It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Covid-19 facts and data vs misconceptions.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:19 AM
a reply to: AceWombat04

originally posted by: AceWombat04


As you can see, cases and hospitalizations both fell despite dramatically increased testing over time.

This is a nice chart because it clearly demonstrates how New York has overcame the virus, the number of positive cases has clearly flat-lined due to herd immunity. Your next chart for Florida seems to show their case numbers are now higher than they've ever been, and it's pretty obvious that's because they over-flattened the curve. Your basic point is correct, just because more people are being tested doesn't mean more positive cases will be recorded, especially when the numbers are dropping like they were in New York. However if the number of cases are stable or rising then the number of positive cases recorded will also rise when the number of tests is increased. As you seem to imply, the most important thing is the total percentage of positive cases.

Asymptomatic transmission within communities, initially believed to be rare, is now thought to be a primary driver of covid-19 propagation, comprising perhaps more than 40% of all transmission.

This is just another reason why the death rates are being overestimated and why Covid-19 isn't anywhere as scary as it's portrayed to be, a large portion of people don't even realize they have it or they mistake it for a very minor cold or flu. Yes it does appear deadlier than the flu for for older people but we really have to get some perspective on this, there are many common viruses which can kill old people, especially if that person has another serious health condition, which they usually do. However if we allowed young people to gain a herd immunity while older folks self-isolated then we wouldn't be facing this situation now where 2nd waves are threatening high risk groups.

Last year's flu season may have killed as many as 62,000.

Covid-19 associated deaths in the U.S. alone currently stand at approximately 140,000 since the first known death in early February... a period of just over five months. Covid-19 has killed more than twice as many Americans in five months than the flu did all last year.

A key point to realize is that the flu deaths and Covid-19 deaths are recorded very differently. According to the CDC influenza is rarely listed as a cause of death and isn't even required to be reported for people over 18, whereas doctors are directed to list Covid-19 on the death certificate even if it's only suspected the patient had Covid-19. If a person tests positive for Covid-19 and then dies of another pre-existing condition, they must still include Covid-19 on the death certificate, which then counts towards the Covid-19 death statistics.

It was widely reported that around 99% of the people who died from Covid-19 in Italy had at least one or more serious underlying health condition and the average age of those who died was about 80, but they are all counted in the death statistics for Covid-19. It doesn't work anything like that for the flu so it's difficult to compare the numbers. However it's quite clear, as many experts have been saying, that we have overestimated the severity of Covid-19, and it could easily be overestimated by more than a factor of two, making it less deadly than the flu overall.

According to the best data we have (no data is perfect,) deaths from all causes - even disregarding covid-19 - increased dramatically in 2020 concurrent with the first surge of cases. (We do not yet know whether a similar increase will follow the second surge currently underway.)

I don't think anyone is really denying that Covid-19 kills people, any time a new virus pops up I would expect it to increase the total number of deaths. However, as others have already pointed out, I hardly believe all of those deaths are solely due to Covid-19. As hard as it may be for you to grasp prolonged lockdowns and widespread unemployment does have a very hard impact on many people. I have several close family members and friends who have lost their jobs and one is now homeless, but I still haven't met anyone who even knows of someone who died from Covid-19, so the real threat is clear to me.

An oft repeated assertion is that deaths being attributed to covid-19 are actually deaths secondary to other causes, or are being fabricated without evidence. In addition to the above chart effectively refuting that claim (as it counts deaths due to all causes, not just covid-19, and clearly demonstrates a spike coincident with the virus cases surging,) we can also simply look at what the criteria are for "suspected" (non-confirmed) covid-19 deaths.

Having clearer guidelines for suspected cases can't invalidate any of the points I previously made. I don't necessarily think it's bad to meticulously count every suspected Covid-19 case so we have more detailed data, but we can't then compare that data with things like the flu and expect to reach meaningful conclusions. The fact is a large percentage of people who die with Covid-19 have some pre-existing condition or are older than 80 and could just as easily die from other common bugs. On top of that I have now seen multiple cases where the MSM claims a person (usually a child) has died from Covid-19 but upon further investigation it turns out to be completely unrelated.

