Coronavirus

[Norbert]

Now there is another large scale serological study:

Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter

Researchers Applaud Spanish COVID-19 Serological Survey

I haven't read it in whole yet, but the sample size is 60,000 (which is enormous relative to existing ones), and found that Spain's infection level is 5%.

According to worldometers, Spain's population is 46,753,246, and the current number of deaths is 27,125. Spain seems pretty much at the end of its curve, so I'll ignore the time-to-death lag correction.

So the IFR estimate resulting from these numbers is 27,125 / (5% * 46,753,246), which is IFR = 1.16%

Needless to say, I consider 1.16% close enough to the calculations based on NYC numbers which I posted here (1.29% including probable deaths), to be a confirmation. The difference may be due to an actual locally different IFR, the inaccuracies involved, or perhaps the lack of inclusion of probable deaths, I don't know the details. 1.16% is probably more decimals than justified since it says 5% rather than 5.0%, but I didn't want to round upwards. Bergstrom's approval of the study, if one can call it that, means something.

I am glad for this confirmation since it likely means that the numbers I have been posting from NYC were not misleading or a one-off in some way.

 

[dfwatt]

Needless to say, I consider 1.16% close enough to the calculations based on NYC numbers which I posted here (1.29% including probable deaths), to be a confirmation. The difference may be due to an actual locally different IFR, the inaccuracies involved, or perhaps the lack of inclusion of probable deaths, I don't know the details. 1.16% is probably more decimals than justified since it says 5% rather than 5.0%, but I didn't want to round upwards. Bergstrom's approval of the study, if one can call it that, means something.

I am glad for this confirmation since it likely means that the numbers I have been posting from NYC were not misleading or a one-off in some way.

It ain't the flu. Or as the Morans might say, "whataya mean it aint the flue?"

PS orders are picking up. Google is now autocorrecting Moran Spray to Moron Spray, but there is a new competing Amazon product. I'm looking into a restraining order for copyright infringement.

 

[Mikedrives]

What does this have to do wit a Tesla?

Teslas rock.

 

[FreshPrince]

I'm not talking about IQ. By SMART I mean:

Does he
Socially distance ?
Practice careful personal hygiene ?
Wear a face mask that covers his mouth and nose outside his home ?

Time to petition the Mods for a thread for those who do not. I suggest "Covid Cures for Morans" as a title to attract them.

Wearing cloth mask is not a preventative measure. It's a polite thing to do but don't count on it to stop you from inhaling the virus. I tell my parents to wear N95 when shopping.

 

[madodel]

Wearing cloth mask is not a preventative measure. It's a polite thing to do but don't count on it to stop you from inhaling the virus. I tell my parents to wear N95 when shopping.

Try and find a real N95. I've been wearing the same one for 6 weeks now, but only for my 1 or 2 times out of the house a week. Lots of KN95 masks from China now. We need made in the USA verified N95 masks. Why hasn't Mr China Hater opened up the lines that remain closed for manufacturing N95 masks?

 

[Doggydogworld]

Now there is another large scale serological study:

Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter

Researchers Applaud Spanish COVID-19 Serological Survey

I haven't read it in whole yet, but the sample size is 60,000 (which is enormous relative to existing ones), and found that Spain's infection level is 5%.

According to worldometers, Spain's population is 46,753,246, and the current number of deaths is 27,125. Spain seems pretty much at the end of its curve, so I'll ignore the time-to-death lag correction.

So the IFR estimate resulting from these numbers is 27,125 / (5% * 46,753,246), which is IFR = 1.16%

I think these samples were taking in mid-April. Covid Projections estimates 6% of the population was infected as of April 15.

Someone posted age-stratified IFRs, with sources. Note the difference between Age 0-199 and Overall deaths. I think this is PCR confirmed vs. probable. Anyway, the IFRs roughly correspond to single year mortality for each age group. So if everyone got infected in a single year, Covid deaths would roughly equal deaths from all other causes combined. A "2 for the price of 1" year, as it were. Of course 100% would not get infected, even without mitigation, due to herd immunity.

 

[MXLRplus]

Wearing cloth mask is not a preventative measure. It's a polite thing to do but don't count on it to stop you from inhaling the virus. I tell my parents to wear N95 when shopping.

Comical. N95's aren't really available for most Americans. Over 95% of N95's we use are imported, even the 3M ones.

 

[TEG]

... there is a new competing Amazon product. I'm looking into a restraining order for copyright infringement.

Just another of many "products" jumping on the "it can fit inside the body" bandwagon...
https://www.amazon.com/Mom-Pop-UV-Light-Wand/dp/B088R3B667/

 

[Norbert]

I think these samples were taking in mid-April. Covid Projections estimates 6% of the population was infected as of April 15.

Someone posted age-stratified IFRs, with sources. Note the difference between Age 0-199 and Overall deaths. I think this is PCR confirmed vs. probable. Anyway, the IFRs roughly correspond to single year mortality for each age group. So if everyone got infected in a single year, Covid deaths would roughly equal deaths from all other causes combined. A "2 for the price of 1" year, as it were. Of course 100% would not get infected, even without mitigation, due to herd immunity.

Following your link which has more tweets on the subject:

Actually, the number for Age 0-199 excludes deaths without age data. I see no reason to exclude that data in the total. In fact, that would seem wrong. I wouldn't expect either number to include a lot of probable deaths.

It also says:

Because the serosurvey was conducted between 27-April and 11-May, I believe using deaths as of 11-May more accurately minimizes right censoring

Assuming that's May 4th on average, adding a 14 day death lag (as I usually do), that's May 18th. (EDIT: The death lag at the end of a curve tends to get even longer.) The death number for May 18th on worldometers is actually higher than the one I used, due to some correction that took place later on. So I would stick with the number that I used, which resulted in an IFR estimate of 1.16%. Not that the difference of 0.02% would matter, but it would seem to start to add up.

TL;DR: My interpretation of the data remains at 1.16%.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I figure HCQ is probably useless (just my feeling - probably at best it is a very mild help, but there are serious potential side effects as has been outlined here by doctors...), but there may some reason to be concerned about the data backing of that study that is being used to shoot it down (again, as linked above, there's a letter floating around with some signatures from various doctors):

I'm just posting it here so that people can be aware of the debate going on - it was already briefly discussed above...but this is more specifically about the question of "what is Surgisphere?"

Again, no horse in this race, and honestly, I am tired of the lengthy debate here about HCQ - as I figure it is minimally useful at best, but here it is:

To be clear, I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the links & research on Surgisphere below; they are provided for informational/background purposes only. I don't believe there is some sort of massive conspiracy here to denigrate HCQ on the part of Surgisphere. There are numerous examples of people simply doing bad analysis, for no particularly malicious reason at all.

Maarten van Smeden on Twitter

https://www.medicineuncensored.com/a-study-out-of-thin-air

I don't know what are the motivations of those who are trying to shoot down the study either.

I do agree that the data backing the study should be released - I don't see any reason anonymized data could not be released to allow analysis by others.

Anyway, as I've tried to make clear, I'm not trying to start a massive argument here - informational/background only. I've stated what I believe, but as I said, mostly I'd just like to know once and for all whether the benefits of HCQ (+ whatever) outweigh the risks.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Actually, the number for Age 0-199 excludes deaths without age data. I see no reason to exclude that data in the total. In fact, that would seem wrong. I wouldn't expect either number to include a lot of probable deaths.

Good catch - I quickly looked at the table this morning and missed that. I don't really understand why the numbers don't add up (I'm sure I could figure it out if I dug into the data he is referencing, but I don't really feel like it). Looks like the 26744 is about 11k less than the total of the other numbers, so are there something like 8k "unknown age deaths" in that category of 18722 deaths? So why is the 0-199 category not 8022?

Anyway, if there are that many deaths not accounted for in the other categories, that would explain why the individual breakouts didn't align with my expectations (40-60 is "only" 0.2% IFR which seems lower than the ~0.4% I would expect). Though obviously how much those IFR numbers would budge would depend on how many infections (without deaths) had no age assigned (denominator).

Anyway, maybe someone can sort it all out, with true age-stratified IFRs? Though it sounds like the data simply doesn't exist, if not all the deaths have ages assigned.

 

[Norbert]

Good catch - I quickly looked at the table this morning and missed that.

Thanks, that might become a point of discussion, this "gummybear" sounds like someone who might try to push his restricted number.

I don't really understand why the numbers don't add up (I'm sure I could figure it out if I dug into the data he is referencing, but I don't really feel like it). Looks like the 26744 is about 11k less than the total of the other numbers, so are there something like 8k "unknown age deaths" in that category of 18722 deaths? So why is the 0-199 category not 8022?

I guess that's just because the 18772 appears twice, "0-199" is not a category of its own, but the subtotal of all other categories except the no-data category.

Anyway, if there are that many deaths not accounted for in the other categories, that would explain why the individual breakouts didn't align with my expectations (40-60 is "only" 0.2% IFR which seems lower than the ~0.4% I would expect). Though obviously how much those IFR numbers would budge would depend on how many infections (without deaths) had no age assigned (denominator).

Anyway, maybe someone can sort it all out, with true age-stratified IFRs? Though it sounds like the data simply doesn't exist, if not all the deaths have ages assigned.

Those death numbers in the categorizations don't seem to be from the study itself. I have doubts about those calculations as well.

 

[dhanson865]

Brazil passed France and Spain as expected, sights still set on passing Italy in about 4 or 5 days.

 

[Norbert]

Anyway, the IFRs roughly correspond to single year mortality for each age group. So if everyone got infected in a single year, Covid deaths would roughly equal deaths from all other causes combined. A "2 for the price of 1" year, as it were. Of course 100% would not get infected, even without mitigation, due to herd immunity.

Where did you find the data for "all other causes combined" for Spain? A very quick calculation for the US came to a roughly similar result, at least by order of magnitude, using unverified numbers though. And I don't quite understand why that calculation would involve calculating age groups separately. That only seems to invite avoidable errors.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not the least bit surprised by this quote or article. It is the reason I have no desire to contract this illness - I don’t want to be part of the unknown % (10%???) of people seriously impacted by this disease, who do not have to go to the hospital.

“It definitely shook me up a bit — it was very surreal, you know?” Von Miller, a linebacker for the Denver Broncos who contracted the virus, said in an interview. “My biggest takeaway from this experience is that no matter how great of shape you are in physically, no matter what your age is, that you’re not immune from things like this.”

These Athletes Had the Coronavirus. Will They Ever Be the Same?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Maybe kids can spread it after all. Shocker.

Amid surge in Israeli virus cases, schools in outbreak areas to be shuttered


If you want info on the background of schools in Israel, some additional info in this thread:

Eric Topol on Twitter

Sure hope we have some surveillance/sentinel testing set up! Test and trace, when in its infancy (currently the case in US), will not be able to detect increasing levels of community transmission very quickly. Maybe the summer will save us?

 

[CatB]

We already have the equivalent, and it's cheaper and has a century of good data behind it:
Convalescent Serum (i.e. polyclonal antibodies harvested from people that have been confirmed to have had COVID-19).

We should be harvesting and banking this stuff in preparation for Wave 2 . . . but our government is staffed with a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats that could not identify their head from their ass without an instruction manual and a kickback.

@bkp_duke Thank you for all your insights and contributions to this thread. I would have given up on it after we lost Karen Rei and Fact Checking, but your posts have been concise, helpful and also incredibly patient to some people that I put on ignore early on...

I haven’t had time to keep up with this thread, and don't have any expertise to add, so if I have missed this, sorry for asking for a recap. I am under the impression that we don’t yet have proof that having had COVID gives you immunity for very long. That was the caveat I heard about harvesting antibodies from those who had recovered a few months ago, probably on this forum, and the concern was immunity from antibodies might last a few months, but you need a vaccine to make someone actually immune.

Also, a medical informatics friend of mine posted this on facebook as “informed conjecture”, so I rushed here to see what you all thought of it, and it doesn’t appear it has been posted. I would be interested in your thoughts - does this sound likely? Pipe dream? And most importantly does it suggest better treatment options or point to possible cures?
https://elemental.medium.com/corona...isease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

 

[renim]

@bkp_duke ..
Also, a medical informatics friend of mine posted this on facebook as “informed conjecture”, so I rushed here to see what you all thought of it, and it doesn’t appear it has been posted. I would be interested in your thoughts - does this sound likely? Pipe dream? And most importantly does it suggest better treatment options or point to possible cures?....

I'm obviously not your intended replier, but I don't see incompatibility between seeing covid19 as both related to lung's alveoli and blood vessels. In particular, i would speculate that some of covid19's peculiar behaviour would fit a model of disease that has distinctive effects on the capillary blood vessels in the lungs. as I posted earlier

also
https://emcrit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Farid-Jalali-COVID-19-Pathophys.pdf

 

[bkp_duke]

@bkp_duke Thank you for all your insights and contributions to this thread. I would have given up on it after we lost Karen Rei and Fact Checking, but your posts have been concise, helpful and also incredibly patient to some people that I put on ignore early on...

I haven’t had time to keep up with this thread, and don't have any expertise to add, so if I have missed this, sorry for asking for a recap. I am under the impression that we don’t yet have proof that having had COVID gives you immunity for very long. That was the caveat I heard about harvesting antibodies from those who had recovered a few months ago, probably on this forum, and the concern was immunity from antibodies might last a few months, but you need a vaccine to make someone actually immune.

There is some debate about this, and we will know more data as time goes along, but the general consensus is that for immune reaction SARS-CoV-2 produces a typical antibody response for a coronavirus. That means that usually people that have had a coronavirus produce strong immune responses for 18 months to 4 years after they have had the virus. That is based upon experience with other cornairuses, of course, and is not specific data to SARS-CoV-2. The main argument against this is not that the virus mutates quickly (it's mutational rate is about 1/2 that of seasonal influenza), but is that the immune response we see out of people does vary considerably and in some people there is concern that the response is strongly an innate immune branch and is causing a lot of the complications that people die from. Further research is needed on this, but the best current course of action would be to harvest serum from people that have confirmed COVID-19 recovery in the 1-6 month period after they were infected. It can be banked and stored in liquid nitrogen essentially indefinitely.

Also, a medical informatics friend of mine posted this on facebook as “informed conjecture”, so I rushed here to see what you all thought of it, and it doesn’t appear it has been posted. I would be interested in your thoughts - does this sound likely? Pipe dream? And most importantly does it suggest better treatment options or point to possible cures?
https://elemental.medium.com/corona...isease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

That is a nice, well-thought out lay article. And it does lay out evidence to support it's hypothesis that COVID-19 is a blood vessel disease. My counterpoint to that is that the ACE2 receptor, which the spike protein on the SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to infect cells, is a very ubiquitously-expressed receptor in many cells of the body. For example, we know that the virus infects Type 2 pneumocytes in the lungs primarily, and it is the infection of these cells which results in most of the damage in the lungs. In children we are seeing a Kawasaki-like disease (in a subset of kids) which very much shows a mutli-system inflammatory pattern.

My view currently based upon that data is that COVID-19 is more of a multi-system organ infection, with almost every organ in the body being at risk. The lungs are at very high risk because they are the entry point, and blood vessels are at elevated risk because they pick up the infection from the lungs and disseminate it throughout the body.


Treatment / cures continues to rest on the hopes for a vaccine. I know in the past that I've said that the Oxford vaccine is my favorite front-runner (i.e. it is a traditional vaccine), and that remains true, but the more I read about the Moderna mRNA vaccine the more impressed I am by the science behind it. The Oxford vaccine has great promise, but because of how it is designed there is a chance that in a few years the virus will mutate around that vaccine. The Moderna vaccine has promise to produce a lasting vaccine that is more resistant to mutational changes in the virus. For anyone looking to know more about the science behind the Moderna vaccine, National Geographic had a great article I'm linking here:
A COVID-19 vaccine has passed its first human trial. But is it the frontrunner?

Both vaccines are out of Phase 1 (i.e. they passed safety trials) and are now into Phase 2 to test efficacy (i.e. to they actually confer immunity).

 

[dfwatt]

@bkp_duke Thank you for all your insights and contributions to this thread. I would have given up on it after we lost Karen Rei and Fact Checking, but your posts have been concise, helpful and also incredibly patient to some people that I put on ignore early on...

I haven’t had time to keep up with this thread, and don't have any expertise to add, so if I have missed this, sorry for asking for a recap. I am under the impression that we don’t yet have proof that having had COVID gives you immunity for very long. That was the caveat I heard about harvesting antibodies from those who had recovered a few months ago, probably on this forum, and the concern was immunity from antibodies might last a few months, but you need a vaccine to make someone actually immune.

Also, a medical informatics friend of mine posted this on facebook as “informed conjecture”, so I rushed here to see what you all thought of it, and it doesn’t appear it has been posted. I would be interested in your thoughts - does this sound likely? Pipe dream? And most importantly does it suggest better treatment options or point to possible cures?
https://elemental.medium.com/corona...isease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

I think your question has already been able to be answered by my colleague on the Forum but I would like to underline the evidence that this is an endothelial disease and because of that it is almost by definition a multi-organ syndrome. Google medcram coronavirus and endothelial and you'll get some really good videos by a senior physician who pitches his talks at an advanced lay level. Not super technical but technical enough. He's first-rate, and in addition, he emphasizes how the collapse of the ace2 receptor system and its downstream pathway produces serious disinhibition of the renin-angiotensin system, increased clotting due to release of Von Willebrand factor, increased oxidative stress, and because oxidative stress and inflammation are 'twinned up' up in a variety of complex ways, this probably increases the damage associated with an overactivated innate immune system.