Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 193 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Comparisons of infections in communities in our first and second wave showed that there was no correlation between the two periods: heavily infected areas in the first wave did not grant any significant immunity for the second wave. The fraction of people infected in Belgium in that first wave is thought to be around 10%, so in some regions likely around 15%. At those percentages, herd immunity is fairly irrelevant, which probably indicates that cross-immunity is in turn not that high.
 
Jul 15, 2016
29
52
2,680

"Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 is the objective of most governments. It is of utmost importance to understand how effective various public health measures are. We study the effectiveness of face masks. We employ public regional data about reported severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections for Germany. As face masks became mandatory at different points in time across German regions, we can compare the rise in infections in regions with masks and regions without masks. Weighing various estimates, we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45%. As economic costs are close to zero compared to other public health measures, masks seem to be a cost-effective means to combat COVID-19."

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
I obviously don't know what NP is/was thinking, but "why now?" Maybe she kind of gave up and decided to take a little now, and hope for more in Jan? It is criminal how our elected people have handled this.
A lot of the protections are expiring at the end of the month.
Comparisons of infections in communities in our first and second wave showed that there was no correlation between the two periods: heavily infected areas in the first wave did not grant any significant immunity for the second wave. The fraction of people infected in Belgium in that first wave is thought to be around 10%, so in some regions likely around 15%. At those percentages, herd immunity is fairly irrelevant, which probably indicates that cross-immunity is in turn not that high.
I agree with you. It is hard to say that the people with cross reactive T cells don't benefit at all, but if they were really important in preventing infection, the data would look different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
I'm not a big fan of these worldometer mortality lists. They 'reward' countries that underreport. For instance, in the first wave, Belgium's declared covid mortality matched the excess mortality about 100%, while in The Netherlands, the reported mortality was only 60% of the excess mortality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
They have a book to sell you about that. Which is what he was flogging on the show.

The gist of it is that they think that 50% of people are already immune from prior seasonal coronavirus infections (very dubious IMO), so it is better to let people get infected until herd immunity is reached. This was more plausible in the summer when infections were really low in most places in Europe. The fall outbreaks have indicated that we are nowhere close to herd immunity in any country. As far as I can tell, Bhakdi only goes on friendly outlets where those pesky details are not discussed. His scientific arguments do not stand up to scrutiny IMO.

A reminder that for indoor dining 2 meters and 15 minutes are not magic numbers.

View: https://twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1334131904640131087
I touched on this when we were discussing air travel a while back: the HVAC systems can contribute to spread by pulling droplets/aerosols from one area to another so if you are sitting between the infected person and an intake, you might get more 'stuff' pulled into the air that you are breathing.
 
"Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 is the objective of most governments. It is of utmost importance to understand how effective various public health measures are. We study the effectiveness of face masks. We employ public regional data about reported severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections for Germany. As face masks became mandatory at different points in time across German regions, we can compare the rise in infections in regions with masks and regions without masks. Weighing various estimates, we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45%. As economic costs are close to zero compared to other public health measures, masks seem to be a cost-effective means to combat COVID-19."

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117
it's funny how anyone can mention Germany or the United States in reference to Mexico. Amlo has been a complete clown,about masks,treatment,prevention and vaccines..but the one thing that he doesn't,shouldn't,wouldn't mention is the " informal economy "


By most guesses inside and outside Mexico,more than 50% of the people work in the informal economy..meaning that they are not paying taxes ,are not getting services from the government and are allowed to wither and die..In the U.S.we say working under the table,or off the books both common terms, for the Mexican President, it's not like things were going well before the pandemic, mountains of lofty promises made to help get some people into the real economy,some hope of financial mobility and security..he is talking liberty BS but what he means is that the Mexican government has written you off, left you for dead, so you may just as well go into the street and sell food,souvenirs,wash cars, or do general labor, because the level of care or provisions from a coordinated response is the same..nothing..die trying basically.
 
Fauci statement has caused some trouble:


He said that the UK approved a vaccine sooner than the U.S. because the UK approval system wasn't as "careful" as that of the U.S. Other authorities were quick to point out that this could undermine public approval for the vaccine, and willingness to take it: "The allegation [from Fauci] is extremely damaging to public confidence when we already know [vaccine hesitancy] is high," commented one British academic.