I don't really care about the fact hospitals get paid for each Covid-19 case, I trust doctors enough to know when they have a real positive case, but I'm also hearing a lot of doctors and nurses saying they strongly disagree with the protocol they are being made to follow. Not only the way they are made to record the deaths but the way they are forced to skip straight to using ventilators rather than start with less invasive measures which would normally be used. However their opinions are instantly censored from the internet faster than I've seen anything censored before. They still exist though and and I'm more than willing to locate them if you want.

To believe these deaths aren't real and significant is to believe that medical examiners, coroners, doctors, individual hospitals, and armies of diagnostic techs are all conspiring to mislead you, or just that incompetent. And that simply isn't true.

I don't think the deaths are insignificant, just not significant enough to warrant the extreme measures which were taken. Like I said, I've also seen doctors who have differing opinions, there isn't just one unified expert opinion. There may be a mainstream majority opinion or official opinion but I find both of those opinions are often lacking legitimacy regardless of how many people believe it. In todays world I certainly don't buy this argument that we should just trust whatever the majority opinion is. I also don't believe for a second they couldn't align to have similar talking points, especially now this topic seems to have become political.

Continued below ...
edit on 19/7/2020 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:19 AM

It is an oversimplification to say, "School age children do not get sick with covid-19 and do not transmit it." The reality, as always, is much more nuanced, and those nuances have consequences.

The latest data from the CDC shows that 95% of Covid-19 deaths are people aged 50 years or older. People under 18 years old account for 0.3% of the deaths and a significant portion of those children had serious pre-existing conditions. I'm not saying "I'm still young and healthy so I don't need to worry about it", obviously we need to value the life of everyone. I'm just saying we need to have a bit of perspective, for example a common stomach bug called Norovirus kills between 570 to 800 kids each year in the US according to the CDC, yet the first child death linked to Covid-19 wasn't reported until May and this recent Politifact article states there are 29 recorded deaths for people under the age of 14.

I am a firm believer in respect and compassion for people who struggle with mask use for legitimate reasons. Too often I see people immediately attack those who are suffering from obvious and very real anxiety symptoms or even mechanical impediments to breathing (or the subjective perception thereof which is still a real concern regardless of actual health impacts) while wearing masks. These are real concerns even if there is no legitimate danger inherent to wearing masks for the vast majority, and attacking people is not going to increase mask compliance.

Wearing a mask for any reasonable amount of time does impact my breathing, but my main issue is simply the fact I'm not willing to live in fear. I trust my immune system enough to protect me if I do get Covid-19, at which point I would self-isolate until I recovered to protect other people. However you can not expect the entire world to become some sort of perfectly sterile clinic until we figure out some sort of solution because it just isn't going to happen, I refuse to partake in this dystopian nightmare. You'll probably say something like "denying it doesn't make it go away", but when the disaster is so man-made it does help to ignore the fear-mongering.

Soap and water is more effective than sanitizer. If you use sanitizer, ensure it contains 60% or greater alcohol content. Above all, wash thoroughly, for at least 20 seconds, and pay particular attention to areas commonly missed (nail beds, wrists, under the fingernails, between fingers, backs of the hands, etc.) The scrubbing action is important. As is thoroughness. There's a reason doctors and surgeons have specific hand washing techniques. Follow their example, be thorough. Do it frequently, do it correctly.

Nope this isn't going to happen either, I'm not going to constantly wash my hands like a crazy person, the only time I will is after I use the bathroom or eat a meal or anything else that may get my hands legitimately dirty. There are common viruses which threaten my life more than Covid-19 such as Norovirus but I still have to rely on my immune system because we have no vaccine for Norovirus. I'd much rather have the cough or flu-like symptoms which come with Covid-19 than subject myself to constant vomiting and diarrhea. It's why I never get a flu shot, besides rarely getting the flu, I'd rather have a runny nose for a couple of days over getting jabbed.

Natural herd immunity is not a solution. We need a vaccine and high vaccine compliance to beat this.

Not just because of the immense toll it would require - some 2.2 million deaths assuming a 1% mortality rate (which we don't know yet) for 70% of the population to naturally become seroconverted - but because natural immunity doesn't appear to last.

While we don't yet know with certainty if this is true for SARS-Cov-2 (the virus causing covid-19,) we know with certainty that other coronaviruses can reinfect people. Sometimes multiple times in the same year.

