some of them work in stores, some can't retire cause they still live paycheck to paycheck in old age, etc.

 

[lexluthermiester]

In terms of the UK we are probably talking of around 3.5 million fall into this category, do you think that would work for the US where you may be talking more in terms of 20 - 25 million?

Good points. However, even if the costs are high, it's better and less expensive than hiding away from everything.

Damn. We handled this well.

Covid: UK first country in Europe to pass 50,000 deaths

It is the first European nation to pass the landmark, with 595 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours.

www.bbc.co.uk

You're looking at that the wrong way, making blame on yourselves for a disease. Yes, there are precautions that can be taken but at the end of the day it's a virus that has proven impossible to control. Blaming ourselves will only make things worse.

Tired of the few borking things for the rest over 'rights'. So selfish.

From the perspective of some, that view seems just as selfish.

More infections = greater risk of mutation nullifying vaccinations.

That has and will happen anyway, not really something to worry about(because we can't stop it, so why worry).

 

[EarthDog]

From the perspective of some, that view seems just as selfish.

Sorry, but did you say it was selfish to wear a mask? How is wearing a mask selfish? How is a mandate that is designed to help others, selfish? I mean shame on the majority for trying to help those 10s of millions who are frail against this virus. To me, that's the ANTITHESIS of being selfish!

I don't get it, honestly. How friggin hard is it to wear a mask, really? The only difference is I'm not dramatically increasing the risk of infecting multiple people and potentially killing someone just by existing and not masking. It's that perspective that got us here today and is making things worse for tomorrow.

If the anti-maskers (and people who don't wear masks at small gatherings) and young didn't have all these get togethers, college parties, etc... we'd likely be in much better shape. Community spread is out of control. I fear now that the 'good news' about a vax came out, it's going to get even worse unless changes are made.. I expect those same anti-maskers and voluntary high-risk takers to now show even more bravado and care even less.

EDIT: No lockdowns in ohio again... but in a couple of weeks if things aren't trending, those high risk places (restaurants, bars, and gyms) will be closed.

 

[lexluthermiester]

and didn't hold small gatherings in the first place

I was referring to this, not the masks. Should have made that more clear.

How is a mandate that is designed to help others, selfish?

Narrow minded, ineffective and doing more harm than good.

I mean shame on the majority for trying to help those 10s of millions who are frail against this virus. To me, that's the ANTITHESIS of being selfish!

People who are frail should be the ones taking extra special precautions. Trying to guilt trip the rest of us for a virus that is easily transmitted and became unstoppable once it had left it's point of origin is more than a bit sad.

Once again it's time to reiterate, nothing is stopping this virus! It is everywhere! Our only choice is to live with it, to take it on and let it run it's course. Protecting the vulnerable is what we need to focus on. Not the whole populace, just the vulnerable. Shut-downs/lock-downs WILL NOT WORK! For such to work, every person on the planet would need to completely isolate and we would need to kill any and all animals that catch and carry the virus. That's just not going to happen. Calling ANYONE selfish for wanting to get on with life is itself an act of selfishness, not to mention foolish ignorance.

 

[robot zombie]

Protecting the vulnerable is what we need to focus on. Not the whole populace, just the vulnerable.

The two are arguably inseparable.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The two are arguably inseparable.

That is open for debate.

 

[claes]

Only if the debate is whether or not science is useful...

 

[robot zombie]

That is open for debate.

Well... yes, that's what I said But that is to say, it still remains to be seen how we would pick out every single vulnerable individual and somehow isolate them from the rest of society, which in that scenario, is assumed to be propagating the disease in a largely unhindered manner (that's how it's presented here in FL, anyway.) It would somewhat work, in theory. But we have NEVER managed that with any disease, without a vaccine. Barring that, there is no known way to simply keep the most vulnerable in any population from getting exposed. It gets extra difficult with a novel disease, because we don't necessarily have a reliable way to identify who is vulnerable. Not to mention, the most vulnerable people are as intertwined with society as everyone else. It is a logistical nightmare.

The point I'm really making is that part of protecting the vulnerable IS minimizing the spread among everyone else. It's the same approach we use with every disease we vaccinate for, only we don't yet have that accessible and effective vaccine. Not everybody can get certain vaccines, and some of those people will be extremely vulnerable. Others simply will not be successfully immunized. Everyone else gets vaccinated regardless of how low the chances are of them contracting it in the first place may be, let alone having a serious go of it... because it reduces the chances of that disease getting to the people who can't be protected otherwise exponentially. The vaccines are given to protect not only healthy people who are at lower risk, but the people who are much more vulnerable than them. Reducing the exposure risk is a large part of vaccination's MO.

And that seems like a small thing, but it is the number one thing that keeps many diseases from routinely knocking out sizeable chunks of vulnerable people who also share this world with the rest of us. Abstract that last sentence out: keeping the majority of people from getting a transmittable disease also keeps the smaller number who would otherwise die from that disease alive. Everything that we do is compensating for the lack of a vaccine - the intended effect is about the same in its nature.