COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

[caulfield12]

Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data on more than 3,600 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 1 and June 17 of this year, and more than 12,600 hospitalized with the flu between Jan. 1, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2019. The average age of patients in both groups was 69.

The death rate among COVID-19 patients was 18.5%, while it was 5.3% for those with the flu. Those with COVID were nearly five times more likely to die than flu patients, according to the study published online Dec. 15 in the BMJ.

 

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201218/covid-19-is-far-more-lethal-damaging-than-flu-data-shows#1

[hogan873]

14 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

So when I see efficacy of 99% in terms of preventing death. I want to ask the smart people on here, most notably Balta, to make sure my simple head intreprets it correctly.  Note - the below are my own made up #'s for simplicity. 

But if we had 99% efficacy in terms of preventing death - in my simple head that is comparing death rates with vaccine to normal death rates. So lets just say my sample is 500K or so deaths (roughly the US).  Does that essentially mean if we were all vaccinated (and all else being equal that we haven't added another variable that were to change the curve/dynamics) that instead of 500K deaths from COVID - we would essentially be at 5000 deaths (500K x .01%).  

 

Or if instead of using raw numbers - I used a death rate of 1.5% for COVID (pre-vaccine) does that mean the 99% would convert my post vaccine death rate to .015% (99%).  

Again  - using simple raw numbers - but wanted to make sure I have the concept applied correctly?  

I think the true number of potential deaths post-vaccine is complicated by not truly knowing if the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID.  It is believed that they do, at least to a point.  Without using numbers, my thought is that the vaccines are making COVID more similar to the flu in regards to severe infection, hospitalizations, and death.

As far as the math, I'm not sure.  Your figures make sense to me, but I wonder what the current percentage of people who catch COVID die is.  We may never know because there are probably a lot more cases than we know of, with folks being asymptomatic or having minor symptoms.

[Texsox]

I'm wondering if one of the long terms gains will be the ability to more quickly identify at a minimum new Covid strains and work quicker to prevent widespread outbreaks. Similar to the flu. So when Covid-27 hits we will avoid much of this. Or even a combination flu and Covid vaccine. 

[hogan873]

19 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm wondering if one of the long terms gains will be the ability to more quickly identify at a minimum new Covid strains and work quicker to prevent widespread outbreaks. Similar to the flu. So when Covid-27 hits we will avoid much of this. Or even a combination flu and Covid vaccine. 

There is an assumption that COVID will become endemic and be a seasonal bug like the cold or flu.  If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if there's an annual shot like the flu shot eventually.

[Balta1701]

14 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

So when I see efficacy of 99% in terms of preventing death. I want to ask the smart people on here, most notably Balta, to make sure my simple head intreprets it correctly.  Note - the below are my own made up #'s for simplicity. 

But if we had 99% efficacy in terms of preventing death - in my simple head that is comparing death rates with vaccine to normal death rates. So lets just say my sample is 500K or so deaths (roughly the US).  Does that essentially mean if we were all vaccinated (and all else being equal that we haven't added another variable that were to change the curve/dynamics) that instead of 500K deaths from COVID - we would essentially be at 5000 deaths (500K x .01%).  

 

Or if instead of using raw numbers - I used a death rate of 1.5% for COVID (pre-vaccine) does that mean the 99% would convert my post vaccine death rate to .015% (99%).  

Again  - using simple raw numbers - but wanted to make sure I have the concept applied correctly?  

 

36 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

I think the true number of potential deaths post-vaccine is complicated by not truly knowing if the vaccines prevent the spread of COVID.  It is believed that they do, at least to a point.  Without using numbers, my thought is that the vaccines are making COVID more similar to the flu in regards to severe infection, hospitalizations, and death.

As far as the math, I'm not sure.  Your figures make sense to me, but I wonder what the current percentage of people who catch COVID die is.  We may never know because there are probably a lot more cases than we know of, with folks being asymptomatic or having minor symptoms.

Based on everything we have seen elsewhere, the vaccine may not make it so that everyone who gets the virus is never ever contagious, but it absolutely seems to shorten the window where people are contagious even in the worst cases. I think many people get exposed and never build up enough virus to reach contagious. So that is important too.

If you had a vaccine that was 99% effective at preventing death but still allowed people to build up a large amount of virus in their system and hold onto it for a long time, so no change in transmission, then it is possible that you could have had 5000 deaths instead of 500,000. But there’s one more factor on top of that - the health care system.

When New York was hit, their hospitals were overwhelmed completely. Cuomo’s entire nursing home controversy came about because he had sick people that were likely to survive, but he had no place to put them. California’s hospitals ran out of oxygen in December. The death rate of untreated COVID is something like 5-10 times that of the rate with aggressive treatment. If you run out of beds, people die waiting for them. Both in New York in April and nationwide in December (specifically in the Cali outbreak), the death rate ticked upwards because doctors and hospitals were overwhelmed. Limit the number of cases going there, and the death rate goes even lower.

Of course, then other feedbacks might be “do more people get the virus if they aren’t scared of dying so they don’t wear masks”, and “is it 99% or is it 98.7% or 99.3%” because that significant figure matters at that level. Then there are proposals that the B117 variant could be more deadly, that could matter. Then you have to consider that if the virus is alive in a population who can mostly fight it but not completely, you create a selective pressure where a new variant that gets around the vaccine could be favored. So lots of details matter.

Short answer: in that range and a lot better.

[Balta1701]

17 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

So when I see efficacy of 99% in terms of preventing death. I want to ask the smart people on here, most notably Balta, to make sure my simple head intreprets it correctly.  Note - the below are my own made up #'s for simplicity. 

But if we had 99% efficacy in terms of preventing death - in my simple head that is comparing death rates with vaccine to normal death rates. So lets just say my sample is 500K or so deaths (roughly the US).  Does that essentially mean if we were all vaccinated (and all else being equal that we haven't added another variable that were to change the curve/dynamics) that instead of 500K deaths from COVID - we would essentially be at 5000 deaths (500K x .01%).  

 

Or if instead of using raw numbers - I used a death rate of 1.5% for COVID (pre-vaccine) does that mean the 99% would convert my post vaccine death rate to .015% (99%).  

Again  - using simple raw numbers - but wanted to make sure I have the concept applied correctly?  

Ok, I got it as a metaphor.

Let's say I tell you that this season, Nick Madrigal gets 179 hits in 600 at bats. I tell you that Nick Madrigal gets 7200 at bats in his career. How many hits does he have in his career?

Does he have 3000 hits? No, because he would have had to hit .416 to do that, and no one is doing that. Does he have only 1000 hits? No, because his career average would be .138, and he wouldn't have gotten 7200 at bats if he was that bad in all the other years.

Maybe his career average was .320 and he got better after this season. Maybe he hit .270 the rest of his career and this was his best season. All those second-order details matter for figuring out exactly how many hits he got, but it's somewhere around 2000 - because the number of career at bats was 7200. As long as that doesn't change, the final number is somewhere within a reasonable range.

But, if after this season, he was challenged to a fight by 100 duck sized Nick Madrigals and was badly wounded in the battle, came back, and hit .100 the next year afterwards, he probably would not receive another 6600 career at bats. Instead, his career would probably end. This hopefully is the vaccine effect - not only does it hamper Nick Madrigal's ability to get hits the next year, but hopefully it also cuts off the number of infections we get overall.

In this metaphor, the role of the vaccine is played by 100 duck-sized Nick Madrigals. 

[southsideirish71]

I was hoping to get to register for my shot this week as a diabetic with the expanded group moving into Phase 1b.  Now DuPage has just matched Cook and is not going to add us to group 1B.  This means now I have to wait with others who have, probably months before we move into 1c.  Now for all of you excited about the J&J shot.  As a diabetic, I don't want that one.  I want one of the mRNA ones that have the higher efficacy. A 66% efficacy is great for the general population.  But for us who are immunocompromised as it is I don't want any variant of this disease.  I already have secondary complications due to having diabetes for 25 years.  I don't need to add the magical double down effect of getting any of the covid long-term issues even a mild case might provide.  The mRNA ones seem to be the best to prevent that.  

[bmags]

9 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

I was hoping to get to register for my shot this week as a diabetic with the expanded group moving into Phase 1b.  Now DuPage has just matched Cook and is not going to add us to group 1B.  This means now I have to wait with others who have, probably months before we move into 1c.  Now for all of you excited about the J&J shot.  As a diabetic, I don't want that one.  I want one of the mRNA ones that have the higher efficacy. A 66% efficacy is great for the general population.  But for us who are immunocompromised as it is I don't want any variant of this disease.  I already have secondary complications due to having diabetes for 25 years.  I don't need to add the magical double down effect of getting any of the covid long-term issues even a mild case might provide.  The mRNA ones seem to be the best to prevent that.  

I know that was rough to probably hear, but I guarantee you it won't be months before we move into 1c.

Phase 1b was 2.3 million people. We've been pretty much around 55k/day on the 7 day average. That in itself would just be 41 days to get through, and it started on Jan 25th. Obviously that wasn't 55k/day on day one, but I'd still say just give it a week or two. Pfizer is about to start doubling their shipments from where they were in early jan.

So I feel pretty confident telling you you'll probably be ok to get a shot in early march, and it will most likely be pfizer/moderna. And you may as well try out the meijer/cvs/walgreens/jewel route who have not seemed to follow the country rules as much.

[Harry Chappas]

Got my first shot today.  There was something eerie about it and I do not mean in a political anti-vaxxer sense but more of the thought of maybe realizing I may have avoided this for all this time and there is an end in site.

[StrangeSox]

1 hour ago, southsideirish71 said:

I was hoping to get to register for my shot this week as a diabetic with the expanded group moving into Phase 1b.  Now DuPage has just matched Cook and is not going to add us to group 1B.  This means now I have to wait with others who have, probably months before we move into 1c.  Now for all of you excited about the J&J shot.  As a diabetic, I don't want that one.  I want one of the mRNA ones that have the higher efficacy. A 66% efficacy is great for the general population.  But for us who are immunocompromised as it is I don't want any variant of this disease.  I already have secondary complications due to having diabetes for 25 years.  I don't need to add the magical double down effect of getting any of the covid long-term issues even a mild case might provide.  The mRNA ones seem to be the best to prevent that.  

Some links earlier in this thread, but:

 

Pfizer and Moderna didn't have to go up against some of the vaccine-resistant strains that J&J, Novavax and others did in their trials. And either way, the J&J vaccines still show great efficacy at preventing hospitalization and death. *maybe* you still have a crappy week of COVID with the J&J vaccine that you wouldn't have gotten if you had one of the mRNA ones, but you'll live and you'll stay out of the hospital.

 

If I were in your place, it'd take the first available. 

[The Beast]

On 2/22/2021 at 8:33 AM, hogan873 said:

It's very frustrating right now, because for nearly a year we've heard that a vaccine is our only real way out of this.  Now we have two approved and another close, and we truly are on the road to getting out of it.  But the media, at least some of the media, is focusing on the bad instead of the good.  And we're getting conflicting information every day.  I understand not wanting to be all sunshine and rainbows and saying we'll be back to normal in a month.  But the headlines we see pick out the cautious points and make them the most prominent.  I saw an article yesterday with the headline saying we'll be wearing masks into 2022.  But upon reading the article, that's a worst case scenario if the variants end up being resistant to the vaccines.  

The data, the real data, is showing that the vaccines are very effective against severe infection and will drastically reduce deaths and hospitalizations.  And this is what we've wanted, what we've been told we need to start getting back to normal.

Being cautious is one thing, but publishing articles and opinions with misleading headlines is irresponsible.  No wonder there's mistrust and confusion about the vaccines.

I’m curious, would it be so bad to wear masks until enough kids (the rest of the population) are vaccinated? Also, what do people think will happen for people to gain entry into concerts or sporting events? Will people need to show proof on an app linked to the CDC’s database? I guess it depends on the liability that owners want to take on if there is an outbreak and they get sued.

1 hour ago, southsideirish71 said:

I was hoping to get to register for my shot this week as a diabetic with the expanded group moving into Phase 1b.  Now DuPage has just matched Cook and is not going to add us to group 1B.  This means now I have to wait with others who have, probably months before we move into 1c.  Now for all of you excited about the J&J shot.  As a diabetic, I don't want that one.  I want one of the mRNA ones that have the higher efficacy. A 66% efficacy is great for the general population.  But for us who are immunocompromised as it is I don't want any variant of this disease.  I already have secondary complications due to having diabetes for 25 years.  I don't need to add the magical double down effect of getting any of the covid long-term issues even a mild case might provide.  The mRNA ones seem to be the best to prevent that.  

As a father of a 4 month old and someone who is looking to change jobs and may have to take the train into a new employer, I would like the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine since my wife (a teacher) and I could have protection but my son wouldn’t at least until the end of this year or maybe next. It’s certainly not the same situation as you have but I am sure you can understand why I would want more protection.

[southsideirish71]

2 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

Some links earlier in this thread, but:

 

Pfizer and Moderna didn't have to go up against some of the vaccine-resistant strains that J&J, Novavax and others did in their trials. And either way, the J&J vaccines still show great efficacy at preventing hospitalization and death. *maybe* you still have a crappy week of COVID with the J&J vaccine that you wouldn't have gotten if you had one of the mRNA ones, but you'll live and you'll stay out of the hospital.

  

If I were in your place, it'd take the first available. 

Sure I won't die as I get Covid that week.  But in the end, I can still get covid, have cardiac issues, and all of the other fine stuff that goes along with these "mild" cases.   Getting a mild case of covid might still be a death sentence for me in the long run.  I already have cardiac issues and other side effects with my diabetes.  I don't need another kicker for my issues. 

 

If I was a normal healthy individual.  Sure bring on whatever.  I would take any shot no worries. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

44 minutes ago, southsideirish71 said:

Sure I won't die as I get Covid that week.  But in the end, I can still get covid, have cardiac issues, and all of the other fine stuff that goes along with these "mild" cases.   Getting a mild case of covid might still be a death sentence for me in the long run.  I already have cardiac issues and other side effects with my diabetes.  I don't need another kicker for my issues. 

 

If I was a normal healthy individual.  Sure bring on whatever.  I would take any shot no worries. 

But the J&J definitely reduces the chances of severe symptoms too, so it is also dramatically reducing the chances of heart damage.

You should consult your doctors on this for certain, but one option would be to take J&J as soon as it was available to you, and take one of the others in a few months once they have become available to everyone. If I got offered J&J that’s almost certainly what I would do. The #1 thing you don’t want is to get exposed to the virus before you have protection, and it’s extremely difficult to avoid any possible exposures if you are around anyone.

[DoUEvenShift]

4 hours ago, bmags said:

And you may as well try out the meijer/cvs/walgreens/jewel route who have not seemed to follow the country rules as much.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Jerksticks]

Super excited about the UK volunteer study to deliberately expose people to Covid.  Why this took so long I have no idea

[bmags]

 

16 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Can you elaborate on this?

When phase 1b started for instance, our town health dept was still in 1a, but the vaccination sites through businesses (jewel/etc) had moved to the state guidance. This could be out of date, but it may make sense if the state is distributing to the companies first who then distribute it to stores. Not sure how it works.

[StrangeSox]

19 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Super excited about the UK volunteer study to deliberately expose people to Covid.  Why this took so long I have no idea

Because it's a very stupid idea that can directly kill people when there isn't highly effective treatment available.

[caulfield12]

Last November, before any vaccines had been approved, the gap between Democrats who said they planned to get vaccinated (51 percent) and Republicans who said the same (43 percent) was relatively small. Not anymore. Now, a full 78 percent of Democrats say they have gotten vaccinated or will get vaccinated versus just 47 percent of Republicans — a 31-point chasm.

Among Republicans who haven’t been vaccinated yet, a plurality (44 percent) say they will “never” go through with it. And while most Democrats and independents who were unsure about vaccination back in November now favor it, the opposite is true among previously unsure Republicans, who either remain undecided (25 percent) or have split evenly between the “yes” and “no” camps — making the GOP the only political group with more noes now than before the election.

This hardening hesitancy on the right stands in stark contrast to a growing pro-vaccination consensus that otherwise cuts across demographic and racial lines. The numbers are clear. Among Democrats, the margin in favor of getting a COVID-19 vaccine — a.k.a., the gap between the yeas and the nays — has grown by 31 points since Election Day; among independents, it has grown by 18 points. Among white Americans, it has grown by 17 points; among Black Americans, it has grown by 31.

Only Republicans have bucked this trend, showing no net shift in favor of vaccination since last November.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-covid-19-vaccine-acceptance-is-rising-except-among-republicans-003242019.html

[caulfield12]

Basically, if the US population of those 18 years and older is 234.6 million...

And 25% are Republicans....

And 44% of those Republicans say they will adamantly refuse to be vaccinated, EVER...

 

This is just answering the general question, do you plan to get vaccinated or have you already been vaccinated?

You get 58.65 million GOP X .53 (% rejecting vaccine)=31 million

You get 72.5 million Dem X .22=16 million

You get 96.2 million Independents X .44=42.3 million

 

That's roughly 90-94 million Americans.   Essentially 25-26% of the entire US population.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

Biden needs to ban Republicans from getting vaccinated. Then they will fight like crazy for the vaccine. 

[hogan873]

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has met the requirements for emergency use authorization and the final approval should come soon.  This is great news, especially considering it's a one-shot vaccine.  I believe J&J said they could produce 100 million doses by mid-summer.  This speeds up the road to herd immunity considerably.

Based on this vaccine's efficacy against moderate to severe effects (66%), it might be recommended for lower risk people (healthy 16-65 year-olds).  Just a guess, but if we get to a point where there's enough vaccines to pick and choose who gets what, it seems to make sense.

[Harry Chappas]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Biden needs to ban Republicans from getting vaccinated. Then they will fight like crazy for the vaccine. 

Sadly I know too many GOP folks that are not getting the vaccine.  

The fact politics in this country has come to this is scary.  The 54 year far left lady that works for me got vaccinated because she had to walk down the hall and it was free other than that she was going to opt out for no good reason.

Insanity 

[SoxFan562004]

59 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has met the requirements for emergency use authorization and the final approval should come soon.  This is great news, especially considering it's a one-shot vaccine.  I believe J&J said they could produce 100 million doses by mid-summer.  This speeds up the road to herd immunity considerably.

Based on this vaccine's efficacy against moderate to severe effects (66%), it might be recommended for lower risk people (healthy 16-65 year-olds).  Just a guess, but if we get to a point where there's enough vaccines to pick and choose who gets what, it seems to make sense.

I'm 42 and healthy (also had a very mild case of COVID in November) and I would absolutely have no issue taking J&J and allowing higher risk to get one of the others.  Hopefully we reach the point soon where that is an option.  

[Stinky Stanky]

46 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

Sadly I know too many GOP folks that are not getting the vaccine.  

The fact politics in this country has come to this is scary.  The 54 year far left lady that works for me got vaccinated because she had to walk down the hall and it was free other than that she was going to opt out for no good reason.

Insanity 

My far right In-laws about to drive 35 miles to get jabbed.  Go figure.

[bmags]

1 hour ago, hogan873 said:

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has met the requirements for emergency use authorization and the final approval should come soon.  This is great news, especially considering it's a one-shot vaccine.  I believe J&J said they could produce 100 million doses by mid-summer.  This speeds up the road to herd immunity considerably.

Based on this vaccine's efficacy against moderate to severe effects (66%), it might be recommended for lower risk people (healthy 16-65 year-olds).  Just a guess, but if we get to a point where there's enough vaccines to pick and choose who gets what, it seems to make sense.

Yes and more importantly they said 20 mill by end of march was good to go which was kinda touch and go how much they had early.

I also read an interesting article about Novavax, which was just one of too many firms to keep track of. Their data was fantastic so I was confused why they were never mentioned, but I guess this was their hail mary to save the company, and prior had to basically sell off all of their manufacturing and distribution parts of the company so they have like no inventory and are relying a lot on partnerships.

But it may very well be the one that we take as a booster next year or after that.