As I pointed out earlier, herd immunity has clearly been achieved in many places and it didn't require millions of deaths. The places where herd immunity hasn't been achieved are those places now experiencing a second wave, that fact is well demonstrated in my thread about over-flattening the curve. Once again I will not be taking any vaccine, especially if it's developed on a rushed time-line. It typically takes at least several years to properly test a vaccine and we simply cannot wait that long, meaning if we do get any vaccine it will be highly experimental. I'd rather trust my immune system which was developed over billions of years.

The natural immunity clearly is long lasting in most people or the cases wouldn't be dropping like a stone in the places which were hardest hit. Sure we don't know exactly how long the immunity will last, but not much immunity does last forever, that's why people get yearly flu shots. Viruses evolve and mutate, allowing them to circumvent our immunity, but that doesn't mean the concept of herd immunity is invalid. Our immune systems co-evolve with the virus so that we can both co-exist, for example a virus which is too deadly will often kill victims too quickly and prevent it from spreading so they become less deadly, it happens with most common viruses including the flu.

In either case, any successful vaccine will likely require adjuvants of other means of provoking stronger and hopefully longer lasting immune responses in recipients.

I don't know why you would have so much faith that humans can create something with longer lasting protection than the immune system we evolved, let alone create something which works and is safe within a fairly short period of time. If we continue on this path our immune system is going to become some sort of relic left over from a time when we didn't completely rely on vaccines, our bodies wont even know how to properly function without them. I have nothing against people who choose to take a Covid-19 vaccine but I will have serious issues if anyone tries to force it upon me. If I felt Covid-19 was a true superbug I probably would consent, but it's no such thing.

Absent some kind of sustained support for businesses and employees alike, sustained shutdowns are not tenable as a solution. However, it's clear that claims that economic downturns - even outright depressions - would inevitably lead to more deaths, are simply not true in and of themselves.

Whatever bs "facts" you pulled up to support this argument are wrong for very obvious reasons. The government cannot provide endless support for businesses, therefore a sustained shutdown is not tenable. When people are lining up for a loaf of bread trust me there will be more death. The core point is we didn't need to have a major financial collapse combined with a pandemic, countries like Sweden proved young people could have kept working while older people stayed home. Yes Sweden was hit pretty bad but the UK and Italy were still hit harder because the primary issue is population density, hence why New York was also the hardest hit place in the USA.
edit on 19/7/2020 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 09:24 AM
Until we have a method to stop the lies and misdirections our world is @ risk.

There is not this much distance between sentences in this story....someone is stirring the pot and we all know it but cannot stop it.

First Dr. and Researcher and Hospital that is sued for lies told and acted upon will stop this landslide of graft and lies.

These issues cannot be dealt with in a normal court of law for thse have all been bastardized and weaponized againbst the people over several Generations so the damage runs so deep we cannot take that route.

We need a court of law where facts are found and needless useless debate and process are eliminated.

We need a Global Court....Global Trials...a Global co-operative effort to wipe all of these People and their weaponized processes and Programs off the face of our good Earth.

This is not about "correcting" anything or "discovering " anything....its about identifying and remediating the Global Group that has gone to war against all of Humanity.

This is about ending a war....not problem solving....we know where the problem is....we now need to remediate it permanently.

Anyone who thinks lies of ommission will not result in remeditions is fooling themselves.

The money will show us who represents the Head of the every case it will take us to those who now must answer for their acts of war on Humanity.

Particulate size is not difficult to discern....classifying particulate size is not rocket fact the science part is has been weaponized and bastardized to confuse us all....but once you peel back the layers f graft and acts of overt war you see how simple it has all really been......only by lies and suppression have we ended up where we other reason...lies and suppressions actioned by a Group trying to make money and gain power.

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 06:01 PM
No compelling evidence exists for herd immunity to SARS-Cov-2 in New York - or anywhere else

Herd immunity occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become seroconverted and sufficiently immune that transmission becomes for all practical purposes unsustainable, and so few people remain vulnerable or capable of transmission, that significant protection from infection is conferred to the community as a whole, not just those with immunity. What this percentage is depends upon the infectiousness and ease of transmission of given pathogens, and for covid-19 estimates range from 50% to 67%.

The best data we currently have on seroprevalence in New York (which is just a preprint - there is no high quality, peer reviewed, published data on this at all currently - and only applies to NYC, not the state as a whole) is that an estimated 19.3% of the NYC population exhibited seroconversion by April 19th.

The only public statement by any expert extrapolating from that to today estimates 25% exposure in NYC.

Those aren't particularly high quality sources, but the point is that no source we have suggests herd immunity has been achieved in NY, and the only credible ones we do have suggest the opposite. Even assuming the 25% estimate is correct, that means we're only halfway to the lowest estimate of what would be required to achieve herd immunity in New York... and getting this far has already cost New York more than 32,000 lives. (27,000 of which died in a two month period.)

Daily confirmed cases in NY County - not the state as a whole, just NY County - have never fallen below 189 cases. For comparison, that is higher than daily infections - even now - in San Francisco, where no one would suggest herd immunity is even close to being achieved. The 14 day daily confirmed case average in NY County is 335.

Most importantly though, the infection rate in New York has risen above 1 again, and is climbing, albeit stable.


Infection in NY is increasing among younger patients as well, as we've seen elsewhere throughout the country.

While the infection rate is laudably (and thankfully) stable, this does not herd immunity make. On the contrary, by definition, continued transmission and increasing infection rate demonstrate lack of herd immunity.

This is also true in Europe and elsewhere, even after flattening their curves.

This may be largely moot regardless however, given, as stated in my original posts...

Lasting herd immunity to SARS-Cov-2 is far from certain

Reinfection and rapidly waning immunity is a hallmark of coronavirus infections in humans.


Neutralizing antibodies wane rapidly in covid-19 patients.


This does not necessarily mean that immunity as a whole declines rapidly, as memory cells may remain capable of rapidly mounting an immune response on rechallenge. It does, however, mean sustained, long term immunity is far from certain. And that would be consistent with what we know of other coronavirus infections in humans.

Even assuming a 0.6% IFR - much lower than CFR estimates, and takes into account best current estimates of asymptomatic and undiagnosed cases based on seroprevalence data (Source - but would still mean a final IFR 500% greater than influenza, incidentally) and herd immunity's lowest estimated requirement of 50% exposure, achieving herd immunity nationally would result in 984,000 American deaths.

And that, again, assumes natural immunity lasts without maintenance via vaccination. Which is far from certain at this point.

edit on 7/19/2020 by AceWombat04 because: added source for European seroprevalence

edit on 7/19/2020 by AceWombat04 because: typo

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:24 PM
a reply to: Boadicea

I had to put my father in a nursing home last year and I am very grateful he died before all this covid started . I was able to be there so he wasn't alone , and I think about those that were and their families . Sorry about your friend , I do believe you will see him again someday .

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:29 PM
a reply to: ScepticScot

I may be medically ignorant but covid and flu are both viruses and mask should effect them both the same way .

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 08:25 PM
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

Thank you for the warm thoughts, but to be clear it was the poster I was responding to who lost their dear friend... I hope they see this and know they were meant for them.

I've thought the same about my mother, who passed in a nursing home the year before your father. I'm very relieved and grateful that she did not have go through this at all, and especially in a nursing home.

And like you, my heart hurts for everyone put in that position. It's hell for everyone affected.

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 04:28 AM
a reply to: AceWombat04

Those aren't particularly high quality sources, but the point is that no source we have suggests herd immunity has been achieved in NY, and the only credible ones we do have suggest the opposite. Even assuming the 25% estimate is correct, that means we're only halfway to the lowest estimate of what would be required to achieve herd immunity in New York... and getting this far has already cost New York more than 32,000 lives. (27,000 of which died in a two month period.)

I really don't see any other way to explain why the cases dropped so fast and why the exact same trend is seen with every hard hit location. It also doesn't explain why the hardest hit places are not seeing a 2nd wave while places that over-flattened the curve are seeing a 2nd wave. I don't disagree that herd immunity probably takes at least 50% of people to be infected, however if we take into account all the asymptomatic people who didn't know they were infected and never got tested then I think it's very possible 50% or more of people have been infected. If only 25% of people have been infected in NY then there's clearly some other mechanisms at play here which is allowing people to overcome the virus, and I wouldn't necessarily rule that out because we still have a lot to learn about how these things work, however I'm more inclined to believe it's herd immunity.

Daily confirmed cases in NY County - not the state as a whole, just NY County - have never fallen below 189 cases. For comparison, that is higher than daily infections - even now - in San Francisco, where no one would suggest herd immunity is even close to being achieved. The 14 day daily confirmed case average in NY County is 335.

NY City, just the city, has a population around 8.4 million, which is 1/3 of Australia. San Francisco only has about 900 thousand people, so overall it would seem to me NYC is currently doing better than San Francisco. Just yesterday Fauci praised New York for it's handling of Covid-19, which is absolutely hilarious considering they were the hardest hit place in the US, he's basically trying to take credit for the natural immunity which has now occurred. As I said in my thread about herd immunity, it's undeniable that people packing onto beaches in the UK and people protesting across the UK would cause an uptick in the data unless herd immunity had been achieved, yet the numbers were falling at that time. There's also the fact that lockdowns have been easing over the last month in the UK and most places in the world, and there's a clear trend indicating the places experiencing a new surge of cases are those which over-flattened the curve.

Most importantly though, the infection rate in New York has risen above 1 again, and is climbing, albeit stable.

Don't really know how they produced that graph considering I cannot find any data from any source which shows a rise of cases in New York. Maybe some people are spreading it to more people now that social restrictions are easing, but I can't see any data showing a rise in cases or a rise in deaths. Either way the point I'm making is very clear, the primary outbreak was far larger than anything being experienced in New York now. Once again we also have to take into consideration the population size, 335 cases per day seems very reasonable considering the state of NY has a population close to 20 million. How many flu cases are there per day on average? How many children die each day from the flu on average compared to Covid-19? There are "facts" and "studies" to support almost any position you want these days, the real trick is learning to see through the bias to get to the truth using logic and critical thinking.
edit on 20/7/2020 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 04:31 AM
everyone willingly threw their freedoms away for a fabricated BS scare story. pathetic.

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:18 AM
Understanding what herd immunity is and is not
Herd immunity occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population becomes seroconverted and immune as to make transmission highly unlikely even among vulnerable and immunocompromised persons, because the proportion of the population already immune makes transmission highly unlikely.

Examples of true herd immunity, in this case vaccine mediated, are Smallpox and Measles. Both of which are far more infectious and easier to transmit than SARS-Cov-2. Measles has an estimated r0 of 12 to 18 Source Smallpox has an estimated r0 of 3.5 to 6. (A source of great concern due to increasingly lax vaccine compliance should it ever reemerge.)

This year in the U.S. there have been 12 confirmed Measles cases thus far. Last year there were 1,282, the largest outbreak since 1992. Source Smallpox is considered to be eradicated.

Yet in both of those diseases - one usually exhibiting outbreaks only in the hundreds annually, and the other eradicated entirely - herd immunity is considered by epidemiologists to be waning due to lower vaccination compliance (and the simple passage of time.) Last year's measles outbreak is considered a sign of failing herd immunity, despite less than 1500 cases, for a disease far more infectious and easier to transmit than Sars-CoV-2.

Daily covid-19 confirmed cases in New York, again, remain in the hundreds, with the 14 day average in New York County alone being 355. Infection rate is positive and rising or stable at best. This is by definition not considered herd immunity in epidemiology. This isn't a matter of interpretation or semantics. This is sustained community transmission, by definition.
edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: typo

edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: Typo

edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 09:19 AM
The best part is that we can debate about the size of a dropplet and fake charts for months while professionals are being silenced on big tech platforms and time is against us. Why do you even trust the numbers when the scam is organized or at least run by globalists, WHO in conspiration with CCP, CDC, FDA and leftist EU deep states? Every chart could be faked at this level of insurgance. Is there anyone left believing the global warming charts? Only the CO2 taxes are real. With the same infrastructure of traitors behind this why would you scratch your head trying to debunk each claim?
At this point it's easier to believe that a virus was cooked by Fauci, Gates and Jiang Zemin in the Wuhan lab.
I'd try to get the collaborators on the recieving end of the Chinese organ harvesting. There's a good chance It's the same people.

Anyone remember the vid from January where dozens of Chinese had covid seizures on some freaking backyard? Why it's not happening everywhere? Thanks to a piece of underware on a face? Why would they make and leak the vids?

In my country they turned the masks off and on again because of 50 new "cases". There's only 131 hospitalized out of 10 million of which 10 they put on a ventilator. They may be 100 years old cancer patients after a stroke. It's not happening here yet the budget deficit is around 30% of treasury income so far. I've seen no money touching the ground. If there is a free pie it should be a proper commie pie like in America.😛 Where's the line? To get a fine is easy. They take your money, make you obey and give it to their people. It's a gift that keeps giving. Who needs to win the election anymore. It works with Trump in office. It's even better

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 05:10 PM
a reply to: Boadicea

it is clear , I may have replied to the wrong person

posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 10:59 AM
The impact of social distancing, reduced encounter density, and both voluntary and mandated risk avoidance behaviors

Social distancing measures reduced the daily growth rate by lowering the effective reproduction rate progressively the longer they remained in effect, and likely prevented millions of additional infections.

Adoption of government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the daily growth rate by 5.4 percentage points after 1–5 days, 6.8 after 6–10 days, 8.2 after 11–15 days, and 9.1 after 16–20 days. Holding the amount of voluntary social distancing constant, these results imply 10 times greater spread by April 27 without SIPOs (10 million cases) and more than 35 times greater spread without any of the four measures (35 million).


Another study controlling for selection method and performing analysis across hundreds of counties and 8 states found this to remain consistently true as well.

This was also the case in Europe and the UK.


While the above data specifically measures mandated distancing controls, data suggests voluntary distancing preceded mandates in many instances and had a significant impact on encounter density and exposure avoidance, particularly via indoor dining and bars, which we know to be among the optimal transmission environments.


Indeed, one global economic analysis suggests that the effects of mandated SIPOs are "dwarfed" by those of voluntary self-restrictions born of personal prudence (with the reverse also being true when compliance falls.)

In the U.S., it is worth noting also that a macroscopic national view obscures variable impact across individual states and communities. Data suggests the greatest benefits of shelter in place orders and voluntary distancing are reaped by 1) higher population density areas, and 2) early adopters.

... this average effect masks important heterogeneity across states — early adopters and high population density states appear to reap larger benefits from their SIPOs.


The above sources outline clear, high confidence interval data analysis on the impacts of distancing - both voluntary and mandated - and other measures on initial early 2020 surges. Less clear thus far is causal implications for easing those measures on the current surges underway. There, thus far, there is correlation but not yet established causation.

The effects of reopening

As stated, there is little data on the effects of reopening on virus propagation thus far, as data on the new surges remains scarce in terms of studies on the dynamics underlying them. Data on population movement and encounter density is more readily available, but - again as stated - correlation is not causation.

Still, here is what we can see so far.

Restaurant reservations have steadily increased since the easing of the most stringent restrictions.


Commercial flights (and all flights) have steadily begun to recover as well.


Infection rates and hospitalizations are rising among younger patients, which may be one factor in what was until recently a steady decline in daily deaths. For example, in Florida the median age of positive cases was 65 in March. It's now 39.

This is also true in New York, where cases are declining among those over 40, but rising among those in their 20s, driving the aforementioned positive (but thankfully stable) infection rate back above 1.

Sour ce

We see the same in California.

It is a trend we see nationally as well. Despite this resulting in a shallower trajectory than we saw in the first surge, both hospitalizations and deaths have now begun to rise again.


Assuming lasting herd immunity is achievable, how close are we nationally to that?

According to a new analysis, national seroprevalence ranges from 1% to 6.9% regionally.
Which is consistent with the CDC's most recent estimate of between 6 and 8 percent, or around 20 million people including unconfirmed cases.
And with one model's estimate of 8.5% total infections.

Of note, the highest confirmed representational seroprevalence found in the study, as expected, was in New York state, at around 6.9%. Which is unsurprising given New York city's previous 19.3% seroprevalence finding.

edit on 7/21/2020 by AceWombat04 because: Typo

edit on 7/21/2020 by AceWombat04 because: Added link

posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 01:12 PM
The last things I'm going to post.

Cardiac involvement in fully recovered, non-elderly patients, with no preexisting conditions

In a controlled study specifically excluding patients with preexisting conditions, as well as excluding patients with cardiac symptoms or referrals (so as to avoid selection impact on the study,) 60% of otherwise fully recovered covid-19 patients between the ages of 45 and and 53 (IQR age 49) had ongoing myocardial pathology and inflammation directly consequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of disease severity and duration.

Children over the age of 9 or 10 transmit the virus just as readily as adults

As earlier data also suggested, further data continues to support the fact that children above the age of 9 or 10 readily shed virus, which has implications for community transmission to vulnerable populations.

