Coronavirus

[Jeff N]

This nonsense about 3 vs 4 weeks later for the Pfizer shot is a total waste of everyone’s time. The folks running the vaccinations have better things to worry about.

Cases have particularly jumped in Michigan: The state Monday reported its highest daily case count since November, with more than 11,000, according to Johns Hopkins. Just eight weeks ago, cases were as low as 563 in a day.
And across the state, at least 81 new clusters have been reported in K-12 schools, according to data released by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services on Monday.

The 11,000 new case number may be slightly exaggerated since Michigan skips reporting on Sundays but they reported a gain of ~9k earlier mid-week and the trend is upward.

California says it will fully reopen in June, citing falling Covid-19 case rates | CNN

California, the first state to implement a lockdown for the coronavirus pandemic, plans to fully reopen activities and businesses beginning June 15, state officials said Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

 

[Jeff N]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/06/youth-sports-outbreaks-covid-testing/

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

View attachment 651483

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/06/youth-sports-outbreaks-covid-testing/

It's reassuring, at least, that at this point, we know that these things are going to happen about 2-3 months before they actually do. Progress! There have now been no surprises since about August of last year.

So, using our now well-honed predictive powers, it seems like looking forward, we likely have nothing to worry about in a couple months (hopefully). Would like to see us drop those absolute case numbers though (currently this is going the wrong way in many states)! Bergstrom had a good refresher thread on this yesterday (should be nothing new in here to avid readers of this thread).

If we get to that point in keeping with expectations, then it's a question of how well vaccinations go over the summer and whether a winter surge due to lack of adequate vaccination occurs - personally I think this is unlikely since I am bullish on vaccination success. (I'm excluding the possibility of escape variants, which currently don't seem to really exist...)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379290591406661634

 

[wdolson]

I don't know if anyone has seen this. Info from an immunologist

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379061210327478272

Got the J&J vaccine on March 17. Had a reaction within a couple of hours. had a fever for two days (peaked at 101.5 F), chills, bad muscle pain, etc. My partner went for neurofeedback a couple of hours after we got the shot and the appointment needed to be canceled because her brain was showing a clear reaction to the shot. Her therapist said he's seen a couple more cases of the same thing since her reaction. She was tired for about a week, but that was the only noticeable reaction. It does appear that the shot set her back in her neurofeedback progress though.

My doctor told both of us that if we reacted to the vaccine that fast, it's a good sign our immune systems had already been exposed and knew what it was. Even though I could never prove it, I may have had COVID a year ago. That's the only time I had any symptoms (including loss of the sense of smell and taste for a few days).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I don't know if anyone has seen this. Info from an immunologist

Sadly this information is now being spun by the worst COVID denialists (a notable Nobel laureate included) to claim that COVID was never a big deal (shocker!). Basically I think they're using it to claim 70% of the population has been infected (I'm not sure what else they would be crowing about but it's very hard to follow their thought processes). My prior is that they're full of s**t and the data on this T-cell development in the absence of detectable infection actually does not agree with their claims (I haven't read the paper). Which it wouldn't, since their claims make no sense and are totally ridiculous.

Again, I haven't read the paper, but I assume the paper is ruling out the asymptomatic cases when doing their analysis, and studying people who consistently and repeatedly tested PCR negative over long periods of time around their exposures, yet still show matching T-cell immunity (i.e. not cross-immunity). Seems like a tricky problem to figure out! (The key question is can you get T-cells specific to SARS-CoV-2 without ever being technically infected, meaning no substantial viral reproduction (not to be confused with asymptomatic cases where obviously this would be common - except for the massive viral reproduction difference in those asymptomatic cases)?). Guess I should read the paper. Don't want to though.

EDIT: I read the paper. Basically it's exactly as you would expect as described above. There are three classes. Exposed cases (CD4+ and very poor CD8+), Asymptomatic (ok CD4+ and ok CD8+), and symptomatic (good CD4+ and good CD8+).

It's a good thing because it means a few more people who are not counted in the case counts (no PCR positive but exposed to a case in the household) may actually have a tiny amount of T-cell immunity, which will alter our herd immunity threshold infinitesimally, perhaps, and reduce future mortality. But it may not be very good immunity (they may have no neutralizing antibodies since they never had an active infection and instead got their T-cell response from phagocytosis, etc.)). At least that's my layman's summary.

The cross-reactive T-cells (not to be confused with those discussed above) are largely useless, these folks found. As most good immunologists have postulated, they are of minimal value and the findings so far continue to support that hypothesis.

 

[wdolson]

Sadly this information is now being spun by the worst COVID denialists (a notable Nobel laureate included) to claim that COVID was never a big deal (shocker!). Basically I think they're using it to claim 70% of the population has been infected (I'm not sure what else they would be crowing about but it's very hard to follow their thought processes). My prior is that they're full of s**t and the data on this T-cell development in the absence of detectable infection actually does not agree with their claims (I haven't read the paper). Which it wouldn't, since their claims make no sense and are totally ridiculous.

Again, I haven't read the paper, but I assume the paper is ruling out the asymptomatic cases when doing their analysis, and studying people who consistently and repeatedly tested PCR negative over long periods of time around their exposures, yet still show matching T-cell immunity (i.e. not cross-immunity). Seems like a tricky problem to figure out! (The key question is can you get T-cells specific to SARS-CoV-2 without ever being technically infected, meaning no substantial viral reproduction (not to be confused with asymptomatic cases where obviously this would be common - except for the massive viral reproduction difference in those asymptomatic cases)?). Guess I should read the paper. Don't want to though.

EDIT: I read the paper. Basically it's exactly as you would expect as described above. There are three classes. Exposed cases (CD4+ and very poor CD8+), Asymptomatic (ok CD4+ and ok CD8+), and symptomatic (good CD4+ and good CD8+).

It's a good thing because it means a few more people who are not counted in the case counts (no PCR positive but exposed to a case in the household) may actually have a tiny amount of T-cell immunity, which will alter our herd immunity threshold infinitesimally, perhaps, and reduce future mortality. But it may not be very good immunity (they may have no neutralizing antibodies since they never had an active infection and instead got their T-cell response from phagocytosis, etc.)). At least that's my layman's summary.

The cross-reactive T-cells (not to be confused with those discussed above) are largely useless, these folks found. As most good immunologists have postulated, they are of minimal value and the findings so far continue to support that hypothesis.

The author did make the point that some people were making too much politics about it and that just showing T-cells isn't enough.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The author did make the point that some people were making too much politics about it and that just showing T-cells isn't enough.

Sorry didn’t read the whole thread from him / diverted to the paper. I have read it now, very informative.
I liked this analogy (speaking to how crappy the immune response to Covid is relative to vaccination):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379128104380157952

 

[madodel]

I don't know if anyone has seen this. Info from an immunologist

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379061210327478272

Got the J&J vaccine on March 17. Had a reaction within a couple of hours. had a fever for two days (peaked at 101.5 F), chills, bad muscle pain, etc. My partner went for neurofeedback a couple of hours after we got the shot and the appointment needed to be canceled because her brain was showing a clear reaction to the shot. Her therapist said he's seen a couple more cases of the same thing since her reaction. She was tired for about a week, but that was the only noticeable reaction. It does appear that the shot set her back in her neurofeedback progress though.

My doctor told both of us that if we reacted to the vaccine that fast, dissed my by saying since I it's a good sign our immune systems had already been exposed and knew what it was. Even though I could never prove it, I may have had COVID a year ago. That's the only time I had any symptoms (including loss of the sense of smell and taste for a few days).

I had the first shot of Moderna on Saturday. Only had a sore arm around the vaccination site for a day. My wife told me that since I had no other reaction, like swollen glans or fever that I probably didn't generate much immune reaction. I guess I have successfully avoided exposure over the past year despite her being exposed daily.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

swollen glans

I think that is a different “problem.”

 

[wdolson]

I had the first shot of Moderna on Saturday. Only had a sore arm around the vaccination site for a day. My wife told me that since I had no other reaction, like swollen glans or fever that I probably didn't generate much immune reaction. I guess I have successfully avoided exposure over the past year despite her being exposed daily.

I've heard from many who had the second shot that if they have a reaction, it's usually after the second shot.

 

[cwerdna]

Besides CSUB that I mentioned, How to schedule your COVID-19 vaccine | UC Davis Health got updated today and would be more convenient for Bay Area people than Bakersfield:

As of April 6, 2021, anyone age 16 and older is eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine at UC Davis Health. You do not have to live or work in Sacramento County to schedule a vaccine appointment. We currently have enough vaccine supply and appointments available to expand eligibility before the state’s expansion on April 15.

The COVID-19 vaccine is currently not available to anyone under age 16 as researchers and vaccine manufacturers are working to determine if it's safe for younger children. Pfizer is the only approved vaccine for 16- and 17-year-olds.

 

[madodel]

Clear link between AstraZeneca and rare blood clots in brain, EMA vaccine chief says
“In my opinion we can now say it, it is clear that there is an association with the vaccine. However, we still do not know what causes this reaction,” Marco Cavaleri, chair of the vaccine evaluation team at the EMA, told Italian daily Il Messaggero when asked about the possible relation between the AstraZeneca shot and cases of brain blood clots.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

first shot of Moderna

swollen glans

I think that is a different “problem.”

Really missed out on the "I'd expect this to be more common with Pfizer" part of this joke. Sad.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Perhaps Elon is coming out of his manic insane phase? As far as I can remember, this is the first reasonable tweet about COVID from Elon...ever. Better late than never.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379887294933467139

And a follow-on explaining his thinking. I think he should get the vaccine when it is recommended by his doctors...with his infection in November he should probably get a vaccine ASAP, though likely he will be still somewhat protected (to be clear, just more likely than not, it's nowhere near 100%).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379887880504365057

 

[TEG]

reasonable tweet...

"In very rare cases, there is an allergic reaction, but this is easily addressed with an EpiPen."
I would have stopped short of saying "easily addressed". EpiPen doesn't make everything "all better".
It may save someone's life, but still a trauma to go through.

EpiPen: Instructions, Side Effects & Warnings - Drugs.com

EpiPen Auto Injectors are used to treat severe allergic reactions to insect stings, bites and foods. Includes how to use, side effects, warnings and more.

www.drugs.com

Warnings
EpiPen is used to treat severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis).

Seek emergency medical attention even after you use EpiPen to treat a severe allergic reaction. The effects may wear off after 10 or 20 minutes. You will need to receive further treatment and observation.

Not that I am trying to scare anyone about the vaccine. I just think we should be clear about how Epipens are not a complete solution to that concern.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I would have stopped short of saying "easily addressed". EpiPen doesn't just make everything "all better"

Yeah I would have left that out altogether. But this is Elon so he could not resist it seems.

Seems that Bloomberg has also noticed the CDC tracking discrepancy. It's very odd. We're up to 45 million doses from an unknown manufacturer, which somehow the CDC doesn't track, as has been previously discussed (it's basically the difference between White House statements & the CDC data). My assumption is that these are doses going to the private pharmacy supply chain rather than allocations to state agencies for distribution as they see fit, or something like that. Very strange.

Not coincidentally, it looks like there are expectations for the next couple weeks to begin an increase in weekly vaccine volumes; you can see the somewhat increased slope, although actual deliveries have been tracking above expectations, so it won't be that much of an increase. It seems mainly driven by increased J&J and Moderna volume, though with these untracked manufacturer vaccine doses it's very hard to say what is actually going to happen, since we don't know where we are at.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

An interesting analysis of the breakdown of causes of death in 2020, and how many might have been uncounted COVID (or due to lack of medical attention and treatment due to COVID). We had an 18% (!!!) higher number of deaths (so far; the 2020 data isn't final) in 2020 than in 2019. 520k excess deaths vs. 380k COVID deaths - so 140k extra non-C19 deaths vs 2019!

It's a decent argument, correlating the non-COVID excess deaths by cause vs. the COVID deaths...and showing the most likely suspects (diabetes, Alzheimers, cardiac, stroke, kidney disease) track very well.

He also has an addendum providing an estimate of the dreaded "lockdown deaths." Seems like it could be on the order of 20-30k excess unnatural deaths (but obviously some of that could be trauma of losing loved ones, stress of dealing with the pandemic independent of lockdown, driving too fast, etc.). But undoubtedly there are some deaths that could be classified as lockdown (loss of job, etc.) deaths. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it seems like the "lockdown" (whatever that means) was the right call (assuming reducing mortality was the goal), though...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1379938070166872066

In the replies there's also another dataset linked to, looking at the data a different way. As you might expect, the misclassified deaths were largely in the first two surges. Deaths appeared to be much better classified in the surge that ended 2020.

 

[TEG]

^^^ There is the debate if people were passing because they couldn't get care for whatever they needed due to COVID taking all the hospital resources. Or maybe they got worse care because the hospital staff was exhausted from COVID. But some people (tongue in cheek?) claimed that avoiding medical procedures could help many people avoid chances of death because of the risks involved with surgeries and whatnot.

Also, some claimed that avoiding driving and flying ("lockdown") would also avoid some other causes of death such as traffic accidents.
On the other hand, maybe we had excessive home drinking going on. Lots of + and - to factor in...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

There is the debate if people were passing because they couldn't get care for whatever they needed due to COVID taking all the hospital resources. Or maybe they got worse care because the hospital staff is exhausted from COVID.

For sure. (There's some discussion about this in the thread.) The interesting thing about that is that in the final surge the discrepancy and excess non-COVID deaths nearly went away. That was the worst surge, so you'd think that would be the worst for that sort of phenomenon.

So a more consistent hypothesis is that we got better at keeping track of COVID deaths as the year went on - remember massive testing capability really didn't start to come online until around September, and we probably got better at testing the right people.

I don't doubt that some people passed for the reasons you mention, and never had COVID, though - due to lack of regular doctor visits, unmanaged disease, worse medical care, etc. You'd also expect to some extent that deaths for those reasons would get lower as people got "used to" the new state of affairs. But I wouldn't expect the degree of reduction we see in the data.

I think the answer is that it's both!

medical procedures could help many people avoid chances of death because of the risks involved with surgeries and whatnot.

Yeah, I learned in this pandemic that that stat about medical care being one of the leading causes of death was likely a bad study or at least misinterpretation of the data.

 

[TEG]

Yeah, I learned in this pandemic that that stat about medical care being one of the leading causes of death was likely a bad study or at least misinterpretation of the data.

Well lets say you had a severe condition with a 20% chance of death each year...
But you can do a procedure with a 40% chance of death or full recovery.

If you decided to put that off until after COVID then you would reduce the excess death stats (on average) this year. But for you, waiting is a ticking time bomb, and your overall outcome % is worse for waiting.

Maybe later this year is going to be bad for excess deaths when people finally do that risky elective procedure they have been putting off.