PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[budwom]

Still concerned about too many Covid cases in our area, despite having been vaccinated. Had hoped to be a free range person by now, but it's not going to happen yet. Minimal indoor trips, get togethers with jabbed friends will have to suffice for the time being.

People 30+ can sign up starting today, maybe that helps things...

[budwom]

meanwhile a modest sized riot breaks out in Montreal (featuring arson and vandalism) after the city's curfew is moved from 9:30pm to 8pm...very un Canadian

[johnb]

Unfortunately, I suspect we will learn the answers over the coming weeks months. I know that "return to normal" has been the carrot for getting people to get vaccinated, but I don't honestly know how realistic that is. My understanding is that the benefit of the vaccine is two-fold:

1) It greatly decreases the likelihood that you will contract the virus
2) If you do contract the virus, it dramatically decreases the chances of a severe case (hospitalization or death).

What this doesn't protect against, is contracting the virus and passing it to someone else - most dangerously if you are asymptomatic and unaware. This is where I see the complications of being unmasked in mixed company.

I've heard LOTS of people declare proudly that now that they are vaccinated, they can't wait to be maskless in public. This is a dangerous attitude, if an understandable one.

From what I understand from the CDC and other learned people, you can comfortably be maskless in groups of other vaccinated people. A family gathering, neighborhood group, etc. Hand out some hugs, etc. Doing so in public carries some risks to yourself and others.

Experts, please feel free to correct me.

I’m not an actual expert, but my understanding is that the data aren’t completely in.

I think the general hunch/hope is that maskless exposure to the virus (high innoculum in one’s face) will lead to the same excellent vaccine results as when people get the exposure that was typical of the study subjects (masked donor and recipient, lower virus “dose” coughed in your face).

I also understand that vaccinated people can contract the virus, but I don’t think we know how often they might spread it—my understanding is that they’d likely have small numbers of viral particles flying from their oropharynx and so would be much less contagious than an unvaccinated sick person (akin to how hiv is much less contagious when people successfully take haart).

The vague and bigger worry is that a more lethal/contagious variant will develop when large groups gather, trading around the virus and allowing trillions of little particles to do their mutating thing. Im not as worried about an individual comedy club (though I might worry a bit since crowded clubs seem, well, premature when we still can’t get kids reliably in school) as I am about, say, countries or continents where huge swaths of people aren’t getting vaccines anytime soon.

[johnb]

meanwhile a modest sized riot breaks out in Montreal (featuring arson and vandalism) after the city's curfew is moved from 9:30pm to 8pm...very un Canadian

2EA50982-91A1-49E6-8A2B-9B3C21E8BC38.jpg

[mph]

Unfortunately, I suspect we will learn the answers over the coming weeks months. I know that "return to normal" has been the carrot for getting people to get vaccinated, but I don't honestly know how realistic that is. My understanding is that the benefit of the vaccine is two-fold:

1) It greatly decreases the likelihood that you will contract the virus
2) If you do contract the virus, it dramatically decreases the chances of a severe case (hospitalization or death).

What this doesn't protect against, is contracting the virus and passing it to someone else - most dangerously if you are asymptomatic and unaware. This is where I see the complications of being unmasked in mixed company.

I've heard LOTS of people declare proudly that now that they are vaccinated, they can't wait to be maskless in public. This is a dangerous attitude, if an understandable one.

From what I understand from the CDC and other learned people, you can comfortably be maskless in groups of other vaccinated people. A family gathering, neighborhood group, etc. Hand out some hugs, etc. Doing so in public carries some risks to yourself and others.

Experts, please feel free to correct me.

I am no expert, but the early real-world data seem to suggest that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines greatly reduce the risk of transmission. From a NYT article about 10 days ago:

The coronavirus vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are proving highly effective at preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infections under real-world conditions, federal health researchers reported on Monday...

Scientists have debated whether vaccinated people may still get asymptomatic infections and transmit the virus to others. The new study, by researchers at the C.D.C., suggested that since infections were so rare, transmission was likely rare, too.

There also has been concern that variants may render the vaccines less effective. The study’s results do not confirm that fear. Troubling variants were circulating during the time of the study — from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 13, 2021 — yet the vaccines still provided powerful protection.

I still wear a mask in public indoor spaces because I'm tying to model responsible behavior while we are still rolling out the vaccines, but I'm not that worried about contracting an asymptomatic infection and transmitting it to others.

[sagegrouse]

Unfortunately, I suspect we will learn the answers over the coming weeks months. I know that "return to normal" has been the carrot for getting people to get vaccinated, but I don't honestly know how realistic that is. My understanding is that the benefit of the vaccine is two-fold:

1) It greatly decreases the likelihood that you will contract the virus
2) If you do contract the virus, it dramatically decreases the chances of a severe case (hospitalization or death).

What this doesn't protect against, is contracting the virus and passing it to someone else - most dangerously if you are asymptomatic and unaware. This is where I see the complications of being unmasked in mixed company.

I've heard LOTS of people declare proudly that now that they are vaccinated, they can't wait to be maskless in public. This is a dangerous attitude, if an understandable one.

From what I understand from the CDC and other learned people, you can comfortably be maskless in groups of other vaccinated people. A family gathering, neighborhood group, etc. Hand out some hugs, etc. Doing so in public carries some risks to yourself and others.

Experts, please feel free to correct me.

I believe this has been swatted down by numerous experts who say, among other things, that no effective vaccine in history has ever NOT PROTECTED against transmission of a disease. The confusion began when people began saying that Moderna and Pfizer had not tested for protection against transmissibility. Sho' nuf that, they just tested whether people developed symptoms. But as Fauci and many others have said, if you have stamped out the virus in your body, you can't transmit the virus. Not criticizing you, Mtn. Devil, but we are goosing ghosts if we act on these concerns to overly restrict the activities of the vaccinated.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I believe this has been swatted down by numerous experts who say, among other things, that no effective vaccine in history has ever NOT PROTECTED against transmission of a disease. The confusion began when people began saying that Moderna and Pfizer had not tested for protection against transmissibility. Sho' nuf that, they just tested whether people developed symptoms. But as Fauci and many others have said, if you have stamped out the virus in your body, you can't transmit the virus. Not criticizing you, Mtn. Devil, but we are goosing ghosts if we act on these concerns to overly restrict the activities of the vaccinated.

Well, that is great news! I'm mote than happy to be mistaken.

[Lord Ash]

We are picking up SO many cases up here in Northern NJ in our school... and we are getting kids who have already HAD covid getting it again just four or so months later. English variant? REALLY not happy about this.

And I don't get how so many Americans are getting vaccinated but our numbers aren't declining that much.

[Bluedog]

I believe this has been swatted down by numerous experts who say, among other things, that no effective vaccine in history has ever NOT PROTECTED against transmission of a disease. The confusion began when people began saying that Moderna and Pfizer had not tested for protection against transmissibility. Sho' nuf that, they just tested whether people developed symptoms. But as Fauci and many others have said, if you have stamped out the virus in your body, you can't transmit the virus. Not criticizing you, Mtn. Devil, but we are goosing ghosts if we act on these concerns to overly restrict the activities of the vaccinated.

Well, that is great news! I'm mote than happy to be mistaken.

Yes, sagregrouse is correct based on my understanding as well. However, I will add a nuance to it that perhaps is not agreed upon. Dr. Fauci and Rand Paul had a pretty epic heated argument about requiring vaccinated people to wear masks. Paul argued it defied science and logic to suggest they should continue to do so. Fauci said he agreed as it relates to the "wild type" but still felt based on current conditions, that vaccinated people should mask in public/crowds because of the variants. That's at least, what he said...Data since then seems to suggest the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are quite effective against the (now) more prevalent UK variant. I think it's the South African variant where effectiveness is speculated to go down.

At the current pace, the world is not going to be vaccinated against the OG for 4+ years so variants will continue to circulate and new ones will arise. (And it's very possible that COVID will be around "forever" in some form.) The question is do you continue to mask up/curb typical behavior because of that or not. As with everything in life, it's balance (and the risk assessment is based on current local conditions)....Clearly, most Americans will not be okay with "not going back to normal" for 4+ years. You make a risk assessment like you do with anything in life. Right now, seems like vaccinated people are very low risk in contracting something severe or spreading it.

[DukieInKansas]

I don't think I've asked this before (if I did, sorry for the repeat) but I have a question on positivity rates.

Our county website a percent positivity rate calculated on an individual's first new positive result divided by the total number of individuals tested in the last 14 days - currently 3.1%. They also have a percent positivity rate that is calculated using an individual's first new positive result divided by the number of new individuals tested that day (not including repeat testing) - currently 9.2%.

Which positivity rate gives a better picture of how we stand? I know which one I would like it to be but suspect it is the other. Am I correct in thinking the 2nd calculation gives a better picture of where we stand? I did not major in statistics - and didn't think my stat professor was particularly good. (He would, however, reschedule his evening tests if they conflicted with a basketball game if you asked at the beginning of the semester. He got bonus points for that. I did get a lot of crossword puzzles done in his class.)

[YmoBeThere]

We are picking up SO many cases up here in Northern NJ in our school... and we are getting kids who have already HAD covid getting it again just four or so months later. English variant? REALLY not happy about this.

And I don't get how so many Americans are getting vaccinated but our numbers aren't declining that much.

When I google US vaccination numbers, I see this for % of population fully vaccinated: 22.1% which equals 72.6 million people. In a country with 330 million people. Even going by those with one dose only gets you to 56% which leaves you with 147 million who haven't had anything. No surprise we are seeing increasing numbers in areas particularly in locations where the political climate is such that they are essentially telling people to throw caution to the wind. We like to declare victory in this country way too soon.

[YmoBeThere]

I don't think I've asked this before (if I did, sorry for the repeat) but I have a question on positivity rates.

Our county website a percent positivity rate calculated on an individual's first new positive result divided by the total number of individuals tested in the last 14 days - currently 3.1%. They also have a percent positivity rate that is calculated using an individual's first new positive result divided by the number of new individuals tested that day (not including repeat testing) - currently 9.2%.

Which positivity rate gives a better picture of how we stand? I know which one I would like it to be but suspect it is the other. Am I correct in thinking the 2nd calculation gives a better picture of where we stand? I did not major in statistics - and didn't think my stat professor was particularly good. (He would, however, reschedule his evening tests if they conflicted with a basketball game if you asked at the beginning of the semester. He got bonus points for that. I did get a lot of crossword puzzles done in his class.)

Given the often mismatch of positive tests* with tests conducted I would go with the totals for the last 14 days. Single day sets of data will be too volatile in my opinion to give a good picture.

*1)It takes time to process them and 2)tests conducted on a given day are likely impacted by day of the week, so matching up Friday positive tests(received Saturday morning) with Saturday tests conducted(you'd really have to feel bad to want to get swabbed) might give you a more volatile picture than truly exists.

[DukieInKansas]

Given the often mismatch of positive tests* with tests conducted I would go with the totals for the last 14 days. Single day sets of data will be too volatile in my opinion to give a good picture.

*1)It takes time to process them and 2)tests conducted on a given day are likely impacted by day of the week, so matching up Friday positive tests(received Saturday morning) with Saturday tests conducted(you'd really have to feel bad to want to get swabbed) might give you a more volatile picture than truly exists.

I don't think I've asked this before (if I did, sorry for the repeat) but I have a question on positivity rates.

Our county website a percent positivity rate calculated on an individual's first new positive result divided by the total number of individuals tested in the last 14 days - currently 3.1%. They also have a percent positivity rate that is calculated using an individual's first new positive result divided by the number of new individuals tested that day (not including repeat testing) - currently 9.2%.

Which positivity rate gives a better picture of how we stand? I know which one I would like it to be but suspect it is the other. Am I correct in thinking the 2nd calculation gives a better picture of where we stand? I did not major in statistics - and didn't think my stat professor was particularly good. (He would, however, reschedule his evening tests if they conflicted with a basketball game if you asked at the beginning of the semester. He got bonus points for that. I did get a lot of crossword puzzles done in his class.)

I wasn't clear in my original post but your response made be go back to verify. If I'm interpreting the descriptions correctly, each percentage is based on the 14 day average. It is just that the first one includes all tests, including re-tests during the 14 days, in the denominator and the second one only includes the individual once in the 14 days. So, in the second one, if the person tests negative on days 1 and 5 but tests positive on day 10, they are only counted once for the denominator.

Does that change the answer?

[dudog84]

At the current pace, the world is not going to be vaccinated against the OG for 4+ years so variants will continue to circulate and new ones will arise. (And it's very possible that COVID will be around "forever" in some form.) The question is do you continue to mask up/curb typical behavior because of that or not. As with everything in life, it's balance (and the risk assessment is based on current local conditions)...Clearly, most Americans will not be okay with "not going back to normal" for 4+ years. You make a risk assessment like you do with anything in life. Right now, seems like vaccinated people are very low risk in contracting something severe or spreading it.

How times change. WWII lasted just under 4 years and people went through a lot more hardship (rationing, etc.) than having to wear a mask. Add to it that most of that dying was occurring elsewhere and it's really an indictment of who we've become as a nation.

[Bluedog]

How times change. WWII lasted just under 4 years and people went through a lot more hardship (rationing, etc.) than having to wear a mask. Add to it that most of that dying was occurring elsewhere and it's really an indictment of who we've become as a nation.

I agree that many people are more selfish/all about "me," but I think it's simplistic to say the only change of behavior in current state is: "having to wear a mask." For a lot of us, we've done a lot more than that...and I, for one, will change my behavior (i.e. maybe go to a restaurant, travel, my child able to to go elementary school for a full day) when the cost/benefit analysis is in its favor, which is likely before COVID is rid from this planet.

[Skydog]

I agree that many people are more selfish/all about "me," but I think it's simplistic to say the only change of behavior in current state is: "having to wear a mask." For a lot of us, we've done a lot more than that...and I, for one, will change my behavior (i.e. maybe go to a restaurant, travel, my child able to to go elementary school for a full day) when the cost/benefit analysis is in its favor, which is likely before COVID is rid from this planet.

Agree - a year of quarantine is a lot more than a mask. I'm single and high risk so I went 12 months w/o being within 6 feet of (much less touching) another human being that wasn't my dental hygienist or dentist. It's been 15 months since I've seen either of my sons or grandchildren in person. No travel, no movies, no restaurants. Not even lunch room conversations with co-workers. A lot to ask of anyone. Thank god (i.e., science) for the vaccines!

But of course dudog84 is correct about those who wouldn't even wear a mask - wanker them.

[YmoBeThere]

I wasn't clear in my original post but your response made be go back to verify. If I'm interpreting the descriptions correctly, each percentage is based on the 14 day average. It is just that the first one includes all tests, including re-tests during the 14 days, in the denominator and the second one only includes the individual once in the 14 days. So, in the second one, if the person tests negative on days 1 and 5 but tests positive on day 10, they are only counted once for the denominator.

Does that change the answer?

In that case, as you note in your original post, I agree with you the second measure is the more indicative one if one is concerned with prevalence of the virus in your area.

[richardjackson199]

Yes, sagregrouse is correct based on my understanding as well. However, I will add a nuance to it that perhaps is not agreed upon. Dr. Fauci and Rand Paul had a pretty epic heated argument about requiring vaccinated people to wear masks. Paul argued it defied science and logic to suggest they should continue to do so. Fauci said he agreed as it relates to the "wild type" but still felt based on current conditions, that vaccinated people should mask in public/crowds because of the variants. That's at least, what he said...Data since then seems to suggest the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are quite effective against the (now) more prevalent UK variant. I think it's the South African variant where effectiveness is speculated to go down.

At the current pace, the world is not going to be vaccinated against the OG for 4+ years so variants will continue to circulate and new ones will arise. (And it's very possible that COVID will be around "forever" in some form.) The question is do you continue to mask up/curb typical behavior because of that or not. As with everything in life, it's balance (and the risk assessment is based on current local conditions)...Clearly, most Americans will not be okay with "not going back to normal" for 4+ years. You make a risk assessment like you do with anything in life. Right now, seems like vaccinated people are very low risk in contracting something severe or spreading it.

Nope, fortunately the vaccines protect well against the South Africa variant too, and all the known variants.

The South Africa variant is quite resistant to immunity from someone recovered from wild-type infection. But it's no match for our vaccines.

A new variant of a variant has certainly been hypothesized to maybe be a problem, but I'm not aware that one exists yet that resists our vaccines.

[Bluedog]

Nope, fortunately the vaccines protect well against the South Africa variant too, and all the known variants.

The South Africa variant is quite resistant to immunity from someone recovered from wild-type infection. But it's no match for our vaccines.

A new variant of a variant has certainly been hypothesized to maybe be a problem, but I'm not aware that one exists yet that resists our vaccines.

Thanks Richardjackson! Yes, the vaccines have been truly spectacular. After googling, it appears it was the AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines that have greatly reduced effectiveness against the S African variant. So if that's the case, do we know why Fauci recommends mask wearing for the fully vaccinated "because of the variants"?

[richardjackson199]

Thanks Richardjackson! Yes, the vaccines have been truly spectacular. After googling, it appears it was the AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines that have greatly reduced effectiveness against the S African variant. So if that's the case, do we know why Fauci recommends mask wearing for the fully vaccinated "because of the variants"?

I think the data showing efficacy against the South Africa variant and some of the others came out shortly after Fauci's debate with Rand Paul.

Or maybe as Trump says, "Fauci is a bit of an alarmist" I keed! Apologies if for any that didn't go over well, good-natured intentions I promise..