Children younger than age 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10-19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do.

“I fear that there has been this sense that kids just won’t get infected or don’t get infected in the same way as adults and that, therefore, they’re almost like a bubbled population,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Minnesota.

“There will be transmission,” Osterholm said. “What we have to do is accept that now and include that in our plans.”

A large South Korean study of 65,000 people concluded that children aged 10-19 (with a 95% confidence interval) are just as likely as adults to transmit the virus.

Children were found in one analysis to be three times as likely to be infected when schools were open, and school closures can reduce peak incidence during surges by 40% to 60%.

A large highschool outbreak

Masks work (take 3)

Mentioned earlier in the topic, face shields are better than nothing, but not a replacement for masks. Here is another example of why. In a recent Swiss outbreak, "only those with plastic visors were infected." Among those wearing masks, 0% were infected.

That is also one of many, many examples now cited in medical literature of masks either preventing infection in outbreaks, or reducing the severity of infection in those infected, due to reduced initial viral exposure.

Further support for this exists in that despite knowing (see previous posts and citations) with increasing confidence that asymptomatic cases account in general for 35% to 45% of total infections, in instances of universal masking, asymptomatic infections in outbreak populations that comprise natural experiments, is as high as 80% to 95%. We see this again and again in cases like this one:

And this one (this article doesn't cite it specifically, but universal masking was enforced at the Tyson plant in question):

Prevention of all transmission via masking is impossible, but reduction of transmission and disease severity is clearly documented.

Neither N95 masks nor surgical masks nor cloth masks provide perfect protection, but all provide significant protection when used correctly and in tandem with other infection controls such as hand washing.

These are non-political scientific observations. Neither I nor the virus care who we vote for, what region of the political science spectrum we occupy, or what we believe in. Everything posted in this topic up to this moment consists of straightforward factual, empirical observations and data (and some articles reporting them.) Nothing more. The less total transmission, and the less severe disease, the fewer deaths there will be. This is not a personal opinion. It is a self-evident fact.

Now that I am concluding my posts on ATS though, I will state my personal opinion and feelings, one final time, for the record. I have never insulted or belittled a single person on this site. Not once. Not so much as in a single disagreement. There is no one here I consider my enemy, or that I bear ill will. I have always been as honest, direct, and respectful as humanly possible on this site, in the name of civility and humanity. So I am just going to say this once, very directly and plainly:

Hundreds of children are hospitalized in Florida alone. Five have died. It is true that 83% of children who succumb or end up hospitalized have underlying conditions and that statistically that is a pittance. But are we really somehow at a point where we are going to dismiss the suffering of children by saying, "It's okay, they had asthma, that won't affect healthier kids?" (And before someone tries to engage in whataboutism regarding the damage to kids of school closures and other measures... why is it an either/or proposition? If there are problems with an approach, we fix the approach, we don't just dispose of what we know works based on data entirely just because of a flawed implementation.) If we are, I would argue we need to stop and assess what we're really arguing.

150,000 are dead. 10,000 of them in the last 12 days. Yes, again, it's true that most of them too will have had underlying conditions (though, not all - 10% did not - which if we go about our business and wait for herd immunity to be reached, would mean more than 100,000 deaths of otherwise perfectly healthy people, assuming immunity even lasts, which as previously documented, is not guaranteed.) No, I'm not unempathetic to those who have lost people due to catastrophically bad implementation of measures in healthcare facilities etc. Obviously I don't support how those situations were handled. But again, whataboutism. Tu quo fallacy. And these are more than mere statistics. We can do more than nothing, surely.

Washing our hands and wearing masks is not "living in fear." It's looking at a fearsome situation, equipping ourselves appropriately with extremely basic tools we've always used in pandemics, and enabling ourselves to act rationally and hopefully in the face of it. It's a, "We are going to beat this, together," attitude. That's the opposite of living in fear. And no, it can't undo previous missteps or horrendous management. But it is right and necessary.

This is NOT political. This is nothing more or less than me imploring people, as fellow human beings: PLEASE. Heed this information and stay safe. And keep others safe. Stop trusting in conspiracy theories over real epidemiology.

With that I take my leave. God bless. Goodbye.
edit on 7/27/2020 by AceWombat04 because: link

posted on Jul, 27 2020 @ 01:20 PM



new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in