Fauci then apologized, saying correctly, that the approval system in the U.S. is a little different from that in the UK, but then saying "I made it seem one was better than the other." He didn't make it seem that way, his use of the word "careful" definitely indicated the U.S. system is superior, certainly from the point of view of anyone concerned about safety.

The difference is mostly that the UK accepts the vaccine maker's final data, whereas the U.S. examines their raw data, and comes to their own conclusions. The U.S. also holds public meetings, which is the source of further delay. There is some question whether this really makes that much difference, whether, in the words of one British scientist, "one might argue that it's a delay that hasn't given any gains."

The bottom line is that any argument over the approval system is only going to reinforce in some people the concern that the vaccine might not be safe and/or efficacious. When he apologized, though, Fauci said that if the U.S. had approved a vaccine as quickly as the UK did, there would have been public repercussions about it being too soon. The politics of this is really messy. You have to roll your eyes at this statement:

UK Education Minister Gavin Williamson didn't help matters when he offered his own theory on how the UK had beaten the US and European allies to the punch on approving a vaccine. "We've obviously got the best medical regulators, much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have," he told London's LBC radio station Thursday. "That doesn't surprise me at all because we're a much better country than every single one of them."

Someone should ask him how the "much better country" is doing with Brexit.

But no death..no people gasping for air or going into cardiac arrest..we are just getting the watered down PG version, when we need a rated R, Scared Straight edition of devastation and destruction as the pandemic slaughters more today than ever before..

Well, this is a start:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
452
1,230
Fauci statement has caused some trouble:


He said that the UK approved a vaccine sooner than the U.S. because the UK approval system wasn't as "careful" as that of the U.S. Other authorities were quick to point out that this could undermine public approval for the vaccine, and willingness to take it: "The allegation [from Fauci] is extremely damaging to public confidence when we already know [vaccine hesitancy] is high," commented one British academic.

Fauci then apologized, saying correctly, that the approval system in the U.S. is a little different from that in the UK, but then saying "I made it seem one was better than the other." He didn't make it seem that way, his use of the word "careful" definitely indicated the U.S. system is superior, certainly from the point of view of anyone concerned about safety.

The difference is mostly that the UK accepts the vaccine maker's final data, whereas the U.S. examines their raw data, and comes to their own conclusions. The U.S. also holds public meetings, which is the source of further delay. There is some question whether this really makes that much difference, whether, in the words of one British scientist, "one might argue that it's a delay that hasn't given any gains."

The bottom line is that any argument over the approval system is only going to reinforce in some people the concern that the vaccine might not be safe and/or efficacious. When he apologized, though, Fauci said that if the U.S. had approved a vaccine as quickly as the UK did, there would have been public repercussions about it being too soon. The politics of this is really messy. You have to roll your eyes at this statement:



Someone should ask him how the "much better country" is doing with Brexit.



Well, this is a start:


If Fauci were an elected official many on this very thread would be calling for his prosecution. The syndrome is still driving many here.
 
"Coronavirus vaccine: Pfizer given protection from legal action by the UK government:"


"The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed the company has been given an indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine."

"In a press conference with journalists on Wednesday, Ben Osborn, Pfizer's UK managing director, refused to explain why the company needed an indemnity."

"He said: "We're not actually disclosing any of the details around any of the aspects of that agreement and specifically the liability clauses."


With statements like this it's no wonder some people will refuse to take the vaccines. But of course, these people will be labeled as "anti-vaxxers" and will be accused of not "stepping up to the plate" and doing their part.
 
Last edited:
This, actually, is extremely concerning and should be for everyone consuming oxygen on this planet.

Wow.
I just peeeed myself..Moscow Mitch and his other elephant riding minions argued,heated,life or death arguments about liability protection during the first round of Covid relief funds. At first it was the issue,but as things deteriorated, getting cash out in the economy,became paramount vs a political prize for legal protection for misdeeds,intentional or otherwise
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt