Coronavirus COVID-19 Thread

[Vavrik]

I do not believe I have. The paper you listed and I found was in regards to inhalation of air pollution which was proven and rightly so as it also does not contradict past studies on the effectiveness in respirators in their use in preventing foreign molecules form being deposited into the bronchi and causing irritation, infection, or cancer. In these studies the clear scope of the study is defined and incompasing of the possible pathways for inhaling foreign material into the lungs. It also builds on other studies that show the presence of foreign material in the lungs leads to a number of ailments. So these studies both cover how the material gets into the lungs and what happens when they do. Thus the scope of the studies and what can be said about wearing a mask to protect your lungs align with the information provided.

But there seems to be some confusion as to my stance. And so I shall attempt to present it as clearly as possible.

There are no studies that show the pathways for viruses entering the body nor the effectiveness of each way when it comes to the Covid family of viruses. Until we know all the pathways and how effective each one is in the introduction of viruses into the body it's impossible to say how effective mask usage is. Until we can say unequivocally that inhaling airborne virus contained in aerosolized water droplets leads to the highest virus loading compared to other means of infection in normal daily activities then it's impossible to know the effectiveness of mask usage in controlling the spread of the Covid virus.

As of this moment I have not come across any study that attempts to break down the possible pathways and their effectiveness, until then my saying do not lick door knobs and you'll be more protected than wearing a mask has just as much creditability then youre saying wearing masks saves lives. We have nothing to base it upon as there is nothing that connects mask effectiveness to the risk factor masks protect against.

All I am saying is I have no clue as to the true effectiveness of masks and anyone at this point attempting to say they know unequivocally without the pathway study is full of shit.

I do not believe we have the technology at this point in time to truly formulate the requirements for an effective study or it would have been done. The best we can hope for is to draw some conclusions to possible mask effectiveness by comparing infection rates in regions that did and did not institute mask mandates. While its data results is not as good as doing a full study its still a valid conclusion until such a time as we can do the full pathway infection study.

Read these. Note the 4th one I list includes 15 COVID-19 study references. I was trying for the third time this week, to find the CDC study that compared the top 4 vectors. The one of those nobody's sure of it's place in the list is airborne transmission. But practical transmission via breathing, talking, yelling, coughing, and sneezing remains inequitably the primary transmission vector.

1.

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

2.

(PDF) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).

PDF | Background. Wide variation between countries has been noted in per-capita mortality from the disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

3.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

4.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

5.

DEFINE_ME

click... it's from The Lancet.

 

[Radegast74]

I do not believe we have the technology at this point in time to truly formulate the requirements for an effective study or it would have been done. The best we can hope for is to draw some conclusions to possible mask effectiveness by comparing infection rates in regions that did and did not institute mask mandates. While its data results is not as good as doing a full study its still a valid conclusion until such a time as we can do the full pathway infection study.

It isn't like very bright people haven't been thinking about this, and trying to do something about it ("it" being how to gather evidence about medical interventions so that one can reliably say that a treatment works or doesn't work).

Since this is a human endeavor, there is no perfect solution. But, this is what we have come up with so far...ways of grading evidence. See these 2 websites for examples (they were like the top 2 Google hits

Research Hub: Evidence Based Practice Toolkit: Levels of Evidence

Understanding types of resources

libguides.winona.edu

UC Library Guides: Evidence-Based Practice in Health: Hierarchy of Evidence

This guide includes a tutorial about Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Health, a Reference Shelf of supporting eBooks, and a Toolkit of online sources of evidence.

canberra.libguides.com

Basically, the agreed upon "gold standard" for medical interventions is a systemic review (usually a "meta-analysis") of a number of independent randomly controlled trials, in which a treatment group and a control group are gathered ahead of the intervention (i.e., a "prospective" study) and then followed for some period of time, and the number of diseases or fatalities or whatever is tallied up for each group.

The reality is that RCT's (Randomized Clinical Trials) are really, really expensive and also take a lot of time (even a 12 week study involves months or years of prep -- study design, getting the ethical approvals, identifying the potential patients, enrolling the patients, etc.). Because of the expense, usually, they are only run by a drug company trying to introduce a new drug. Independent university type RCT's are rarer now, and usually have a far lower number of people enrolled.

Because of the time involved, and the expense of RCT's, what usually occurs is what is called "cohort" studies in which a larger group of people are identified and followed "prospectively'", i.e, brought back to a clinic at certain intervals (something like the Framingham study) or people are identified at a certain point with or without a disease, and a "look-back" is performed (a "retrospective" study). These studies are not ideal, but usually does yield a lot of good information, as well as ideas for future studies. Typical retrospective studies nowadays are when people look at the electronic health records of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people, and can find some very small, but real effects/differences (the NHS does a lot of this).

Because of the factors listed above, I didn't expect to find anything, but lo and behold, I actually found a pretty decent study about the effectiveness of masks. If your mind is already made up, I don't expect this to change it, but this is a systematic review that found a number of studies that looked at masks, including 3 RCT's (I was honestly shocked they found that many...I have to do a deep dive and find out who paid for that...). They then did a pretty good summary of the evidence. I'll quote the abstract here, and then link the article.

Background: Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of face mask use in a community setting and to predict the effectiveness of wearing a mask. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCISEARCH, The Cochrane Library, and pre-prints from inception to 22 April 2020 without restriction by language. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane and GRADE approach.

Findings: Our search identified 35 studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (4,017 patients), 10 comparative studies (18,984 patients), 13 predictive models, nine laboratory experimental studies. For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.05). Similar findings were reported in observational studies. Mathematical models indicated an important decrease in mortality when the population mask coverage is near-universal, regardless of mask efficacy. In the best-case scenario, when the mask efficacy is at 95%, the R0 can fall to 0.99 from an initial value of 16.90. Levels of mask filtration efficiency were heterogeneous, depending on the materials used (surgical mask: 45–97%). One laboratory study suggested a viral load reduction of 0.25 (95% CI 0.09–0.67) in favor of mask vs. no mask.

Interpretation: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of face masks in a community setting. Robust randomized trials on face mask effectiveness are needed to inform evidence-based policies.

PROSPERO registration: CRD42020184963.

Link to article:

Face Mask Use in the Community for Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Background: Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of face mask use in a community setting and to predict the effectiveness of...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[Bambooza]

Read these. Note the 4th one I list includes 15 COVID-19 study references. I was trying for the third time this week, to find the CDC study that compared the top 4 vectors. The one of those nobody's sure of it's place in the list is airborne transmission. But practical transmission via breathing, talking, yelling, coughing, and sneezing remains inequitably the primary transmission vector.

1.

https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

2.

(PDF) Association of country-wide coronavirus mortality with demographics, testing, lockdowns, and public wearing of masks (Update June 15, 2020).

PDF | Background. Wide variation between countries has been noted in per-capita mortality from the disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

3.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

4.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

5.

DEFINE_ME

click... it's from The Lancet.

From Lancet

The CDC have been clear to point out that most infections are spread through close contact and that airborne transmission is not the primary route of transmission.

Also

In July, over 200 scientists published a statement calling for international bodies to recognise the potential for airborne spread of COVID-19 as they were concerned that people would not be fully protected by adhering to the current recommendations.

Whether droplet or airborne transmission is the main route, the risk of infection is known to be much lower outside where ventilation is better. As winter approaches in the northern hemisphere, the opportunity to socialise and exercise outdoors becomes more challenging and concerns are growing over the increased risk of transmission of COVID-19. Public health guidance now needs to advise people how to navigate risk in indoor settings and wearing facemasks is becoming mandatory in many countries for travelling on public transport, indoor shopping, and gatherings. Facemasks and shields offer protection from larger droplets but their effectiveness against airborne transmission is less certain. Advice on spending time indoors should also focus on improved ventilation and avoiding crowded spaces.

As 2021 draws near, people are getting tired of the disruption the pandemic has brought to their lives and their willingness to adhere to strict rules and lockdowns might wane. As cases of COVID-19 increase globally, we need to more fully understand the transmission routes. It is crucial that we embrace new research and do not rely on recommendations based on old data so that clearer and more effective infection control guidance can be provided in the face of pandemic fatigue.

In fact this is mostly what I have been attempting to say. airborne transmission is in theory not the primary route of transmission (I would still like a study to prove it). While airborne might not be the main route of transmission there have been cases where those who got infected did not have a clear direct contact route of transmission so it is most likely that it was airborne. And that as the disruption drags on people are getting tired of the precautions and are starting to revert back to their old lives.

The article from Oxford Academic for Clinical Infectious Diseases titled "It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" Once again demonstrates the potential for airborne transmission and possible ways it can happen. In fact they say

The evidence is admittedly incomplete for all the steps in COVID-19 microdroplet transmission, but it is similarly incomplete for the large droplet and fomite modes of transmission. The airborne transmission mechanism operates in parallel with the large droplet and fomite routes [16] that are now the basis of guidance. Following the precautionary principle, we must address every potentially important pathway to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Followed by

It is understood that there is not as yet universal acceptance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV2; but in our collective assessment there is more than enough supporting evidence so that the precautionary principle should apply. In order to control the pandemic, pending the availability of a vaccine, all routes of transmission must be interrupted.

So all they are saying is there is the possibility of airborne transmission and while we don't know how effective this route is its best to play it safe and apply every precaution possible. And while it is logical it does not answer the question. What part if any does the use of Masks play in reducing the spread of SARS-Cov2 (Covid19).

The Goldman study Exaggerated risk of transmission of COVID-19 by fomites as previously mentioned is interesting and deserves further research.

And here we have the first study I have seen that is analyzing the mortality of the disease across different possible contributions to mortality. Thank you @Vavrik for this link.

From the Abstract they clearly say

while duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality

the duration of infection in the country, and the proportion of the population 60 years of age or older were positively associated with per-capita mortality

but with such a small p value of (all p<0.001) it's still statistically insignificant. So I am wondering how they drew their conclusion that

Conclusions. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.

It is an interesting conclusion given the low p value as well as the limited scope of data (Limited to a date range on or before May 9th 2020, policies and news/government policy until April 16th) but still it's a great start to analyzing the data and I look forward to more studies along this same line as it's going to be the most effective means we have at establishing a better understanding of what did and did not work.

covid-policy-tracker/documentation/index_methodology.md at master · OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

Systematic dataset of Covid-19 policy, from Oxford University - OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

github.com

covid-policy-tracker/documentation/codebook.md at master · OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

Systematic dataset of Covid-19 policy, from Oxford University - OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

github.com

COVID-19 Government Response Tracker

Governments are taking a wide range of measures in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The response tracker tool aims to track and compare policy responses around the world, rigorously and consistently – and make this data freely available.

www.bsg.ox.ac.uk

I really am going to need more time to dig into this study as they seem to take the oxford score as an amalgamation instead of comparing the individual policies per day over the study period.

For instance, if the school closure score was 1 for half the outbreak and 2 for the other half, then the mean score was 1.5.

As of the moment my biggest issue is their combining the Oxford scores instead of using them as a daily metric and the cutoff is very early into the pandemic which when looking even at mortality rates even with in the USA has fluctuations with several upswells that I have not yet seen any paper on possible cause.

 

[Bambooza]

Because of the factors listed above, I didn't expect to find anything, but lo and behold, I actually found a pretty decent study about the effectiveness of masks. If your mind is already made up, I don't expect this to change it, but this is a systematic review that found a number of studies that looked at masks, including 3 RCT's (I was honestly shocked they found that many...I have to do a deep dive and find out who paid for that...). They then did a pretty good summary of the evidence. I'll quote the abstract here, and then link the article.



Link to article:

Face Mask Use in the Community for Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Background: Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of face mask use in a community setting and to predict the effectiveness of...

www.frontiersin.org

You did quote the abstract but you failed to include their Interpretation.

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of face masks in a community setting. Robust randomized trials on face mask effectiveness are needed to inform evidence-based policies.

So once again there is support for the use of face mask but its still unknown how effective it is. And as you so eloquently defined RCT's for those following along its not something that while would produce great information would not be as practical so we are left with studies like the one @Vavrik linked that attempt to quantify the effectiveness of masks from analyzing the data so far collected over the past year.

It really is not my stance that masks do or do not work, I am far more concerned by what the data does and does not say and knowing the limitations of the research so far conducted as a counter to the growing dogma of political convenance that is only interested in citing and miss representing data that support their stance, while attempting to strike down those who dare question their belief.

I really want to know if masks work and how if so how effective are they, and am excited to see the results of the data collected by this world wide test. While tragic in the loss of life it's also thankfully a mild pandemic that should be taken as a wake up call so that we can be better prepared for far worse virus to come. If mask wearing is indeed effective then let's look into ways we can make them even more effective. If hand washing and cleaning practices is more effective then let's look at ways we can increase their use. But let's not waste time and energy on preventive measures that have low or no discernible effect on preventing the spread of virus like Covid19.

 

[Vavrik]

From Lancet

Also






In fact this is mostly what I have been attempting to say. airborne transmission is in theory not the primary route of transmission (I would still like a study to prove it). While airborne might not be the main route of transmission there have been cases where those who got infected did not have a clear direct contact route of transmission so it is most likely that it was airborne. And that as the disruption drags on people are getting tired of the precautions and are starting to revert back to their old lives.

The article from Oxford Academic for Clinical Infectious Diseases titled "It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" Once again demonstrates the potential for airborne transmission and possible ways it can happen. In fact they say

Followed by


So all they are saying is there is the possibility of airborne transmission and while we don't know how effective this route is its best to play it safe and apply every precaution possible. And while it is logical it does not answer the question. What part if any does the use of Masks play in reducing the spread of SARS-Cov2 (Covid19).

The Goldman study Exaggerated risk of transmission of COVID-19 by fomites as previously mentioned is interesting and deserves further research.

And here we have the first study I have seen that is analyzing the mortality of the disease across different possible contributions to mortality. Thank you @Vavrik for this link.

From the Abstract they clearly say

but with such a small p value of (all p<0.001) it's still statistically insignificant. So I am wondering how they drew their conclusion that



It is an interesting conclusion given the low p value as well as the limited scope of data (Limited to a date range on or before May 9th 2020, policies and news/government policy until April 16th) but still it's a great start to analyzing the data and I look forward to more studies along this same line as it's going to be the most effective means we have at establishing a better understanding of what did and did not work.

covid-policy-tracker/documentation/index_methodology.md at master · OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

Systematic dataset of Covid-19 policy, from Oxford University - OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

github.com

covid-policy-tracker/documentation/codebook.md at master · OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

Systematic dataset of Covid-19 policy, from Oxford University - OxCGRT/covid-policy-tracker

github.com

COVID-19 Government Response Tracker

Governments are taking a wide range of measures in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The response tracker tool aims to track and compare policy responses around the world, rigorously and consistently – and make this data freely available.

www.bsg.ox.ac.uk

I really am going to need more time to dig into this study as they seem to take the oxford score as an amalgamation instead of comparing the individual policies per day over the study period.

As of the moment my biggest issue is their combining the Oxford scores instead of using them as a daily metric and the cutoff is very early into the pandemic which when looking even at mortality rates even with in the USA has fluctuations with several upswells that I have not yet seen any paper on possible cause.

Hey, if you have a problem with any of those, send your problem to the authors. I'm just showing that COVID-19 studies aren't all that hard to find.

But.

Infectious exposures to respiratory fluids carrying SARS-CoV-2 occur in three principal ways (not mutually exclusive):

1. Inhalation of air carrying very small fine droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus. Risk of transmission is greatest within three to six feet of an infectious source where the concentration of these very fine droplets and particles is greatest.
2. Deposition of virus carried in exhaled droplets and particles onto exposed mucous membranes (i.e., “splashes and sprays”, such as being coughed on). Risk of transmission is likewise greatest close to an infectious source where the concentration of these exhaled droplets and particles is greatest.
3. Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus.

I'm going to emphasize not mutually exclusive.
That's from

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

dated 7th of May, 2021. You should also read a little further down for more information about surface transmission.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Tuesday 15th of June:

- World: 176,386,418 confirmed cases and 3,814,538 confirmed deaths.

- US: Passes 600,000 confirmed deaths.

- US: Head of Morgan Stanley bank cracks down on hopes of continued working from home: "If you can go into a restaurant in New York City, you can come into the office,"

- US: Vermont becomes first state to hit 80% vaccinated goal, restrictions to be relaxed immediately.

- US: New York announces 899 people who were vaccinated in Times Square between June 5th and June 10th were given expired doses, and should seek another jab at the earliest possible opportunity “We apologize for the inconvenience to those receiving the vaccine batch in question and want people first and foremost to know that we have been advised that there is no danger from the vaccine they received.”

- UK: Scotland follows England and delays lockdown lifting until July to allow for vaccines rollout.

- UK: England, and vaccinations to be made mandatory for all staff in Elderly Care homes.

- Ireland: Research by scientists from the Royal College of Surgeons discover the cause of blood clotting in some COVID patients: "They found the balance between a molecule that causes clotting called the von Willebrand Factor (VWF) and its regulator, ADANTS 13, is severely disrupted in Covid patients who had elevated levels of the VWF protein." It is unclear if this is related to the rare blood clotting side effect some vaccines have too.

- Oman: Detects Black Fungus infection in three COVID patents.

- EU: The European Medicines Agency denies an official suggested dropping use of the AZ vaccine, saying the person was misrepresented in an interview.

- EU: Transparency International report indicates corruption in the EU worsened with the pandemic having been viewed by some unscrupulous persons as an opportunity to be taken advantage of.

- France: Lowers age limit for vaccination to 12 years of age.

 

[Bambooza]

Hey, if you have a problem with any of those, send your problem to the authors. I'm just showing that COVID-19 studies aren't all that hard to find.

There has in the past few months a growing influx of studies at times is hard to keep up with along with some behind paywalls while some I have access to others are currently beyond my reach as I am no longer associated with a university. It is frustrating when public funded research sits behind paywalls.

But.

Always a but. :)

I'm going to emphasize not mutually exclusive.
That's from

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

dated 7th of May, 2021. You should also read a little further down for more information about surface transmission.

I would take the not mutually exclusive as we have no clue so we are not yet ruling out any infection pathways.

When I go to the source material that scientific opinion pieces and CDC scientific briefs are based upon I am left puzzled at times at how they came to the conclusion they did. Take for instance the study on Infection and Rapid Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Ferrets which states in its summary that all of the naive direct contact ferrets were infected with in two days while only a few of the indirect contact ferrets were infected.

Interestingly, ferrets in direct contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected ferrets were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection as early as 2 dpc, suggesting that rapid transmission occurred even prior to infected ferrets reaching their highest viral RNA copy numbers in nasal washes at 4 dpi. Transmission also occurred prior to peak body temperature and body weight loss in infected animals, which is consistent with the infectiousness of individuals during asymptomatic periods

These data show that airborne transmission is likely but is considerably less robust than direct contact transmission.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

There has in the past few months a growing influx of studies at times is hard to keep up with along with some behind paywalls while some I have access to others are currently beyond my reach as I am no longer associated with a university. It is frustrating when public funded research sits behind paywalls.



Always a but. :)



I would take the not mutually exclusive as we have no clue so we are not yet ruling out any infection pathways.

When I go to the source material that scientific opinion pieces and CDC scientific briefs are based upon I am left puzzled at times at how they came to the conclusion they did. Take for instance the study on Infection and Rapid Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Ferrets which states in its summary that all of the naive direct contact ferrets were infected with in two days while only a few of the indirect contact ferrets were infected.

These data show that airborne transmission is likely but is considerably less robust than direct contact transmission.

So I can stop wearing my mask now, right?

If I'm more likely to catch COVID from it landing on my mask and touching it, rather than breathing it in, I should stop wearing it shouldn't I...?

 

[Bambooza]

So I can stop wearing my mask now, right? If I'm more likely to catch COVID from it landing on my mask and touching it rather than breathing it in I should stop wearing it, shouldn't I?

Honestly no clue.

A year into this and I still have no clue. I was wearing my mask not because I had any confidence in its effectiveness in preventing me from spreading the virus if i contracted it or even in reducing my chances of contracting the virus, but because it made those around me feel safer. I was rather religious about washing my hands and using hand sanitizer when going out into public places while also attempting to be mindful about what i touched and fighting the urges to touch myself. I also would chuckle at those who would wear two masks use hand sanitizer, wipes on shopping carts but then use their phone before and after without cleaning it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a study came out tomorrow saying that cell phones were the number one fomite. They are non porous, kept warm and used in close proximity to aerosolized virus droplets and held close to mucus membranes.

I am very thankful for those who have dived into this with me as the sharing of information and studies in the pursuit of truth is paramount to our being successful in the future. While we might not be able to change the Media circus or the social media nightmare we can keep each other informed, and in our own ways keep friends and families safe.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Honestly no clue.

A year into this and I still have no clue. I was wearing my mask not because I had any confidence in its effectiveness in preventing me from spreading the virus if i contracted it or even in reducing my chances of contracting the virus, but because it made those around me feel safer. I was rather religious about washing my hands and using hand sanitizer when going out into public places while also attempting to be mindful about what i touched and fighting the urges to touch myself. I also would chuckle at those who would wear two masks use hand sanitizer, wipes on shopping carts but then use their phone before and after without cleaning it. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a study came out tomorrow saying that cell phones were the number one fomite. They are non porous, kept warm and used in close proximity to aerosolized virus droplets and held close to mucus membranes.

I am very thankful for those who have dived into this with me as the sharing of information and studies in the pursuit of truth is paramount to our being successful in the future. While we might not be able to change the Media circus or the social media nightmare we can keep each other informed, and in our own ways keep friends and families safe.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll leave he study analysis to those with an interest in it - In the best traditions of TEST I'm more of a "what does this button do" kinda guy

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Wednesday 16th of June:

- World: 176,773,897 confirmed cases and 3,825,114 confirmed deaths.

- Vaccines: German company CureVac indicates it's candidate missed it's efficiency goal, with only a 47% rating in late stage trials.

- UK: Ex-chief advisor to the Prime Minister reveals private messages between them and the Prime Minister where the PM described the Health Secretary as "totally fucking hopeless" early in the first weeks of the pandemic. Critics immediately ask, if this is true, why were there no moves to replace the role holder before the second wave, which claimed more lives than the first wave did?

- UK: Four men are banned from hospitals following their trespassing to record footage of empty corridors, using it to falsely claim that it meant the pandemic was a hoax.

- UK: As new daily cases climb ever higher seeing 9,055 today, the highest since February, reports indicate children between the ages of 12 to 17 with no underlying health issues now not likely to get vaccine any time soon due to low risk of severe illness in children and the doses being needed more urgently elsewhere.

- UK: Stonehenge Solstice gathering cancelled for a second year.

- Italy: The town which saw the countries first domestic transmission case, Codogno, sees first day of zero new daily cases for the first time since February 2020, the beginning of the pandemic there.

- India: Taj Mahal reopens.

- South Africa: Sees highest new daily cases for five months.

- France/Spain: Move to ease restrictions on mask wearing outdoors.

- Germany: To remove mandatory work-from-home order on businesses at beginning of July.

- EU: Commission president signs off on first plans presented to use the blocs COVID recovery fund of €800 billion.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

The UK is entering a weird phase now the majority of older people, who have a higher risk of serious illness, have been vaccinated to a level where they do not get seriously ill with the virus while the Delta variant literally rips through the younger unvaccinated population unabated, having become the dominant variant in a matter of... what was it two weeks...? and is crawling across the face of the country like the Martians Red Weed in H.G. Wells War Of The Worlds.

My concern is with every new infection comes the possibility for a new variant, which holds the possibility for the to bypass the protection of those already vaccinated putting the whole show back to square one not just in the UK but for the whole world because as has been see, have varient, will travel.

So say COVID-19 has a mutation rate of about 0.1%... 10,000 new daily cases is the change for about 10 random mutations every day. And it only takes one lucky chance change to put the whole show back to square one.

In terms of managing a public health crisis, to choose polite wording, it is "a sub-optimal situation" as its hinging on luck that the pathogen will not adapt by chance before the lid has been able to be finally put on it. Looking back the only thing that kept the boarders with India open was the Prime Minister had a trip there planned. I do oh so hope I'm wrong in putting that 2 and 2 together and am making 5, but I just can't see any other reason why it was left so long when neighbouring countries to India were put on the red much earlier...

Can the population be successfully inoculated before a mutation arises?

Is it already too late?

 

[Vavrik]

Can the population be successfully inoculated before a mutation arises?

Is it already too late?

There is no real way of knowing. Just to say though, to me, you want to be vaccinated. The current variants we know about seem to be pretty fragile when confronted with the current crop of vaccines.

 

[Radegast74]

You did quote the abstract but you failed to include their Interpretation.

So once again there is support for the use of face mask but its still unknown how effective it is.

Huh? It is right there in the abstract:

For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.05)

So, typically wearing a mask reduced your odds of infection by 10%; best case scenario, wearing a mask reduced infection rates by 30%. Worst case was no difference.

Also, the abstract said:

One laboratory study suggested a viral load reduction of 0.25 (95% CI 0.09–0.67) in favor of mask vs. no mask.

Digging into the article:

All types of surgical masks provided a relatively stable reduction of aerosol exposure over time, unaffected by duration of wear or type of activity, but with a high degree of individual variation with reductions ranging from 1.1- to 55-fold (average 6-fold), depending on the design of the mask (53). One study compared all types of masks (N95 personal respirators, surgical and home-made masks): surgical masks provided about twice as much protection as home-made masks, with the difference being slightly more marked among adults. N95 personal respirators provided adults with about 50 times as much protection as home-made masks, and 25 times as much protection as surgical masks (61). The summary of Findings is displayed in Table 3.

I'm not really posting this for you, @Bambooza , since you appear to have your mind made up, I'm posting this for other people who are able to approach this with an open mind and weigh evidence logically.

 

[Spicy Spleen]

Bret Weinstein darkhorse Podcast,
watch 3 experts in the field talking about covid vaccines

How to save the world, in three easy steps.

View: https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

COVID Catharsis Corner - Reports from around the world from today, Thursday 17th of June:

- World: 177,194,643 confirmed cases and 3,835,923 confirmed deaths.

- World: Study by researchers at University of Oxford suggests natural infection and recovery from COVID-19 does not guarantee long term immunity. Some people retain a strong response, some don't, the natural immunity doesn't defend against variants which were not of the type originally infected with and interestingly those who carried it asymptomatically retained no immunity response when checked after 6 months. Vaccines retain a strong immune response after 6 months and can protect against multiple variants.

- US: Kabul embassy all but closed as outbreak kills one and infects 114 staff members.

- UK: Medicine Regulator extends emergency use of Innova Lateral Flow Test saying it is satisfied with its own review following US review which said to return to manufacturer or dispose of them in the trash.

- UK: In line with England and Scotland, Wales announces no new restriction easing before July.

- UK: Scotland, and country Audit administration reveals in April 2020 they were only 8 hours away from running out of key items of Personal Protective Equipment.

- Japan: A giant Buddhist statue gets it's own face mask, temple officials plan to keep it there until the pandemic is contained.

- Russia: Moscow officials order all people with public facing jobs to be vaccinated.

- Netherlands: Launches an incentive to get more people to take a vaccine - Pickled Herring, a delicacy in the area.

- Indonesia: Sees highest daily cases since the beginning of the year.

- Indonesia: 350+ doctors catch COVID-19 despite being vaccinated, concerns are raised over new variants and their ability to avoid the effectiveness of vaccines. Apparently most were asymptomatic however dozens had to be administered to hospital.

- Portugal: Weekend travel in Lisbon to be banned to counter spike in cases.

- France: Disney Land reopens.

- Nepal: Drags cases down following the highs of the wave, but implores the world for vaccine doses.

- Spain: Data reveals deaths in Madrid City were 41% higher in 2020 than in 2019.

- Tanzania: Having been sceptical of the pandemic for months, the country has applied to become part of the COVAX Vaccine sharing group.

- Germany: Researchers discover a quarter of people who have had severe COVID-19 go on to develop PTSD.

 

[Bambooza]

The UK is entering a weird phase now the majority of older people, who have a higher risk of serious illness, have been vaccinated to a level where they do not get seriously ill with the virus while the Delta variant literally rips through the younger unvaccinated population unabated, having become the dominant variant in a matter of... what was it two weeks...? and is crawling across the face of the country like the Martians Red Weed in H.G. Wells War Of The Worlds.

My concern is with every new infection comes the possibility for a new variant, which holds the possibility for the to bypass the protection of those already vaccinated putting the whole show back to square one not just in the UK but for the whole world because as has been see, have varient, will travel.

So say COVID-19 has a mutation rate of about 0.1%... 10,000 new daily cases is the change for about 10 random mutations every day. And it only takes one lucky chance change to put the whole show back to square one.

In terms of managing a public health crisis, to choose polite wording, it is "a sub-optimal situation" as its hinging on luck that the pathogen will not adapt by chance before the lid has been able to be finally put on it. Looking back the only thing that kept the boarders with India open was the Prime Minister had a trip there planned. I do oh so hope I'm wrong in putting that 2 and 2 together and am making 5, but I just can't see any other reason why it was left so long when neighbouring countries to India were put on the red much earlier...

Can the population be successfully inoculated before a mutation arises?

Is it already too late?

Luckily lethality doesn’t typically increase in species mutations but in zoology jumps. The other aspect is even with a full vaccination or a full lockdown quarantine would only stop it for a few years before a novel strain reappeared. There is also some advantages in keeping it active human population in that we would continue to naturally developed antibodies for it and it’s impact would be much like influenza. Most of the damage doesn’t seem to be from the virus it’s self but from the bodies delay in ramping up antibodies that allows a significant viral load before the immune response kicks in which seems to be causing the most damage.

But either way this strain is not going away. Variants will happen but generally in species mutations are not that harmful as they are typically iterative vs novel. In the young healthy population getting the virus vs getting the vaccine both seem equally safe. (Yes there are those who had adverse effects to getting the virus but there is also unknown risk with any vaccine including allergic reactions)

it’s infected enough of the population and has a high enough mutation rate we are not going to stomp it out. More then likely strains will be added to the yearly flu shot that will have a percent reduction in the populations getting sick.
And every year a percent of the population will die just like they currently do for influenza. But the yearly death totals should return to normal.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Luckily lethality doesn’t typically increase in species mutations but in zoology jumps. The other aspect is even with a full vaccination or a full lockdown quarantine would only stop it for a few years before a novel strain reappeared. There is also some advantages in keeping it active human population in that we would continue to naturally developed antibodies for it and it’s impact would be much like influenza. Most of the damage doesn’t seem to be from the virus it’s self but from the bodies delay in ramping up antibodies that allows a significant viral load before the immune response kicks in which seems to be causing the most damage.

But either way this strain is not going away. Variants will happen but generally in species mutations are not that harmful as they are typically iterative vs novel. In the young healthy population getting the virus vs getting the vaccine both seem equally safe. (Yes there are those who had adverse effects to getting the virus but there is also unknown risk with any vaccine including allergic reactions)

it’s infected enough of the population and has a high enough mutation rate we are not going to stomp it out. More then likely strains will be added to the yearly flu shot that will have a percent reduction in the populations getting sick.
And every year a percent of the population will die just like they currently do for influenza. But the yearly death totals should return to normal.

Couple of questions for you as you do seem to have a handle on all this:

Q-1) What's the difference in lethality factor and how many people it actually puts in the ground?

Example to explain my question, Numbers are off the top of my head so nothing here backed up by science:

Varient X has as 10% transmission and 15% chance of servere infection which has a 3% lethality.

Varient Y has a 25% transmission and 30% chance of servere infection which has a 3% lethality due to changes in spike protein and viral load the infected give off.

Which one is more lethal? They are both 3% but varient Y will be more lethal (i.e. kill more people) as it will make more people sereverely ill, even if it only infects the same number of people as varient X it's still going to kill more people because 3% of 30% is bigger than 3% of 15%.

--------

That's, as far as I can tell, what Happened in the UK between the original version and Alpha B.1.1.7 where the viral loads of the infected were higher and the proteins spikes stickier, putting more virus into the recieving persons, spreading it faster, easier and allowing the infection to take a deeper hold of the person before the immune response can be triggered...

Q-ii) Am I mistaken in my interpretation of the situation, that there more factors to how lethal a varient is beyond just how high its base lethality factor is?

 

[Bambooza]

Good questions.

Couple of questions for you as you do seem to have a handle on all this:

Q-1) What's the difference in lethality factor and how many people it actually puts in the ground?

Example to explain my question, Numbers are off the top of my head so nothing here backed up by science:

Varient X has as 10% transmission and 15% chance of servere infection which has a 3% lethality.

Varient Y has a 25% transmission and 30% chance of servere infection which has a 3% lethality due to changes in spike protein and viral load the infected give off.

Which one is more lethal? They are both 3% but varient Y will be more lethal (i.e. kill more people) as it will make more people sereverely ill, even if it only infects the same number of people as varient X it's still going to kill more people because 3% of 30% is bigger than 3% of 15%.

So the R0 or transmission percent is the speed at which the variant spreads through a given population. The higher the R value the easier it typically is to spread it to a new host and often the higher chance it has of infecting more of the world population.

The severe infection increases the chances of long lasting complications from the virus as well as increase medical utilization which can have knock on effects on other medical cases as well as increase lethality in communities that do not have adequate medical resources.

lethality is the expected number of those infected who are not going to make it.

In your example both have the same lethality but Variant Y has a slight increase in both transmission and severe so it would be expected to have a higher death toll over a short time period (6 months). Prior to how quickly these new mRNA vaccines have been introduced both would over the several year expected infection rate equal out (both have a higher than R1 transmission rate). But now that the window seems to have shrunk to 1 year Variant Y has an increase chance of killing more.

--------

That's, as far as I can tell, what Happened in the UK between the original version and Alpha B.1.1.7 where the viral loads of the infected were higher and the proteins spikes stickier, putting more virus into the recieving persons, spreading it faster, easier and allowing the infection to take a deeper hold of the person before the immune response can be triggered...

Q-ii) Am I mistaken in my interpretation of the situation, that there more factors to how lethal a varient is beyond just how high its base lethality factor is?
[/QUOTE]

You are not mistaken. The increase in transmission can significantly impact how far a virus will spread as does it being asymptomatic shedding or not. (The higher the infection rate increases the spread of the virus and thus typically the more who die from it) Earlier I had posted the SIR model formula which helps to predict the spread and peak epidemic. These links are a pretty good way to understand how both the transmission rate and the susceptible pool size impacts how many get infected.

The SIR Model for Spread of Disease - The Differential Equation Model | Mathematical Association of America

www.maa.org

The SIR Model for Spread of Disease - Herd Immunity | Mathematical Association of America

www.maa.org

Take ebola as an example its R value is around 2 which is high enough to maintain an infection growth in a population but luckily it does not appear as of yet to be asymptomatic. (if it ever does we are in trouble) Measles had a high R value of 18 with a lethality of 3 - 6% (28% in children) and it still pops up from time to time even with the availability of a vaccine.

Huh? It is right there in the abstract:

It does but they also

So, typically wearing a mask reduced your odds of infection by 10%; best case scenario, wearing a mask reduced infection rates by 30%. Worst case was no difference.

Also, the abstract said:

For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.05)

You do realize that significant p value is more than 0.05 or 5% so 10 percent is double them saying there is no statistically significant levels right? And when p value is less then 0.05 its typically ignored as it falls within the realm of statistical error levels.

I'll highlight the important part of the part you quoted that does not support your conclusion.

For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.05)

Digging into the article:


I'm not really posting this for you, @Bambooza , since you appear to have your mind made up, I'm posting this for other people who are able to approach this with an open mind and weigh evidence logically.

I do believe I have been as open and honest as I can on this subject what my stance has been and continues to be as well as that I am actively looking for research papers that define the transmission pathways and percent effectiveness of them.


I do not know how to tell you this but even your paper supports the fact that there is no statistically significant levels that support mask wearing over not. I know you want to try and label me as being closed minded but all you are doing is proven your own points.

I will even say if you find a peer reviewed published paper and it doesn't even have to be a RTC it can simply be an analysis of collected medical data showing a p value higher than 0.05 the impact masks had on the general public and I will buy you a beer. Until then there is no proof one way or the other, and while typically no proof that something exists typically means it doesn't I am truly not really to draw a conclusion as I really would like data showing one way or the other on mask usage in the general public and its impact on the transmission of Covid19.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Fear of link to Trump motivated expert skepticism of lab leak theory, scientist says

“At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn’t want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins.”

thehill.com

I think the same is probably true of attitudes toward the Hydroxychloroquine/zinc/arithromycin protocol Trump's doctor recommended. Last week there was an unreviewed study that seemed to show the survival rate was much higher using the protocol, that over 50,000 American deaths would have been avoided with it, and that there were NO reasons to not try the protocol. So why did most doctors shun the mere possibility of saving lives when we had direct evidence COVID-19 only slowed Trump down for 4 days, and never made him really ill?

Politics trumps science and common sense, again.